(July 19, 2010 at 5:23 pm)Godhead Wrote: Anyway to answer your question, I think that atheists are ignorant of the role of intuition in perception. I've had conversations in which the atheist acknowledges that intuition can be useful and even accurate, but only in certain areas, yet not in others. It's my view that intuition plays a far bigger role than atheists recognise. Just as it is perfectly possible to "sleep on" a problem and wake up with the solution, it is perfectly possible to have knowledge of things through intuition. If I asked you to prove that your intuition is or can be effective, you wouldn't be able to do it, yet it is common knowledge that intuition exists, and works. And some people have a more advanced intuition than others. So the question isn't does intuition exist and does it work, because it does both. And the question isn't can I prove what I claim through my intuition, as that is the kind of question that people don't tend to ask as it is not really possible to do that. So the question is : Given that intuition is effective, and given that it's not always realistic to ask someone to prove what their intuition tells them, why do atheists still insist on asking for the impractical and the impossible? We all know that my intuition of god's existence can't be proven, so the question is futile. I believe that when atheists ask such a futile question, all they're doing is reaffirming to themselves their prejudices. And all of that is what I think atheists are ignorant of. And that issue has never adequately been addressed by atheists.
The definition of intuition belies that of, according to my undertanding, to be of quick and summery judgement of something due to direct observation. This can have its serious benefits as it and common sense are often powerful tools of the scientific trade and methodology.
If a scientist an odd rock in a landscape, he might have a hunch about the area and decide to dig further. He can't really see any other rocks but the one he found is certainly one he can't pick up, as more of it is buried. He later finds that he intuitively found that the reason the rock was different was because underneath the soil, it became obvious that the area was an ancient sea floor where erosion and time brought in a layer of topsoil to cover everything.
Essentially, an intuitive answer is by definition the most seemingly obvious one, but what is an intuitive answer may not always be the correct one.
The definition of 'common sense,' according to my undertanding, is a lot like the idea of occam's razor. The simplest explaination is mostly likely the best or correct answer. I will ignore, for the time being, the old saying 'common sense isn't' because I think that would be off-topic.
Still, I'm not sure where atheists aren't using these things. If I'm getting what you're saying, then you are telling me that atheists are using these tools in some areas but not others. You understand the idea that the existance of god cannot be proven but atheists are asking for more than can realistically be provided.
If this is what you are saying, then this is my answer: I think that where you and atheists differ is where you decide what is the most plausible and simplest answer. Most atheists, in the absense of faith, take the same dichotomy of science in "going where the evidence leads" and refusing to make summery judgements without supporting evidence.
Thus, the question of god, who seems to have made no real imprint on the world, humans, or civilization in any fashion, and whose very existance has no evidence that can be supported by peer scientific or journalistic review is an easy one for atheists to answer.
I don't know if you ascribe to creationism in the christian sense - that god created the heavens and the earth and all the living things in 6 days with one day of rest - but the atheist arguements against creationism is really where this difference in views is the most obvious because of the extreme differences. Even if you don't ascribe to creationism at all or have some sort of compromise between science and your faith, you can understand a lot about atheists by seeing these arguements by a skilled and intelligent orator. Before I address your next major point, I'll give you the link to the first of a chain of videos by a youtube personality by the name of aronra, which was the first of a flurry of related videos I watched on youtube that somehow led me to this forum.
Now, I've a few more questions:
Why do you feel that we're asking for the impractical or impossible?
I understand that the question is, apparently, that you can't prove god's existance through your intuition or common sense, but if that isn't the case, then how were you led to the 'god conclusion' at all?
According to your belief, what role does or has god provided or provides?
Plus, here's the link I promised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
(July 19, 2010 at 5:23 pm)Godhead Wrote: The purpose of this thread, which I started, is to demonstrate how atheists react when challenged to convert theists. Now you say that I'm not open to be converted. But actually, whenever I've come across an argument against god's existence, I have given it sufficient and sincere thought. The fact that I haven't been convinced doesn't mean that I'm closed to the possibility. To say that the former equals the latter is to miss the point that I have another way of seeing things, as do you. So when I say that you will probably fail in making me an atheist, that is an expression of my current position and opinion, not a literal statement of fact, because who knows, you might just do it. I'm hardly going to say that you probably will succeed, am I? That would mean that I'm on the fence or having doubts. But that's not the case. Maybe you were expecting that a theist starting a thread saying try and convert me meant that I'm on the fence. No, that's not what it means, it means, I want to see if anyone can come up with an argument against god's existence which I could find convincing. I don't have to agree with you in order to be open to the possibility. In other words, if you fail to convince me, then I'm sorry but it means your argument wasn't convincing in my view. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't chew over an argument which I saw some potential in. It's just that to date, I've come across nothing remotely convincing. Even the god delusion has nothing, which I found surprising as Dawkins is a bright guy. I think his book should have been called "The Organised Religion's (mainly christian) God Delusion".
To use your words, I'm putting myself out there to be deconverted. But I'm not having doubts, so you're not going to find it easy, and so be it. Again, good luck.
I stated those things because there appeared to be very little debate on that actual topic that seemed to go anywhere and the real lack of talk about what your faith actually consists of, which should be readily prevelant were there any serious attempt to convert you to changing them. But I only skimmed through the thread and I didn't read every post, but the few I did catch seemed to be making blind stabs at some of the more common 'atheist talking points'. In any case, if you have given it serious thought, then I haven't caught wind of it from this thread prior to my recent postings.
Although I've heard Mr. Dawkin's book was good from some reviews, I've not read his material.
If I am wrong about your stance, then you're giving me a conflicting answer - which begs the question:
If you have no doubts about the validity of your faith, then why are you open to giving them up?
The idea that you are certain enough of your beliefs but you're willing to drop everything you believe in if you're satisfied with the reasoning of the arguements presented against you seems contradictory to me.
I mean, I suppose I could change my stance on evolution and relativity if god personally appeared and made public that these things are contrary to his design in a manner that was not ambiguous. But it seems to be very different if I were confront a group of priests and ask them to convince me that evolution was wrong, even though I'm nearly 100% certain that 150+ years of overwhelming evidence can't be wrong. So you can see my confusion if you understand where I'm coming from.
