Atheists, smarter than religious people

Chumly, We all make a choice on what to believe and what not to believe. We base our choice on what we deem to be logical conclusions about our environment.

Some of us prefer to say "there is no god," because there is nothing to show by human knowledge or evidence any of the man-made religions and gods to show otherwise. The Jewish and christian bible has been shown to have too many errors and omissions for it to have any credibility (a personal observation).

Some wish to say "I don't know," and that's fine for those who are still unsure about the existence of any god. That's their choice; the same way we choose to say "there is no god."

To argue the difference is childish when there is no way to prove it one way or another. Only the argument remains.

Some of us live in our "reality." Some still prefer to not declare something impossible to prove.

Hi yah Frank,

I am not directly addressing your claims of faithlessness, nor that you do not do belief, nor that you wish to define atheists in a manner not unlike theists, nor that you assert there is no evidence for or against god thus you remain equally open mined to either possibly. Your positions are not in any way a difficult concept for me to grasp.

However, that is not the essence of my recent posts to you. The essence is that any position involving this subject is not wholly supportable, and your position is no exception.

So let's get back on track then!

First I don't think we need to keep reviewing a) & b) (unless you feel the need) as your newest comments still support that you hold these equivalent views:

Chumly wrote:

a) You do not know of the circumstances by which you would be convinced.

I agree it would be difficult for me to KNOW the circumstances that would convince me of the existence of a god…but as I mentioned, if (SOMETHING) managed to write a specific prediction that the entire Solar System would be moved to somewhere else in the galaxy…and if astronomers concurred that the entire Solar System indeed had been moved…I certainly would pause and consider the notion. (I dare say most people would!) Whether it would convince me or not is speculation.

I most assuredly will not be convinced by some statue "crying"…or some "miracle cure" or the like.

Quote:

b) Even if such a set of (at preset) unknown set of circumstances were to preset itself to you, it in no way automatically follows that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

I have absolutely no idea of what that means, Chumly. What new found belief? What are you talking about here?

Quote:

Most importantly however you have not, (I've posed it a few times now) responded to the pivotal claim of my second argument.

Chumly wrote:

As per a) & b) no scientifically/logically based claim would be worth the paper it was printed on if that was the criteria on which it had to exclusively rely.

Why do I feel like Lou Costello asking "Who's on first?"

I remember saying something like…no claim in the area of "is there a god or are there no gods" is worth the paper it is printed on.

But what is your point.





(ANYONE ELSE WHO HAPPENS TO BE FOLLOWING THIS: If you understand what Chumly is trying to share here and think you can put it into a form I will be able to grasp, I ask for your help in this matter. Chumly obviously sees this as a significant argument…and I truly do not understand what he is talking about. I want to respond…but I cannot, because I truly, honestly am missing what is being offered.)

Of course I would like to know if there is or is not a God but moreover, is it of such dire consequence that a person should subscribe to one or the other?

Real Life asks: "Is it your position that science can establish or has established that there is no God?"
No, Science is too sober to address such a pseudo issue. But the world as Science has come to describe it seems totally inconsistent with the supernaturalist conception of reality. In the Middle Ages the general world view did not contradict the edicts of formal religion as much as does the Science-influenced world view that you and I live in.

Regarding Gel's comment, pragmatically speaking, I do not think it makes a shred of difference FOR THIS LIFE whether or not God exists. He applies only to what happens to us in a fictious AFTER life, not in this (our only) life. Whether God does or does not exist is a difference that makes no difference.

Interestingly here is a talk on Spinoza who did propose a "proof" that "God doesn't exist".

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ (see "Session 5" Speaker 2)

(I thoroughly recommend this whole series to partiipants on this thread.)

cicerone imposter wrote:

Chumly, We all make a choice on what to believe and what not to believe. We base our choice on what we deem to be logical conclusions about our environment.

Some of us prefer to say "there is no god," because there is nothing to show by human knowledge or evidence any of the man-made religions and gods to show otherwise. The Jewish and christian bible has been shown to have too many errors and omissions for it to have any credibility (a personal observation).

Some wish to say "I don't know," and that's fine for those who are still unsure about the existence of any god. That's their choice; the same way we choose to say "there is no god."

To argue the difference is childish when there is no way to prove it one way or another. Only the argument remains.

Some of us live in our "reality." Some still prefer to not declare something impossible to prove.

Interesting that you continue to cite 'omissions' as a reason to classify the Bible as unreliable.

So, if something YOU think should be in the Bible isn't there, that makes the Bible untrustworthy?

Isn't that just an argument from silence?

'The Bible doesn't say tell us the name of the apostle Paul's mother! What a glaring omission. The Bible obviously isn't trustworthy.'

How do supposed 'omissions' indicate anything about the Bible's reliability?

USA Today omitted printing President Bush's breakfast menu this morning. Is USA Today 'unreliable' due to this 'omission'?

OK Frank, let's start again, each of my posts will only have one direct specific question / point / claim (if at all possible!) of which I would expect you will directly and specifically answer to that single aspect only: It could take a few days to run though, but I'm game. I have to get back to working on my home, so I'll chat with you later on this evening.

1) For you as an agnostic is there the possibility of a god (yes / no are your two choices)?

Interestingly here is a talk on Spinoza who did propose a "proof" that "God doesn't exist".

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ (see "Session 5" Speaker 2)

(I thoroughly recommend this whole series to partiipants on this thread.)

Chumly wrote:

OK Frank, let's start again, each of my posts will only have one direct specific question / point / claim (if at all possible!) of which I would expect you will directly and specifically answer to that single aspect only: It could take a few days to run though, but I'm game. I have to get back to working on my home, so I'll chat with you later on this evening.

1) For you as an agnostic is there the possibility of a god (yes / no are your two choices)?

Thank you, Chumly. I'm not trying to be a jerk here...I honestly want to grok your point.

Answer to question #1: Yes.

JL...according to his post...KNOWS the REALITY of what is or is not after death...and any possible afterlife scenarios have to be, in his wild, blind, unsubstantiated guess...fiction.