Theists- do you believe without evidence?

[wwjs]

What the f are you talking about? I asked you for a evidence that Dawud wouldn't be able to give and you said "a totally coherent and logical system"

[Lord Privy Seal]

Well hopefully you'll come to understand that the atheistic viewpoint conflicts with other obvious facts about reality, something readily admitted by atheist philosophers like Nagel and Searle.

Could you please provide some examples? One really good knock-down, drag-out example of an obvious fact about reality that conflicts with atheism would do for a start.

[frz]

You know nothing about what I fear. I gravitate to an intellectually consistent position that presupposes the ability to acquire knowledge, take responsibility for my own actions, make meaningful moral judgments, and provide justification for semiotic relationships between thought and reality.

No truer words could ever be spoken.

I embrace this, yet I deny the existence of any god, but you are a Christian ascribing to a particular flavor. What haven't I considered?

I hate to be captain obvious but, it seems that our Chad friend dances around his own beliefs. He can sing Jesus to us all he wants though, from his very own arguments, he's faith is almost indistinguishable to our own.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Stating the obvious...

The cornerstone of modern atheism is the belief that everything needing to be explained can be explained in terms of physical phenomena, i.e. physical reduction. Mental phenomena are characterized by two things: raw sensation and intentionality (‘about’ness). These two aspects of reality do not fit within any physical paradigm.

With respect to raw sensation (qualia) modern atheism has two primary solutions. The first is to dismiss qualia by saying that it is actually an illusory by-product of brain processes. I.e. you aren’t actually experiencing anything. The second solution is to admit that raw sensations are real but useless. They do not causally interact with brain processes.

With respect to intentionality, intuitions, thoughts, and beliefs each have subject matter. They are about something. Your belief that the Lincoln Memorial is in Washington D.C. is about the Lincoln memorial. Unlike a belief, a physical thing is not ‘about’ anything. It just is whatever it is. As a physical object performing physical processes, neuronal systems in aren’t ‘about’ anything. Physical reduction cannot preserve the intentional properties of thought. Intentional properties must always be assigned from outside the physical system being described.

Physical theories do not explain everything that needs to be explained because they only consider things that can be quantified. The physical sciences deal only with physical processes without any consideration of the formal or final causes. Both are needed to explain mental processes.

The above relates only to issues of general revelation. Since atheism does not satisfy my intellectual curiosity about things that matter to me, I turn to theology. I believe people choose specific religious traditions largely for familiarity. Each has its own rich and varied history. At some point you must just dive in and see how far it goes.

[frz]

So something's gotta give sorta speak? Science not having enough evidence to explain the complexity of the mind, conscience, why you think and feel the way you do leads to rely on a fictional character that was invented and then plagiarized some 2k + years ago by a couple of people who had rationalized their existence in this world to be a passing point to something more just as you are now gives you some sort of relief. That's got to be a very stressful life to be so dissatisfied.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Science not having enough evidence to explain the complexity of the mind, conscience

Not exactly. The scientific method applied to physical reality cannot even be used as a tool for explaining mental phenomena or the qualitative aspect of reality.

...why you think and feel the way you do leads to rely on a fictional character that was invented and then plagiarized some 2k + years ago by a couple of people who had rationalized their existence in this world.

None of which applies to how people chose belief in God over atheism.

[Ryantology]

Since atheism does not satisfy my intellectual curiosity about things that matter to me, I turn to theology.

In other words, you are so dissatisfied with there not being an honest answer (at this moment in time) that you'll gravitate to whoever makes one up you like.

The intellectual curiosity is admirable, but turning to theology is a dishonest way to satisfy it.

[Tex]

What the f are you talking about? I asked you for a evidence that Dawud wouldn't be able to give and you said "a totally coherent and logical system"

You know the basics of my system. If you have an objection, I can shoot it down. Fire away.

[wwjs]

Not sure if I understand you. Assuming that you agree to answer, like I said before, provide your non-physical evidence (which is "coherent and logical system") that someone from different faith (like Dawud) wouldn't be able to give.

[Esquilax]

Stating the obvious...

The cornerstone of modern atheism is the belief that everything needing to be explained can be explained in terms of physical phenomena, i.e. physical reduction. Mental phenomena are characterized by two things: raw sensation and intentionality (‘about’ness). These two aspects of reality do not fit within any physical paradigm.

Fun fact: materialism and atheism are two different things, and they don't necessarily go hand in hand.

But, at least we now know why you believe: your entire reason for believing in god is the argument from ignorance. Cool.