RE: Thoughts on Atheism (and a plea to the religious)
July 8, 2012 at 9:23 am
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2012 at 9:27 am by CliveStaples.)
(July 8, 2012 at 8:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: The evidentialist will point you to the countless experiments done to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
???
It's like you aren't even paying attention.
How does the evidentialist know the outcome of those experiments? He or she must assume that her memory of them is reliable.
How does the evidentialist know that the universe didn't come into existence three seconds ago--complete with the evidentialist's memories of countless experiments?
The evidentialist, in citing that evidence, is making certain assumptions about the continuity of history and the accuracy of his or her memory. I am asking how the evidentialist justifies these assumptions.
(July 8, 2012 at 9:02 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Don't even entertain this silly man. He knows he is giving you stupid arguments and thinks it makes him cleverer than you.
I don't think I'm 'cleverer' than anyone else here. I'm just asking for justifications for your guys' assumptions. Isn't that what atheists are supposed to be about? Critically examining beliefs, and the assumptions they are based on?
Why is it that you are so resistant to critically evaluating your own beliefs?
(July 8, 2012 at 8:34 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: It is not a case of their being a difference between your two statements, it is a case of one leads to the other.
"There is no evidence for god" leads an atheist to a point where he concludes "based on that, I do not believe god exists"
This is simple, straightforward, fucking obvious to an atheist, and surely can't be hard to grasp.
It is also not irrational and not illogical.
???
You missed my point. I said that "There is no evidence for X" is different than "X is false." Or, to use your language, "I don't believe in God" is different from "I believe there is no God."
This is simple, straightforward, fucking obvious to any atheist, and surely can't be hard to grasp.
Why are you playing dumb?
(July 8, 2012 at 8:29 am)CliveStaples Wrote: I wasn't justifying my lack of beliefs or trying to, I was calling you a prick, because you were being one.
More ad hominem. Can you justify your beliefs, or not?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
