Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Fidel_Castronaut]

2 points:

1. An 'atheist' worldview is a nonsense term, unless of course we're describing a world where everyone lacks a belief in a god or gods, in all their infinite forms. Atheism ascribes no meaning to socio-politics or economics, which is the usual connotation implied when people trot out the idea that an atheist's world view will lead to [insert whatever bad words you can think of].

2. Richard Dawkins is not the representative of 'atheism', mainly becuase there are none and never can be, and also becuase atheism has existed for thousands of years before Dawkins was even conceived and will continue to do so after he dies.

Points about using some non-descript transcendental 'sense' to understand the world we inhabit (specifically, a god) is rendered moot based in the fact that there is no evidence to support it.

Also, being resurrected from being dead is impossible. You can evidence this quite easily; go down to your local morgue and wait for one of the cadavers to 'resurrect'. When one does, then that'll be evidence that its possible. Indeed, knowing this to be the case, it leaves us with a few viable alternatives to explain the story:

1. It actually happened and was down entirely to non-physical [???] factors (no evidence to support it, infringes on the known laws of physics)
2. It actually happened and was down entirely to physical (and hence verifiable) factors (eg, it was a lie and he wasn't actually dead etc).
3. It's a story/allegory, either intend to indoctrinate to entertain, and never actually happened.

Now, of course, an absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, but in this case, as the claim is clearly contrary to what we know be possible within the laws of physics, the only way we can default to option 1 is to have extraordinary evidence to support it. I am continually left wanting, hence my disbelief that it happened at all.