Atheists, theists, outside views, and empiricism

[RestlessSoul]

To some extent, perhaps - however I feel that oftentimes, when we're dealing with a complex subject, and an expert who is still human trying to wrap their head around it, that to take the side of suspending judgement against the expert's ideas, while still carefully studying them and taking weight - I feel that can sometimes lead one to a better understanding, perhaps. Or a better way of wrapping their head around the subject.

For an atheist, to use an analogy, you might liken this to "holding out for greater peer review".

I call it “keeping an open mind”, but yeah. The assumption that all of life, and all the richness and mystery of human experience, can be quantified, calibrated and ultimately understood, is hubris in my opinion. Mystery and paradox are at the heart of existence, written into the DNA of the universe; which is not a reason not to keep pushing at the frontiers of knowledge, just a recognition that we will almost certainly never truly “know the mind of God”*

Anything which keeps the sense of awe and wonder alive in the soul, is spiritually healthy and intellectually legitimate imo.

* Stephen Hawking

 

[RestlessSoul]

True, atheists may have everything down to the fine details and still get it wrong because of something they haven't taken into account, but they're still more likely to get it right than someone who makes up whatever details they want.

Atheists may get many things right, of course.

But believers who have an intimate relationship with a God of their understanding, will tell the atheist with conviction that he or she is certainly wrong about the biggest thing of all. So there’s the impasse again.

 

[BrightShadow]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

If you feel comfortable in the presence of atheists - then that is your personal choice!
When religious convictions are not compatible between two theists - the mention of God's grace or God's protection in a conversation may not be appreciated by either party because believers usually have a different idea about how it works! For example - I don't think Jesus was God to begin with - so in a time of distress - if someone says - "Don't worry! Jesus will take care of you" - then I would not feel comfortable about it either and I won't appreciate it! It may even make me annoyed. So, a believer in Jesus Christ (as a savior) will not be able to console me either!

Anyhow, so, what are we debating here (OP)? All I see is - atheists seems to have scored a point with you. Is that it? Well, theists can score bigger from another prospective! Let me give you an example - theist from most modern religion celebrate religious festivities. What does Atheist do? Boring!
Believers travel great distance to be with each others company and they socialize. Even on day to day or week to week events - they meet each other at synagogues, churches, mosques, temples etc. and socialize. If someone passes away they help with funeral etc. Organize entities can be helpful in many occasions! So, many points for the theists!

Let us see if there is a debating point hidden in your OP...
If you think Atheists can be good decent honest people (without religion) then I will say I have no doubt in that because I believe all humans are born with a moral compass. But where did they get this moral compass? Well, from our creator.. of course! IMO. So, why shouldn't atheists be good people sometimes? Everyone knows right from wrong. IMO. A prostitute knows her practice is wrong without religion telling her so, a thief knows stealing is wrong. We don't need any religion to tell us what is right and what is wrong. IMO. We are born with that instinct. IMO.

However I also believe we do go stray from the right path due to outside influence (our upbringing, the company we keep, our surroundings, the predicament we find ourselves in.. etc. etc.). So, there could be a time we may need to compare our position with some known religious guidelines. However, since most religions have been corrupted by false innovations, traditional or cultural diffusions and their doctrines also underwent intentional infusions and were influenced by writer's personal biased positions - it is a tough job to sort through them and seek the truth. IMO. But we have to try! IMO.

So, bottom-line - I give no credit to the atheists who are good, decent and honest people - since I believe God gave all of us the same basic moral compass! IMO. Many atheists retain their compasses because of decent upbringings etc. So, the credit goes first to God and then to their parents! IMO.

On the flipside - we also see many so-called religious folks as well as their opposition (atheists) becoming arrogant, egotistic and over confident with their positions at times. They start believing they are better and smarter than the rest of us! But in my opinion - they both are fruits of the same tree. Maybe I should call them - fruitcakes! But that maybe too much! So, I will call them bananas (at times)!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Anyhow, so, what are we debating here (OP)?

Mostly just empiricism and believer's outside perspectives to it:

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

All I see is - atheists seems to have scored a point with you.

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way, but if you insist. Rather, I see weight to their words quite often, and while there's a lot I don't agree with to what they say, I no longer think of them as "theist haters", or "people trying to be a roadblock in theist discussions", as I feel with proper understanding, that it's a gross mischaracterization. And I think some things they say are certainly worth listening to, even for a theist.

But where did they get this moral compass? Well, from our creator.. of course!

I'm undecided on that.

So, bottom-line - I give no credit to the atheists who are good, decent and honest people - since I believe God gave all of us the same basic moral compass! IMO.

We disagree there. I give credit where it is due to people.

 

[Brian2]

We notice an extreme disability of
"theists" to think outside their box.

Just try facts on a flood believer.

I find the same disability in most people.

 

[Tiberius]

Atheists may get many things right, of course.

But believers who have an intimate relationship with a God of their understanding, will tell the atheist with conviction that he or she is certainly wrong about the biggest thing of all. So there’s the impasse again.

The difference is that someone who embraces science as an explanation for the world has evidence. Someone who embraces a deity has only faith.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The difference is that someone who embraces science as an explanation for the world has evidence. Someone who embraces a deity has only faith.

Perhaps. But the person with faith will have tapped an inner resource that will enrich their lives in good times, and light their way in bad.

 

[Brian2]

The difference is that someone who embraces science as an explanation for the world has evidence. Someone who embraces a deity has only faith.

Science does not have any explanation for the world. You are misguided if you think it has and are really just relying on a faith in science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Science does not have any explanation for the world. You are misguided if you think it has and are really just relying on a faith in science.

Science can explain a lot; but it can’t tell us why we are here.

 

[Brian2]

Science can explain a lot; but it can’t tell us why we are here.

True, and it cannot tell us how we got here.

 

[RestlessSoul]

True, and it cannot tell us how we got here.

The spirit of scientific enquiry is a manifestation of the human spirit, and therefore, I would suggest, God given.

There are those who make science their religion, and to do that is misguided imo; but we can respect and admire science and also have room in our hearts to receive God’s love. I see no contradiction there.

This world has been gifted with many great visionaries, who have shared their insights with the rest of us. Some of these visionaries were spiritual teachers like the Buddha and Christ, others were artists like Michaelangelo, Blake and Tolstoy; and some were scientists, like Newton and Einstein. I thank God for all of them.

 

[Scolopendra]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

Religious acts, ritualism, myths and symbologies can have a big (often positive) impact on ones psychology. It's a parallel consequence of humans having evolved a pattern-seeking brain and the need of belonging to a tribe or community. I believe a person can entertain these instincts (the sense of fantasy you mentioned) and nurish them while also remaining an atheist and not believing in it literally.

 

[Tiberius]

Perhaps. But the person with faith will have tapped an inner resource that will enrich their lives in good times, and light their way in bad.

That doesn't make it true.

 

[Tiberius]

Science does not have any explanation for the world. You are misguided if you think it has and are really just relying on a faith in science.

Science has done a lot more to explain how the world works than any religious idea.

I can easily list any number of religious explanations that have been replaced with scientific explanations. However, I challenge you to provide a single example of a scientific explanation that has been replaced by a religious one.

 

[Brian2]

Science has done a lot more to explain how the world works than any religious idea.

I can easily list any number of religious explanations that have been replaced with scientific explanations. However, I challenge you to provide a single example of a scientific explanation that has been replaced by a religious one.

Science is a great tool for working out how the world words.
Religious explanations don't take the place of scientific explanations in science because science does not accept religious explanations. It is either naturalistic or we just don't know yet.
But none of this shows that science has or can have answers for some things.
It is not really a dichotomy of science verses religion. The 2 can be seen as good in their own spheres.
It is where they overlap and science tries to explain things naturally when God says that He did them, that is the problem area for most people and some have faith that science will find answers.
So science has not got all the answers and it is a faith to think it will eventually.

 

[Tiberius]

Science is a great tool for working out how the world words.
Religious explanations don't take the place of scientific explanations in science because science does not accept religious explanations. It is either naturalistic or we just don't know yet.
But none of this shows that science has or can have answers for some things.
It is not really a dichotomy of science verses religion. The 2 can be seen as good in their own spheres.
It is where they overlap and science tries to explain things naturally when God says that He did them, that is the problem area for most people and some have faith that science will find answers.
So science has not got all the answers and it is a faith to think it will eventually.

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not saying that science provides the answers because there are parts where religion can't provide the answers.

I'm saying that science can provide the answers because it has a proven track record of having done so in the past.

Science has provided useful results. When it comes to explanatory capability, I don't think religion has done the same.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human there are two humans who think.

I'm a human...you're a human.

We're all having the same exact human experience but it's personal. Diversified experience.

Lots of men. Lots of women.

I'm not a man you're not a woman.

Just thinking.

As thinking.

I don't need to qualify my human being by any subjective title in literal terms to think as a human.

 

[rational experiences]

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not saying that science provides the answers because there are parts where religion can't provide the answers.

I'm saying that science can provide the answers because it has a proven track record of having done so in the past.

Science has provided useful results. When it comes to explanatory capability, I don't think religion has done the same.

Earth remedies minerals or herbal natural awareness first. Wasn't science.

Machines don't exist. They are human invented.

Is the truth of the subject human science.

 

[Tiberius]

Earth remedies minerals or herbal natural awareness first. Wasn't science.

Machines don't exist. They are human invented.

Is the truth of the subject human science.

The fact that natural remedies existed before science doesn't change the fact that science does the job better. Many natural remedies have a basis in fact (but not all), but science has been able to isolate the active ingredient and make it more effective.

Also, the fact that Humans invented machines does not negate the fact that they actually exist.

 

[rational experiences]

The fact that natural remedies existed before science doesn't change the fact that science does the job better. Many natural remedies have a basis in fact (but not all), but science has been able to isolate the active ingredient and make it more effective.

Also, the fact that Humans invented machines does not negate the fact that they actually exist.

By natural law observation first science first is observation not math. So machines don't exist.

I was taught that suns metals formed images in clouds as human ideas about machine design. So most of its form already existed.

And when medicines own about five categories of due effects from mild to very bad I don't think you are honest.

Science cannot patent nature. So they abstract potency by an extract then an interference.

As humans abused old medical drugs you also had to alter treatment.

Science had to use machine enlargement of cells as they lost the healers natural human ability to know without harm.

Science begot medical science. If nature didn't exist you wouldn't even own science medicine.