No - it’s not a refusal to understand, it’s just that** **THERE IS NOTHING TO UNDERSTAND
If you say so, I’m tired of arguing with cattle.
Well, you’ve convinced yourself at least. Who needs logic or evidence when you’ve got a circular rationalisation system like that?
By capitalizing your letters you merely emphasize your inability to grasp the inadequacy of atheism. (You must be unaware that capitalizing is equivalent to shouting…) You believe there is nothing to understand because you are determined not to understand. Why do you bother to discuss the question at all if you are not prepared to give reasons rather than make gratuitous statements?
You are mistaken. It is not circular but** linear**. Ever heard of the principle of adequacy?
That sums up your attitude perfectly. Your superior insight and understanding are totally wasted in this forum. No doubt you will find opportunities to evade fundamental questions elsewhere…
Would you like to put the results on the table? Religion v science?
What are you taking about. All atheism is, is a rejection of man made claims. By its very nature atheism can’t explain anything. Atheism trying to explain things like not playing golf tries to be a hobby.
God is not an empirical entity, so it is irrational to use science as a basis for not believing in God. If you think its irrational to believe in entities that cannot be measured by the scientific method then please explain to me why you come to this forum to converse with other minds?
Because i like to see why people believe the things they do.
So you think its scientifically reasonable to believe in the existence of other minds.
How can I give reasons for nothing? There is no onus on me to prove that God doesn’t exist - attempting to force someone to prove the absence of something is ludicrous.
Sorry - you’re wrong. Your explanation for the presence of rational minds is… rational minds. But in this case, you extrapolate to a single, ultimate rational mind. This is not evidence, nor even logic. It’s just speculation.
Haven’t evaded anything at all. Let me remind you, atheism is the denial of God - not the assertion that the explanation of the universe is known. You are quite clearly being sarcastic, but the irony is that you can’t grasp the basic facts about what atheism is.That sums up your attitude perfectly. Your superior insight and understanding are totally wasted in this forum. No doubt you will find opportunities to evade fundamental questions elsewhere…
How often do you use science to make decisions in your personal life? Do you plan your days, holidays, weekends scientifically? Do you choose your friends scientifically? Is science your be-all and end-all? Your supreme purpose and value? Should we let scientists organize our lives and tell us how to live down to the very last detail?
Isn’t atheism a man-made claim? Or does it have a privileged non-human status?
So you believe in science and nothing else? Do you regard yourself, your family and friends as scientific specimens? Do you observe them, analyze them and perform experiments on them?
Do you really think all theists reject evolution? In that case I must be an atheist!
I must confess I don’t know what on earth that statement has to do with God and science. Perhaps you think God and science are mutually exclusive?
Please not Descartes. I think it’s extremely productive.So you think its scientifically reasonable to believe in the existence of other minds.
I did not ask you to give reasons for nothing. I asked you specific questions every one of which you have failed to answer.
It is not a question of proof or force but of explaining why you believe science can in principle explain everything. Science seems to represent for you the supreme solution…
What is wrong with extrapolation - and Occam’s Razor - in this instance? Is it solely because it is not the conclusion you favour or desire? Or do you have a genuine reason for excluding those principles from a philosophical explanation/?
Is the existence of rational beings evidence for atheism? Is atheism based on evidence or logic? You
I don’t have to be reminded. I am deeply impressed by atheism’s sheer negativity and sterility. Agnosticism is understandable but atheism can savour of fanaticism. Some atheists are motivated by the urge to deny and destroy people’s faith. Why all the fuss and hatred of an illusion? Why can’t they mind their own business?! I couldn’t care less whether a person is an atheist or not - provided he or she is sincere and prepared to discuss the question calmly and reasonably without resorting to sarcasm and abuse. I retaliate in such situations because I believe we exist in order to come to our own conclusions and choose to live as we think we should… and **respect **the freedom of others to do the same. The only reason I attack atheism is because atheists attack theism. I don’t visit atheists’ websites to try to convert them! I know that if a person is open-minded the truth, goodness and love speaks for themselves. They are not the monopoly of theists but they are bizarre realities in an irrational, purposeless universe…
How do you expect me to understand when I am one of the cattle?
How often do you let other people make decisions for you and tell you how to live?Charles Darwin;5471265 said:
Don’t you believe you have an absolute right to choose what to believe, what to do and how to live?
If you appear in court you won’t be able to pass the buck like that!
This is most peculiar logic. An atheist does not claim that theism is false and atheism is true! At all events the atheist does make other claims. He claims that this universe is the sole reality, the only form of existence, that there are only physical objects, that everything can in principle be explained by science, that human beings are living organisms similar to animals and their life is terminated by death, that religion is superstition, that prayer is useless, that miracles are illusions. Correct?
So you believe in science and nothing else? Do you regard yourself, your family and friends as scientific specimens? Do you observe them, analyze them and perform experiments on them?
No, no no and no.
If science can in principle explain everything why not?
I have pretty much seen a bunch of claims from the atheists. They have even more faith in their position than some Catholics have in the Holy Eucharist.
Because confidence=truth. lol.
Well without really trying to get into a pissing contest with a bunch of people wanting to tell me what I think is absurd (just based on the posts that have been up here so far) I will attempt to answer you question about these things being consistent.
It reflects on the atheist because it implies he **knows **why that claim is false. So far you have not explained the source of your knowledge. How exactly do you know God doesn’t exist?
An emotional reaction?
Capitalization is equivalent to shouting…
Well, we got there in the end. That’s exactly right, the atheist does not need to fill the gaps in our knowledge with a make-believe creator. He (or she) is happy that we just don’t know everything at this point, and that there is no evidence to suggest the existence of God - any god.
Well, we got there in the end. That’s exactly right, the atheist does not need to fill the gaps in our knowledge with a make-believe creator. He (or she) is happy that we just don’t know everything at this point, and that there is no evidence to suggest the existence of God - any god.
Maybe now you understand you’ll stop asking atheists to prove the unknown.