Hey now, I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with deists or "spiritual but not religious types." Depending on definitions, I could arguably call myself spiritual but not religious.
Anyway, I'm glad you're moving forward on your journey of self-discovery!
I don't think it's a problem that there can be many different interpretations of the Bible, with or without a holy spirit.
The big problem is that after thousands of years, no one has identified any reliable means to tell which interpretation is likely more accurate than any other, or whether...
This is a very strange argument. By the same logic, I could say that since you cannot show and explain where your god came from, or demonstrate its entire true nature (since any of this god's "mysterious ways" could hide evil, lying, or capricious traits, right?) then the entire theory of your...
I'm sorry if it comes off as hatred. I think there are a lot of people who have been significantly hurt by others who acted on religious beliefs, and people who feel that their values and way of life are threatened by religion mixing with politics. There is real harm there, and real grievances...
So, the messengers say that god exists, and the messengers say true things because the messengers are the true messengers of god, and god exists and is good because the messengers say so. Therefore god is good and just and anything that seems evil and unfair is my fault for having a weak, flawed...
If I were in fact in that sort of universe, then there would still be no evidence that any gods exist. Right?
If I told you that I owned 20 Lamborghinis, but you didn't believe me and asked to see some of them in my garage so you could reasonably believe me, and I replied by asking you how do...
Interesting. Essentially, you're arguing that god must not be all-powerful and so can't be blamed. Usually I see theists try to solve the problem of evil by redefining all-knowing to make it more limited and excuse god, like with Molinism, or redefining all loving to be compatible with infinite...
I agree. They all should. Many of the looters, arsonists, and violent protesters were white supremacists. I live in Minneapolis and there were a lot of stories about this.
Some examples:
Man who helped ignite George Floyd riots identified as white supremacist: Police...
I mean, I would consider disaster, woe, bad times, calamity, and trouble to be part of what evil is. And why would a benevolent god create these things? How does a tsunami hitting a city promote the exercise of human free will? I just don't see it. And no one is saying a god should fix...
Right, the problem of evil is a huge problem for any version of a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent.
The common apologetic is that god's desire for us to have "free will" somehow overrides its desire to treat us according to any common definition of benevolence. The problem...
You quoted me saying that we as atheists don't want certainty, just any reliable way to produce some evidence to support one explanation over another. And then you spent your entire post pointing out that I can't be certain of ontological truths. Fine, and neither can theists. The point of my OP...
Did you just not like my answer? I said, given two alternative explanatory models that are equally sufficient to explain a phenomenon, the one that can make novel testable predictions that are then confirmed is the better one. That is how you can give evidence for one explanation being more...
There was a fire-breathing goat the size of a mountain. There's a book written by an anonymous author, and it says that people told him that a thousand other people saw the fire-breathing goat, and that it all happened hundreds of years ago. But then the goat died and its entire body was shifted...
Fair enough. Hopefully people understand that by theism, I mean the claims of theism. And yes, by my criteria for being able to show that something isn't imaginary, theistic claims fail.
There was only one question in your post, and I answered it? If you mean the statement in the first sentence, then I didn't really understand its wording.
Right. I was describing the scientific method as the best way of producing evidence that we humans seem to have. But notice, my definition of what evidence can be is much more broad. I'm saying theism fails even under the broader definition. Also, I don't think we can choose what we're convinced...
What part of science do I ignore? You can make testable predictions that a phenomenon will occur in the future. You can also make testable predictions that, if a certain explanation for the phenomenon is X, then we will see certain results in the future if we run a certain new test. Both work...
If one person says, "If my idea that the universe was created by an author, then we should look at this part of reality that no one has examined before and see X," and then they look and see X, then this is evidence that supports their conceptual model. Anyone who then comes along and says...
Oh, and please note that I'm not a logical positivist, empiricist, philosophical naturalist, or a proponent of scientism. I'm open to any reliable forms of evidence, and open to being persuaded by any claim if it is supported by good evidence. I also realize that certain forms of conceptual...
At its core, this topic boils down what is meant by "evidence."
I define evidence as "Anything that lets us reliably differentiate between ideas that are merely imaginary, and ideas that accurately describe reality."
So, if you propose some method, framework, or argument as evidence, but that...