Stephen T-B

DM writes: "Such atheists might accept atheism by faith or upbringing..."
By 'faith" David?
You just don't get it, do you?
Is it an act of faith which prevents you from believing in Santa Claus, or fairies, goblins or unicorns?
If the only god available to believe in was Thor, and having weighed up the evidence for his reality you said to yourself: “I don’t see any reason to think Thor exists outside the mind of those who believe in him,” would that be an act of faith?
I can accept, David, that your god is real to you.
Please try to accept that he isn’t real to me. It requires no effort of will to “unbelieve” in your god; I was not subjected to any indoctrination and I did not make a choice. I just realised one day that the Judeo/Christian god is a delusion, and from that day onward I could no longer delude myself that such a thing existed. Because I didn’t need to, I didn’t want to. Because I didn’t want to, I didn’t have to. Because I didn’t have to, I didn’t. End of story.

diana

Thanks, nyx.

And thanks for the update, Bree.

d

B. H. Manners

I am glad that nothing is wrong with David.

NOGO

This is not the evening news, Diana.

We are debating.

David made a statement that in science we never attain any kind of certainty in contrast to religion.

Nice words but in practice it does not amount to much. As I stated Christianity diverged almost immediately after its creation. How does one account for that? All this talk about absolute truth and yet the message is confused enough that agreement among Christian is difficult if not impossible.

How can anyone say that science cannot give us certainty while religion does?

Everyone should submit to the truth without being forced. Why do they teach Newtonian physics in China and not some made-in-China physics? Because truth is universal and everybody comes to it willingly. Contrast that to Chistianity. Why is it that Christian cannot agree on what the truth is? Why is there so many denominations? Why is there so much suspicion and hatred among them?

What is the use of having an absolute truth when ...
a) there is no method of identifying it among the variants.
b) it creates distrust, hatred and divisions.
c) it provides no identifiable benefit.

Contrast this to science.

Diana, maybe you can tackle this one and tell us your thoughts.

diana

Originally posted by NOGO:
This is not the evening news, Diana.

That was my point. It's called sarcasm. David specializes in not answering questions. Or haven't you noticed?

David made a statement that in science we never attain any kind of certainty in contrast to religion.

I've noticed that one thing my parents have that I do not is certainty concerning the origins of our world and man (i.e., God created the world and all that is in it). I doubt. I'm pretty sure the creation bit's a crock, but I'll never be certain where we came from.

To argue certainty and doubt thusly has no bearing on the truth of the matter, though.

But if you look at it from this angle, religion does indeed offer "certainty" whereas science does not.

But so what? Only a fool thinks that his own certitude makes him right.

All this talk about absolute truth and yet the message is confused enough that agreement among Christian is difficult if not impossible.

Good point.

How can anyone say that science cannot give us certainty while religion does?

I can.

What is the use of having an absolute truth when ...
a) there is no method of identifying it among the variants.
b) it creates distrust, hatred and divisions.
c) it provides no identifiable benefit.

And no way, even, of proving it really deserves the title "absolute truth." Belief in something does not make it true. Once you remove belief from the picture, you have unsubstantiated fantasy.

Those are my thoughts.

d

Stephen T-B

Belief in something makes it true for the believer because it is only ;possible to believe in something which you believe to be true...

diana

Yes. Hence the difference between "truth" and "true for the believer." One is demonstrable; the other is not.

d