NOGO

Theitist

The way I see it,I would actually have to close down a part of my thinking process in order to adopt a purely atheistic mindset.
And likewise,an atheist would have to literally open up a part of their conscious that they probably don't realize they even possess,or either simply don't care.
So who then is the more close-minded??

It is true that you would have to close down part of your thinking process.
People who believe in Krishna would also have to close down part of their thinking and people who believed in Zeus, Apollo and a zillion other myths.

Why the hell would I want to start believing in myths for? If that makes me closed-minded then I am.

Let's face it,emotions are not a separate entity from normal brain functions.
The mistake some make,even Christians,is separating the "heart" from the intellect,
when they are one in the same.
Even faith itself originates as a thought or idea,but is strengthened and aided by the Holy Spirit.
(Don't ask me to explain,I'm not in the mood.)

I would never ask anybody to explain myth.
Emotions are part of it all, yes, and when you allow them to direct your thinking you are basically lost.

But faith is not really an emotion,but could be seen as a product of intellectual reasoning.
Meaning,when I exercise faith in God's existance,
i am obviously reasoning that it is much more likely the best explanation for my own existance.

Your best explanation does not explain anything. What is clear is that you as a human need to believe and that colours your assessment.

But isn't it more logical to assume that I came from Someone or something that possesses some of,if not all,of the my own distinct human traits,only in a greater measure?
Why should I conclude that the original source of my being has nothing to do with what I am biologically made up of. All that is in the cosmos is foreign material and perhaps some strange lifeforms. But maybe some scientists here could further enlighten me on this subject?

Boy are you lost!
Which human traits does your God have?
The only traits that I see are the one we humans share with the animal world.
The cosmos is made of the same stuff that we are made of. The same proton, neutrons, electrons etc and the same Hydrogen, Helium, ... Carbon etc.
Which universe do you live in?


But my point is why should the burden of proof lie with me?

This is kind of basic. It is so easy to claim. It is much harder to prove.
Will I waste my time proving that Krishna does not exist?
Will I waste my time proving that Zeus does not exist?
Etc. etc.
Basically it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
So the burden of proof must be on the one who claims.


If I am so wrong for believing,then shouldn't an atheist be obliged to provide more convincing proof of the Big Bang or any other theory?
They seem to believe any explanation for creation other than a Creator.
Why is this the only one that doesn't make sense?
What universal truth or law ever stated that it is always best to believe only what your intellect can see or perceive?

Any explanation based on evidence (even on very little evidence) is better than myth.


It seems to me the only thing worth expending any effort into oppossing would be to a legitimate threat against my own life.
Makes me wonder then why all the opposition against Theism?

It is not opposition to Theism. It is opposition to falsehood and myth.

Surely,I could come up with some bad examples of Atheism gone bad.
Perhaps,if I dug deep enough I could come up with past incidents of atrocities commited by "alleged" Atheists,since they have probably conveniently omitted their own stance of
unbelief from any public historical records.
Or maybe it just wasn't considered important at the time?

This wont work. Atheists do not form any group nor have any common doctrine.

But if the modern atheist doesn't care what others choose to believe,then maybe they could act that way? And maybe live up to their own lofty reputation as noble,fair-minded,unassuming,and TOLERANT.
Of course I am only assuming there is this reputation that you all are striving to attain,while at the same time just being yourselves.
But your actions/attitudes must also coincide
with your aspirations,as many have readily pointed out in the many mistakes and sins of those like myself...oh,I forgot that sin doesn't exist?

Right! We will just be here to remind you that what you believe is myth.

Starboy

Hi Oxymoron:

I think that the concept of “truth” is where most people go wrong. There are actually several kinds of “truth”. There is the mathematical “truth” which is true by definition but is required to be self-consistent. Then there is religious “truth” which is also true by definition but is not required to be self-consistent. There is your day-to-day operational “truth” such as “We hold these truths to be self evident”, you could call this kind, the “truth” of convention. Next we have the “truths” of the emotion, such as “love conquers all” or “true love”. Then there is philosophical “truth” which is as far as I can tell synonymous with philosophical reality. Unfortunately, philosophers can’t make up their minds if there is such a thing as reality. Lastly there is the so-called scientific “truth” which is really just another way of saying the current working hypothesis. The problem, as I see it, is that in the discussions that are common to this board all of these “truths” are used interchangeably. I avoid the word or only use it derisively because it has so many connotations as to be just about useless. It is hard for me to see how a rational person would use the word.

Starboy

Oxymoron

Starboy: I kind of agree, however I think this analysis is a bit unwieldy. At the end of the day, there would seem to be only one useful form of 'truth': that which is testably so. Examples:

"The Earth goes around the sun": testably true, I can do an experiment to demonstrate it.

"I am happy": testably true if that's how I feel.

"I am useless" testably true or false by me or others who know me.

"Asians get more benefits than us white folk" testably false by anyone who understands the welfare system.

"There is life after death" AFAIK untestable.

"There is life after death because last night the ghost of Freddy my pet hamster came to me and said so" testable (and probably false - I never had a pet hamster ).

"God exists" AFAIK untestable

"God exists because you need a God to create life" testably false on the balance of probability.

By restricting 'truth' to the set of things which are testably so or (using you example of mathematics) self-evidently and consistently so), one can remain quite rational and not abandon the world to the horrid sollipsism of "personal truth".

Starboy

Oxymoron:

Science is not about “testable truth” it is about testable explanations. The theory that explains the most in the most accurate way by natural means is the current winner. When new facts come along that can’t be accounted for, then new explanations are sought. These new explanations may be current explanations with small changes or they may be entirely new. Explanations are interpretations of reality, just as a painting of a pipe is an interpretation of a pipe. Do not be confused Oxymoron. A painting of a pipe is not the pipe. Try putting tobacco in it and smoke it. So where does this leave us in regards to the “truth” of our explanations? The best we can say about them is that they work. They work because so far they pass the tests. That is all we can say about them. “Truth” is for pastors, mathematicians and philosophers, science could care less.

Starboy

Daggah

So in order to come to God, one must bleed to death?

Here's a hint. Christians, for the last time, the heart pumps blood.

Ronin

"Humble Heart" ~ suspending all sense, reason and free inquiry in favor of Christian assimilation.

"Hardened Heart" ~ promoting all sense, reason and free inquiry while soundly rebuffing Christian assimilation.

crunchyfrog

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

Oxymoron

Ok first off, I broadly agree. Broadly. But I think you're wrong about science: it's not about explanations, it's about methodology: it's as wrong to confuse scientific knowledge and the scientific method as it would be to confuse pipes and pictures of pipes.

I agree the search for absolute objective Truth is a red herring. Knowledge gained by the scientific method is the closest approximation to that Truth we will get for all the reasons you outline. We might call that body of knowledge little-t truth, or Fred for all that matters. One thing that we can say about Fred is that its members are independent of who is doing the testing. That's about as objective as you can get.

To rephrase my original statement: the "no such thing as Fred argument disturbs me..."

Starboy

Hi Oxymoron:

It would appear that we agree on a good many points. The method of science is important just as the technique used to paint the picture is also important, however at the end of the day it is still a picture and not the actual thing. To call a picture of a pipe the “truth” of the pipe is really a statement of aesthetics. A model of reality no matter how good it is at predicting reality will always be a model. To talk about it as if it were “truth” with a big T or little t just doesn’t make any sense.

This is just a guess and please correct me if I am wrong but I can’t help but think that you equate reality with “truth”. If this is so, why not just use the word reality and drop the use of the word “truth”. As stated earlier, “truth” is such a loaded term as to be almost useless in any reasonable discussion.

Starboy

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>