Um…why can’t Charlemagne III claim this?
For a lot of people quoting Karl Marx is a bit like quoting Hitler or Stalin for ethnical and philosophical advice.
Unlike the experimental scientists, secular historians may only refer to available recorded human testimony and artifact, while the experimental sciences can always refer to repeatable experiments. Despite their difficult position, historians succeed in giving well-rounded explanations for past events but their explanations or meanings are necessarily more contrived than derived, somewhat subjective, and always dependent on the discovery of additional artifact or ancient manuscript. For these reasons, secular historians (and exegetes) often disagree on their interpretations of the same evidence.
That is simply not true. There are atheists who wish God exists, but simply can’t believe it. Pascal’s wager is directed at those who are “so made that [they] cannot believe.”
I think we agree on that first bit. It’s very hard to write a historical account of how religion got started and different people believe for different reasons in much the same way atheists are atheists for a variety of reasons.The really tricky part is that anyone can say with any kind of real evidence that religion was created from fear (pure speculation), and that atheism is really true and makes more sense than religion.
Good luck proving that.
And we all know how atheists demand proof, except when it is demanded of them.
How do we disprove God to those who have seen Him?That is simply not true. There are atheists who wish God exists, but simply can’t believe it. Pascal’s wager is directed at those who are “so made that [they] cannot believe.”
I think we agree on that first bit. It’s very hard to write a historical account of how religion got started and different people believe for different reasons in much the same way atheists are atheists for a variety of reasons.
Secondly, the burden of proof is on the believer. And God can only be disproved if God is a scientific hypothesis. Fortunately for you, there is a book providing evidence for the atheist position. Victor Stenger wrote a book about disproving God, called God: The failed hypothesis. Christopher Hitchens described that as “greatly daring”. Stenger went a bit further than Hitchens was prepared to go. So if you want to read someone more strident than Hitchens, Victor Stenger is your guy.
That’s a false slogan. What does worrying have anything to do with whether God exists or not? God exists regardless of what we believe about him. It sounds like the slogan is advocating hedonism. Like one can not enjoy one’s life if there is a God?
If this website were taken down tomorrow and there no record of your post perhaps I could "prove’ in the supreme court you never made this post.
I’m afraid I don’t follow you yet. Would you mind spelling this out for me? I have a few ideas about what you mean, but I don’t want to respond based on a misunderstanding.If this website were taken down tomorrow and there no record of your post perhaps I could "prove’ in the supreme court you never made this post.
Perhaps 10,000 years from now in history class the whole world will learn about how you did not make the post.
And the whole world will know you never made the post as a fact of life.
In the end the post will still have been made and the truth never undone.
A double edged sword this arguement perhaps, but food for thought nonetheless I think
Essentially we can “trick” people into thinking something is wrong easily.
Thank you for explaining! Now I understand why you said this was a “double-edged sword.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re essentially saying that it is easy to deceive others in religious matters.
Well not just on religious matters but on all things.Thank you for explaining! Now I understand why you said this was a “double-edged sword.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re essentially saying that it is easy to deceive others in religious matters.
Yes, precisely.
Although, I prefer to believe the world’s religions are not the result of knowing deception, but well-intentioned error and folly.
That doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist however. That’s a separate issue, in my opinion.
The difference, I think, of importance is the Judeo-Christian religions are based on God-reaching-to-man. All other religions listed above are based on man-reaching-for-god(s).
Um, you know this is rarely the reason … how?
I suppose Dawkins is advocating not so much hedonism as a full blooded guiltless hedonism, not that anybody with a brain would be attracted to such a witless ethic.
Indeed, if Abraham is the fount of all religious truth, we know it was because God reached out to him and tested him to see if he could be the authentic fount.
One example:
but alas most non hostile do fit that “not 100%” billWell, of course any religion that involves God and man is going to have man as part of the equation. But, what inspires man to be religious? It is something beyond just himself. It is encountering the Supernatural. That is God at work in people’s lives.