Why Are You Not an Atheist?

[Nakosis]

The evidence is subjective. Let's say Fred is suspiciously missing, Ted has the motive to kill Fred and has been quoted as wanting to kill Fred. That is still evidence that Ted could've killed Fred. It's subjective evidence but it is still evidence. Now it is a matter of believability. can the evidence be believed? There are cases were people have been convicted of murder with the absence of hard evidence like a body or murder weapon.

Sure folks get convicted on circumstances. An atheist makes a choice not to convict based on circumstances. Lots of possible reasons for Fred's absence. Having a motive is not proof of acting on it. Lot of people get wrongly convicted. Circumstance is not IMO a good basis for conviction. Obviously other folks think differently about it.

I've been wrong enough making decisions based on claims and circumstances that I no longer view these things as a reliable basis for decisions.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Sure folks get convicted on circumstances. An atheist makes a choice not to convict based on circumstances. Lots of possible reasons for Fred's absence. Having a motive is not proof of acting on it. Lot of people get wrongly convicted. Circumstance is not IMO a good basis for conviction. Obviously other folks think differently about it.

I've been wrong enough making decisions based on claims and circumstances that I no longer view these things as a reliable basis for decisions.

But circumstantial or soft evidence is still evidence. If you have people telling you that Ted wanted to kill Fred and had the means and motive to do so, maybe Ted did kill Fred.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see my source of virtues as my subconscious mind. Everything you consider as coming from God I consider as coming from the subconscious mind. While you consider me blind to God I consider you blind to 95% of what goes on in your head. Not that I am picking on you, it's something we are all blind to.

The subconscious mind can provide everything you need as a believer. Does this mean there is no God? No, but it does mean an actual God is not necessary for a spiritual experience.

But does one understand their spiritual experience, or is one but still an animal captive of those experiences?

It is our choice but in the end Faith is to be use in Love and Unity, if it fails to do this, we would be better off with something that will.

If that something can...time will tell.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Problem is, we just don’t have a very consistent written record coming from cultures that were largely oral transmission cultures. The OT texts weren’t written down until at least after the Exile. The gospels weren’t written for at least probably 50 years following the stories being told orally. “Accuracy” is a more modern concept in the transmission of ideas.

That is an issue of the past, the Bible and then the Quran showed a progress if accuracy.

As a Baha'i we can know the accuracy as all works have cime from the Pen of the Messengeror His appointed successors.

Thus in this day we can not use that argument.

Regards Tony

 

[sojourner]

That is an issue of the past, the Bible and then the Quran showed a progress if accuracy.

As a Baha'i we can know the accuracy as all works have cime from the Pen of the Messengeror His appointed successors.

Thus in this day we can not use that argument.

Regards Tony

I disagree. The Bible is what it is. We can’t make it more accurate than it already is.

 

[Audie]

I am sure we are all familiar with the argumentum ad ignorantiam

How does that apply in this instance?

 

[Nakosis]

But circumstantial or soft evidence is still evidence. If you have people telling you that Ted wanted to kill Fred and had the means and motive to do so, maybe Ted did kill Fred.

But you still could be wrong. So lets say you pick any one of the numerously available God to believe in based on soft evidence. Let's say you happen to be wrong and end up evoking the true God's wrath because of your error.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

But you still could be wrong. So lets say you pick any one of the numerously available God to believe in based on soft evidence. Let's say you happen to be wrong and end up evoking the true God's wrath because of your error.

It is a paradox wrapped up in a quagmire. But still Ted could have killed Fred!

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

How does that apply in this instance?

Yes because: Lack of evidence is not...

 

[Nakosis]

It is a paradox wrapped up in a quagmire. But still Ted could have killed Fred!

Then certainly, let's hang Ted.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Then certainly, let's hang Ted.

Better safe than sorry.

 

[Nakosis]

Better safe than sorry.

Yes! Therefore the safe bet is to be an atheist.

 

[Audie]

Yes because: Lack of evidence is not...

Perhaps if you apply that to the possible existence of a
40,000 ft mountain at the North Pole, and dinosaurs
in Antsrctica you will- or no never mind.

Nothing to see hrre.

 

[sojourner]

To me it seems like contaminating the
wonder one might rightly feel, to imagine that
there is something supernatural going on.

Like seeing astrology in the stars. Imagining
that people are so important that their little
behaviours would provoke the almighty to send
a tidal wave. Or how the earth, the whole
universe was made, for them.

That not looking out, it's just looking back at
a fantasy self.

Putting a "god" in there is terrif., if a person
is so narcisstic as that, and is only interested
in "nature" for what it says about him.

Well I suppose the theists will be too busy before
now, figuring up how I am so terribly wrong to allow
for even a moment's consideration of whether
my pov could make any sense.

I get your POV, and I’d say it’s one valid way of perceiving one’s self and the world. But it’s not the only valid way, and it’s not my way. I agree with the narcissist part, but I do think we, individually are important — but important to the whole, not in and of ourselves.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Yes! Therefore the safe bet is to be an atheist.

Or a theist. You atheist and theist are so lucky to have all that certainty that you are right. It's like Heisenberg doesn't exist for either of your groups, all the while when people like me have to wrestle with doubt and questions about existence, you guys get to know everything! Why have the gods cursed me so?

 

[Nakosis]

Or a theist. You atheist and theist are so lucky to have all that certainty that you are right. It's like Heisenberg doesn't exist for either of your groups, all the while when people like me have to wrestle with doubt and questions about existence, you guys get to know everything! Why have the gods cursed me so?

Atheists have no beliefs to be certain about. I suppose the difference between agnostics and atheist is that atheists have decided there is not enough information to wrestle with.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Atheists have no beliefs to be certain about. I suppose the difference between agnostics and atheist is that atheists have decided there is not enough information to wrestle with.

So you do not believe that there is no gods. Hello to theism my friend

 

[Nakosis]

So you do not believe that there is no gods. Hello to theism my friend

Don't you think theism would require some positive belief about gods?
Adding two negatives doesn't make a positive.

 

[Audie]

I get your POV, and I’d say it’s one valid way of perceiving one’s self and the world. But it’s not the only valid way, and it’s not my way. I agree with the narcissist part, but I do think we, individually are important — but important to the whole, not in and of ourselves.

"The whole"?

 

[sojourner]

"The whole"?

World. Everyone has a part to play. Everyone matters. But no one is the center of it all.