And, all too often, an Atheist will try to correct me by pointing out that Atheism is a lack of belief.
What the Atheist doesn't get is this:
How does one know for sure there is no God? If you have no way of proving there are no gods, or that the very existence of gods isn't even possible, than all you have is a belief that gods don't exist.
To simply claim Atheism is a mere "lack of belief" isn't intellectually honest. If I chose not to believe in gravity, would that eliminate gravity's existence?
"But there is evidence for gravity", the Atheist would say, "and none for gods."
How does the Atheist know there is no evidence? What about the undiscovered?
The fact is, evidence and truth are 2 different things. Evidence can only lead to the truth, which is there whether or not evidence points to it.
LACK of belief in the existence of gods exist is simply a consensus by some that there are no gods. A consensus is simply accepted upon faith, based on what some have observed or not observed. A consensus is arrived at when absolute proof can't be determined, such as with the controversy over man-made climate change.
It's simple logic, but Atheists don't like admitting that they could be wrong. Instead, they play the Condescension Card and treat me like an amiable dolt without thinking of the implications of what I'm saying.
That's what happens when you approach their comfort zones and kick over a beehive.
"Nuff said.
8 comments:
Stoogie
Defending the null hypothesis is not a faith position. You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Unless you are happy to accept the existence of bertrands teapot? Not to mention invisible unicorns and Allah and Shiva.
Please lay out your evidence, defend your position.
Logic Lad, you are simply wrong. The Null Hypothesis is just what it is: a HYPOTHESIS, which is basically a proposition and NOT a law.
I have every right to expect you put up a defense for statements like "There is no God". If you're not happy with that, I suggest you read Anthony Flew's views on it. He was one of your best and brightest philosophers.
Stoogie
I am not making a claim. I am asking you to defend yours.
If I must defend the null hypothesis I would suggest that there is no known evidence for a god and until such evidence is presented there is no good reason to move away from the null position.
You are proposing the that an entity exists. Please feel free to present the evidence that supports that proposition.
Logic Lad:
There is known evidence for a God. You simply don't accept it. It is documentary evidence.
Also, I propose you live in the evidence of God's existence: The Universe.
The point I'm trying to make is that Atheism, without absolute proof to the contrary, will always be a faith-based, non-religious viewpoint.
Stoogie
What documentary evidence? If you are referring to the bible then no I don’t accept it as evidence of anything other than the myths and legends of Bronze Age nomadics/settlers in the Middle East. It is no more convincing than the Talmud, the Koran or Dianetics.
Please explain how the universe is incontestable evidence for god?
To the extent that any asserted position has an element of faith to it then I suppose you have a point. However I have faith that the sun will come up in the morning, I have faith that the light will come on when I flick the switch, why, because I have experience and repetition to fall back on. DO I have faith there is no god, that’s a hard one to answer, I live my life as if there is no god, and have noticed no particular detriment to doing so. I see no evidence to support the assertion that there is a god, any more than there are fairies or big foot, so I dismiss the theory the same as would any other speculation with no evidence. I would ask you, given that any assertion is faith based to some degree, does believing in god require more faith than not believing in him?
Logic Lad:
The Bible is filled with historically verified data. Your refusal to accept it doesn't mean no evidence exists.
That tired meme about "Bronze Age Nomads" is beneath a smart kid like you, unless you believe that Greeks were nomads, too. Try to remember the Bible has 2 Testaments, Old and New.
I didn't say the Universe is incontestable evidence, I said it's just evidence.
The point is, Village Atheism makes lots of assumptions and sets itself upon an intellectual pedestal it doesn't deserve.
Stoogie
quote 'The Bible is filled with historically verified data.'
There are set of books that all contain a character of Richard Sharpe, they contain extensive historically accurate details, Richard Sharpe did not exist. The fact that the bible contains historical facts is not proof that the whole of it is true, it is proof that it was written at the time of, or after the time of those events. That’s like saying
‘there is a country called Britain, it has got a place in it called Sherwood forest and the forest contains a large oak that looks like it would be good for hiding in, there for all the stories of Robin Hood are true.’
Quote 'Try to remember the Bible has 2 Testaments, Old and New'
OK, so there are the collection of books that where written in or before the bronze age, and the set of books written between 40 and 200 years after the supposed events in them, none of which were written by first hand observers, and all of which have been subject to editing and translation over the years. And you still need to explain why these writings are any more convincing than the Koran or the Talmud or Dianetics?
Quote 'didn't say the Universe is incontestable evidence, I said it's just evidence'
That would be your opinion unless you want to back it up with some better justification I feel no need to give it any more weight than any other unsubstantiated claim. Evidence is what you need to provide, support your argument.
You really need to explain your term of Village Atheism? I am guessing it is a pejorative but what do you exactly mean by it?
I have asked for specific examples of evidence so that we could talk about their merits in support of your argument, do you actually have any? If so please post them.
quote 'The Null Hypothesis is just what it is: a HYPOTHESIS, which is basically a proposition and NOT a law'
This is going back a bit but a though occurred as I was rereading previous comments, you say that the null hypothesis is only a proposition, I agree, however currently you only have the ‘God Hypothesis’ so how come I have to defend my position but you don’t feel you need to defend yours?
Atheists are overly sensitive whiners who can't handle the fact that atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity. They're too arrogant to admit that they are religious.
Post a Comment