edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.
I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?
Do you have evidence it wasn't?
It was your claim.....not mine. I take that as a no. You cannot provide evidence of what you are claiming.
Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.
I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?
Do you have evidence it wasn't?
It was your claim.....not mine. I take that as a no. You cannot provide evidence of what you are claiming.
The evidence is particularly in the religious inability to produce evidence, even with thousands of years to do so.
Frank, I don't think any of the studies I read about differentiated between hard and soft atheism, although I'd have to look them up to be sure.
But to be fair, the statement "I believe in God" is just as ambiguous as the statement "I am an athiest." An article about a Baylor survey which differentiates belief in four distinct versions of God:
Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY wrote:The Authoritarian God (31.4% of Americans overall, 43.5% in the South) is angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs. He is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgment down on "the unfaithful or ungodly," says Bader.
Those who envision God this way "are religiously and politically conservative people, more often black Protestants and white evangelicals," says Bader. "(They) want an active, Christian-values-based government with federal funding for faith-based social services and prayer in the schools."
They're also the most inclined to say God favors the USA in world affairs (32% vs. 19% overall).
The Benevolent God (23% overall, 28.8% in the Midwest) still sets absolute standards for mankind in the Bible. More than half (54.8%) want the government to advocate Christian values. But this group, which draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, sees primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible, says sociologist Froese.
They're inclined (68.1%) to say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person.
The Critical God (16% overall, 21.2% in the East) has his judgmental eye on the world but he's not going to intervene, either to punish or to comfort.
"This group is more paradoxical," says Bader. "They have very traditional beliefs, picturing God as the classic bearded old man on high. Yet they're less inclined to go to church or affiliate seriously with religious groups. They are less inclined to see God as active in the world."
Those who picture a critical God are significantly less likely to draw absolute moral lines on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research. For example, 54.8% overall say gay marriage is always wrong compared with 80.6% for those who see an authoritarian God, and 65.8% for those who see God as benevolent. For those who believe in a critical God, it was 54.7%.
The Distant God (24.4% overall, 30.3% in the West) is "no bearded old man in the sky raining down his opinions on us," says Bader. Followers of this God see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own.
This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong, and among those who don't attend church, says Bader.
Only 3.8% of this group says embryonic stem cell research is always wrong, compared with 38.5% of those who see an authoritarian God, 22.7% for those who see God as benevolent and 13.2% who see God as critical but disengaged.
edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.
I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?
Do you have evidence it wasn't?
It was your claim.....not mine. I take that as a no. You cannot provide evidence of what you are claiming.
The evidence is particularly in the religious inability to produce evidence, even with thousands of years to do so.
As usual, you are evading the question and changing the subject. I am asking you to provide evidence for what you wrote. Your answer is a childish retort that bears no substance.
You are doing little to further the premise that atheists are of superior intelligence.
Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.
I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?
Do you have evidence it wasn't?
It was your claim.....not mine. I take that as a no. You cannot provide evidence of what you are claiming.
The evidence is particularly in the religious inability to produce evidence, even with thousands of years to do so.
edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:edgarblythe wrote:While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.
I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?
Do you have evidence it wasn't?
It was your claim.....not mine. I take that as a no. You cannot provide evidence of what you are claiming.
The evidence is particularly in the religious inability to produce evidence, even with thousands of years to do so.
So, an argument from silence? That's it?
Again, I ask , what kind of evidence are you referring to?
Do you not think it absurd to expect 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'?
