Let’s just be clear: you are asserting that if something appeared in the middle of your bedroom, since you’ve never had an example of this happening before, you’d not look for its cause?
Interesting. But it’s a nonsequitur to my post above.
My world view of secular humanism with the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Spinoza, Einstein, and the like has yet to be run. Once we see that experiment run where the society fell into fascism, racism, sudo-science, institutionalized mistreatment of women and minorities, and the like, then you could make that claim. However, every abrahamic religion has run that experiment and when they were in power, all of them failed at basic human rights. Now, after their reformations, they became much more benign by being dragged forward to become civil societies through secular conversations.
This is also a curious position for an atheist to espouse.
I’ve addressed this and leave it up to the readers to make their own conclusions.
I don’t know anyone whom is an atheist saying that “something came from nothing”.
I don’t know what it would take to convert me. There is not single silver bullet for conversion. Just as there is not single silver bullet for theists to actually convert. Everyone’s conversion story is a lengthy one of searching and understanding. However, your deity would know what everyone’s silver bullet could and would be. Seems to be sitting on it’s hands and only offering special information to it’s followers and not the rest of the world. So it’s coming across as not there or not wanting people to know that it’s there. Either way, not my problem.
Because, I assume, that the idea of a sky wizard making humans out of clay/dirt and putting them in a garden And accepting it as it happened is a bit much. Whereas we have evidence of evolution that gives us a glimpse into how we became humans. Does it solve how life began? No, but it isn’t asking that question either. That is for abiogenesis to answer.
Well it would be the fundamentalist to provide proof on those things. They are the ones making the positive assertions.
I’ve addressed these points and leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions.…the 2 second Google search didn’t teach you enough. It’s only usable if you can apply a meaningful numeric value to the possible value set of the hypothesis and thus make a mean possible. Like “There is deity” =1, “There isn’t” =0. The human average estimates in the high 0.80s. Will likely be in the 0.90s if China continues to ease restrictions of religion (more than half of the worlds atheists are estimated to live there). So go back to the page you visited and camp a bit longer.
Yeah, that’s not a textbook definition. That’s an example. “When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim” is a textbook definition. And that’s also proof that you can’t literally distinguish between a scientific argument and a logical argument. Not the same.
Your identification of supposed ad hominem and immediate use of another made me giddy, also.If you’re arguing that the presentation of societal atheism doesn’t vary ENORMOUSLY by the cultural group proposing it, you’re so wrong that I’m unsure how to continue, so I"ll repeat: My last argument against atheism is that its ideological manifestation in the west 1. has never existed and 2. couldn’t because it can’t solve basic social problems without resorting to the state-enforced “right of might” it wants to avoid. Verily, we’ve seen Russian and East-Asian atheistic societies. We’re still finding the mass graves they created.
To the point of religious world view vs nonreligious world view: anyone can find logical issues with both. But how do people actually apply it? I do not believe that you would take your son for a long and gloomy walk up the hill to slit his throat just because your deity told you to, anymore than you would believe that I would do that just because, in the long run, I’ll be forgotten in the histories and it ultimately wouldn’t make a difference. We all know the terribleness that the church is still doing today and not holding anyone in their organization accountable in any adult sense. How come it has to wait until there is enough public outcry before they admit their infallibility is fallible? This isn’t a place for the excuse of “some people”. This is what the institution is doing as an official policy. As to bringing up the good works as a counter balance, how many birthday gifts would your daughter’s husband have to give her to excuse him raping her? That seems to be a calculation that religion has down, but not my world view. Or am I wrong here?
This was addressed in post 75. Again, not surprised that this issue came up again soo soon.
Ty Sir!
Fair minded readers did I assert this? I believe I asserted that the religious are still believing: 1) If someone does not agree with you, that means they do believe the counter to it.
If you’re going to come to a Catholic forum, announce your atheism,and engage in dialogue with Catholics, then you need to be up to having your views scrutinized, Russell.
I don’t know how that follows or why you replied like this? Seriously, I have no idea what your doing here. It came across as throwing in a random comment.
Careful, Russell. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgable Catholics.
Thanks I guess.
So I presume that you are against making assertions which can’t be falsified?
I wonder…how does one falsify this claim? I don’t see how you can.
Talk tomorrow, happy valentines
Come ready to defend your views!Talk tomorrow, happy valentines
If religion must answer to the concerns of materialism, why don’t the alternatives you replace it with have to answer to the same standard?
This old canard…
And there’s Begging the Question… In addition to being wrong, you’re certainly fallacious.