27 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseOne small contention with the assertion of "an enquiring mind" comes to mind. While I agree with a healthy interest in the natural world, its causes and principles of operation, such interest must be tempered with a clear understanding of the natural world's inherent revelatory limits.
Yes, I know both assertions (“God sayeth”, etc) cannot be verified empirically, however the one is philosophically shallower than the other -- an enquiring mind should search for the deepest possible reason/cause.[/b]
After determining the cause of the natural world, to continue going over the same ground yields nothing. After awhile (assuredly, that point was passed long ago), the 'argument' is not dissimilar to the medical 'breakthroughs' which now announce red wine is good for a healthy disposition, now it is bad.
Truly, the best that limited science can proffer (within an acceptable degree of certainty) is how some aspects of nature operate. Outside of operation, science ceases to be science when it ventures into speculation beyond its scope of discipline parameters. Does this understanding of operation yield appreciable results for man? Absolutely yes, and absolutely no: some information is used for bettering man and some is used to destroy him.
However, the revelation of God's character and promises found in the Bible yield lasting, spiritual results of intrinsic value. While the study of creation reveals a limited amount of the nature of God (consistency, faithfulness, genius, etc.), the study of the God of creation fills the being so absorbed to overflowing.
27 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHKBH: However, the revelation of God's character and promises found in the Bible yield lasting, spiritual results of intrinsic value. While the study of creation reveals a limited amount of the nature of God (consistency, faithfulness, genius, etc.), the study of the God of creation fills the being so absorbed to overflowing.
One small contention with the assertion of "an enquiring mind" comes to mind. While I agree with a healthy interest in the natural world, its causes and principles of operation, such interest must be tempered with a clear understanding of the natural world's inherent revelatory limits.
After determining the cause of the natural world, to continue going ius, etc.), the study of the God of creation fills the being so absorbed to overflowing.
So you spend approximately 90% of your time reading the Bible and the other 10% on meal and bathroom breaks?
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitosePlease. Humour me. Of course you'll cite the Papua New Guinean atheist who has no concept of science. My assertion was directed at the smug western type who claims that science has failed to provide any evidence for God ergo he doesn’t exist
[b]This is generally false (many possible counter-examples).
Please. Humour me. Of course you'll cite the Papua New Guinean atheist who has no concept of science. My assertion was directed at the smug western type who claims that science has failed to provide any evidence for God ergo he doesn’t exist -- as you well know, this is the a syllogistic fa ...[text shortened]... possible reason/cause. Holding my breath for the ad hominems and straw men to follow.[/b]
Haven't you ever heard of rationalism? You stated quite simply that the atheist is necessarily an empiricist. That's patently false, homey. The atheist can just as well be a rationalist. Maybe you shouldn't use specific philosophical terms (like 'empiricism'😉 unless you know what they mean:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
If the person were truly honest, his/her position would be agnosticism rather than atheism.
Not necessarily. The person is abiding by at least prima facie epistemic obligations when he formulates belief in proportion to the available evidence. Seeing no evidence for the existence of God is surely compatible with seeing sufficient evidence against the existence of God. In that case, he is 'being honest' by adopting a stance of strong atheism. Of course, if there is a lack of evidence either way, then, yes, I agree that weak atheism is the 'honest' position.
You're a crass little man.
I AM WHO I AM.
Yes, I know both assertions (“God sayeth”, etc) cannot be verified empirically, however the one is philosophically shallower than the other
I completely disagree. From a standpoint of epistemic justification, the two positions are equivalent. Namely, they are both completely arbitrary, and neither provides any actual substance as to why the act in question is morally wrong.
27 Mar 06
1 edit
I personally do not agree with the contention made by atheists here that "weak atheism" = agnosticism. Rwingett (who argues this position) has stated that a weak atheist still puts the "burden of proof" on the theist. I think a true agnostic (as I am) looks at the evidence free from any such presumptions or burden placing.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe wind, unseen but felt, has impact on things visible. The theist calls that wind God, whereas the atheist either denies things are moving at all, or insists they are moving on their own accord.
I personally do not agree with the contention made by atheists here that "weak atheism" = agnosticism. Rwingett (who argues this position) has stated that a weak atheist still puts the "burden of proof" on the theist. I think a true agnostic (as I am) looks at the evidence free from any such presumptions or burden placing.
While the weak counter-argument to naming the wind God is the absurd FSM, the God described in the Bible enters the scene fully developed at the onset.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, mythical beings can be "fully developed at the onset" if the creators of the myth chose them to be so.
The wind, unseen but felt, has impact on things visible. The theist calls that wind God, whereas the atheist either denies things are moving at all, or insists they are moving on their own accord.
While the weak counter-argument to naming the wind God is the absurd FSM, the God described in the Bible enters the scene fully developed at the onset.