Fundamentalist Atheists

[Thief]

When it comes to heaven, that's all we can do... just claim whatever truth we like best.

I wish it were that simple.
It's simple...yes....but not quite to that extent.

Most of what I suspect is drawn from reason....not dogma.

Over the past five years I hear a cry for evidence ...continually.
There won't be any.
But the atheist seems to be...show me....and THEN I will believe.

So much the 'Doubting Thomas' of gospel fame.

(Ironic I call upon a dogmatic story to support what I just said.)

 

[Thief]

I've seen the word 'certainty' applied.

The atheist is 'certain' there is no God'.
(so it seems)

What follows is equally certain.
The chemistry will fail....and then nothing more.

That places the existence of Man as a complete mystery.
There is no Cause for us to be here.
And nothing waiting for us in that last hour....when we might want to go on living.....and then not.

As there is no evidence to denounce the existence of God non-believing is no more 'provable' than a stance of belief.

So with both sides not able to affirm their stance.....
maybe we are going to believe whatever we care to....
and suffer the consequence for having done so.

 

[Bunyip]

I wish it were that simple.
It's simple...yes....but not quite to that extent.

Most of what I suspect is drawn from reason....not dogma.

Over the past five years I hear a cry for evidence ...continually.
There won't be any.
But the atheist seems to be...show me....and THEN I will believe.

So much the 'Doubting Thomas' of gospel fame.

(Ironic I call upon a dogmatic story to support what I just said.)

Doubting Thomas's skepticism was perfectly reasonable, after all according to the bible Jesus took on a different appearance after the ressurection and was not recognisable. To see a stranger claiming to be a man you knew well and know to be dead, who does not even look like the man you saw killed and yet claims to be him would make any rational person skeptical.

As to atheism, many atheists - myself included believe that if the god of the bible did exist, the evidence would be abundant. That there is no evidence as you admit is grounds enough to validate atheism as a logical default.

 

[Thief]

Doubting Thomas's skepticism was perfectly reasonable, after all according to the bible Jesus took on a different appearance after the ressurection and was not recognisable. To see a stranger claiming to be a man you knew well and know to be dead, who does not even look like the man you saw killed and yet claims to be him would make any rational person skeptical.

As to atheism, many atheists - myself included believe that if the god of the bible did exist, the evidence would be abundant. That there is no evidence as you admit is grounds enough to validate atheism as a logical default.

Better yet....
"Blessed are they that believe and have not seen"

I think that's because people of strong faith have Cause to believe.

 

[Bunyip]

I've seen the word 'certainty' applied.

The atheist is 'certain' there is no God'.
(so it seems)

What follows is equally certain.
The chemistry will fail....and then nothing more.

That places the existence of Man as a complete mystery.
There is no Cause for us to be here.
And nothing waiting for us in that last hour....when we might want to go on living.....and then not.

As there is no evidence to denounce the existence of God non-believing is no more 'provable' than a stance of belief.

So with both sides not able to affirm their stance.....
maybe we are going to believe whatever we care to....
and suffer the consequence for having done so.

How could evidence of the non-existence of an immaterial entity exist? What form would it take?

If you think atheism needs such evidence, please give me an example of the sortof evidence that would prove the non-existence of a timeless, immaterial entity that is external to the universe?

 

[Thief]

How could evidence of the non-existence of an immaterial entity exist? What form would it take?

If you think atheism needs such evidence, please give me an example of the sortof evidence that would prove the non-existence of a timeless, immaterial entity that is external to the universe?

Any form it wants to have.....and....
I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[Bunyip]

Better yet....
"Blessed are they that believe and have not seen"

I think that's because people of strong faith have Cause to believe.

Sure, but faith in things unseen - while it may indeed be cause to believe does not present any sort of logically or rationally cohesive case that atheists must answer to.

Why would atheism need proof, evidence or certainty - when theism offers non of those things anyway?

If theism is valid and reasonable without proof, evidence, or certainty - why would atheism need those characteristics in order to have equal merit?

 

[Thief]

Sure, but faith in things unseen - while it may indeed be cause to believe does not present any sort of logically or rationally cohesive case that atheists must answer to.

Why would atheism need proof, evidence or certainty - when theism offers non of those things anyway?

If theism is valid and reasonable without proof, evidence, or certainty - why would atheism need those characteristics in prderto have equal merit?

I don't see that any atheist will ever answer to anything.

They don't believe in Something Greater than themselves.

 

[Bunyip]

Any form it wants to have.....and....
I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Well there can be no such evidence can there? Such evidence can not exist, and therefore is not needed to validate atheism.

There is no such thing as a burden of disproof, especially not for an unevidenced claim.

 

[Thief]

Well there can be no such evidence can there? Such evidence can not exist, and therefore is not needed to validate atheism.

There is no such thing as a burden of disproof, especially not for an unevidenced claim.

And such is faith.....which requires no proving....see Webster's.

That doesn't mean believers lack reason......just evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't see that any atheist will ever answer to anything.

They don't believe in Something Greater than themselves.

That is false, I am answerable to my family, my community, my society, the law, my peers.

My family, my community, the galaxy and so on are all greater than me.

Being answerable to an imaginary deity, who you believe to be superior to you has no greater merit.

 

[Copernicus]

Still, the decision to live our lives as if we're not brains in vats instead of living as if we are is something that's common to everyone, theist or atheist. The fact that this small measure of "faith" is made by atheists doesn't mean that the atheist position is faith-based to the same degree as that of a theist who not only makes assumptions about solipsism, but also has faith in a whole boatload of religious tenets and dogma.

Yes, we are in total agreement on that, which was my explicit point in the following paragraph that you omitted from your quote of my post:

So we can all get confirmation from anyone that water is wet. We trust it will be whenever we feel it on our skins again. We cannot get confirmation that everyone shares your religious experience. Quite the opposite. So we ought to be more wary about that kind of certainty.

In any case, I was commenting on IHaveTheGift's certainty of an afterlife, nothing else.

 

[Bunyip]

And such is faith.....which requires no proving....see Webster's.

That doesn't mean believers lack reason......just evidence.

Uh huh. And of course that is the point! Sure, faith requires no proving - so obviously the absence of faith requires no proving either.

 

[Thief]

Uh huh. And of course that is the point! Sure, faith requires no proving - so obviously the absence of faith requires no proving either.

There you go.
Two opposing stances.....and no possible resolve.

Death takes both.
One lives....the other dies.

 

[Denny Crane!]

There you go.
Two opposing stances.....and no possible resolve.

Death takes both.
One lives....the other dies.

Answers cannot be based on a never known. You just proposed Pascals wager (well done I'm sure) but it dies thanks to its own admitted irrelevance.

 

[Bunyip]

There you go.
Two opposing stances.....and no possible resolve.

Death takes both.
One lives....the other dies.

Both die Thief. According to scripture believers will die and await the end times in their graves. Then most believers go to hell and a lucky few ascend to the heavens.

The likelyhood for believers in Christianity is an eternity in hell, death is clearly a better outcome than eternal torment - so the atheist has rather lessto fearthan does the believer.

 

[Thief]

Well if I am making discussion with those who have no belief in life after death...
then retort is all that be dealt.

I have faith.
I shall live beyond my last breath.

Say as you please.
You cannot convince me otherwise.
You have no proof your death is final.

I do suspect however.....it could be.
What if heaven examines your denial?..and says....so be it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wish it were that simple.
It's simple...yes....but not quite to that extent.

Most of what I suspect is drawn from reason....not dogma.

Over the past five years I hear a cry for evidence ...continually.
There won't be any.
But the atheist seems to be...show me....and THEN I will believe.

So much the 'Doubting Thomas' of gospel fame.

(Ironic I call upon a dogmatic story to support what I just said.)

It's also ironic that you use a story where the person gets the evidence he asked for.

 

[Thief]

Touche'!

 

[Willamena]

Either one believes in deities or they don't. :yes:

No. For some of us, belief is not an ON/OFF switch.

It is and it isn't. In so far as a belief has identity (it is a belief or it isn't) there is an "on/off" switch.

Not sure what you mean.

You seem to be saying that if a belief either exists or doesn't exist, then we can either believe or not believe?

Sort of. "Atheism," as definition for a category of people, is necessarily an objective term. People are categorized by a common theme, and as far as the word objectively "means" something, it means whatever that common theme is. That common theme is its identity, and identity is absolute (in the sense that it is or it is not).

For some, that same objectivity of identity gets translated to the particular belief of the theist, to extend the common theme to "either one believes in god or one does not believe in god." In this form, it holds the same absoluteness. Arguably, it is not a valid translation.

Whether that translation is valid or not, it happens and people use it. Hence, "it is and it isn't."