EvF,
You forgot that god is a she to Pippy. Pippy also has "polytheist" under religious views but only ever refers to god as "she" not "they" or specific gods. I think he means pantheist with a female face?
When I started the "Conversion" thread I asked about what evidence would be convincing to either side of the argument without using the word evidence. It occurs to me that both sides seem to be locked into their epistemic approach to truth. I see what you mean about evidence probably having a natural cause that is not god.
For example if I was in some public place and was presented with an awesome miracle like the sun crashing to the ground I would either think God, or delusion. If I was any form of theist I would probably think god, but as an atheist I would bet on some other cause. Mass hypnosis is an interesting topic.
Rhizo
You forgot that god is a she to Pippy. Pippy also has "polytheist" under religious views but only ever refers to god as "she" not "they" or specific gods. I think he means pantheist with a female face?
When I started the "Conversion" thread I asked about what evidence would be convincing to either side of the argument without using the word evidence. It occurs to me that both sides seem to be locked into their epistemic approach to truth. I see what you mean about evidence probably having a natural cause that is not god.
For example if I was in some public place and was presented with an awesome miracle like the sun crashing to the ground I would either think God, or delusion. If I was any form of theist I would probably think god, but as an atheist I would bet on some other cause. Mass hypnosis is an interesting topic.
Rhizo
