Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

Atheist = sinner. "All born athesits" = "All born sinners". The Christian doctrine of original sin finally getting through - even if through a glass darkly - to you.

Amen

They belong to the something else camp.An aside: there is a reality tv show running in the UK called Big Brother - you probably have a version in the States. A few years back there was a not particularily bright girl called Jade in it. She became a little bit famous for her not being that bright.Shes in the news again. Apparently she went to India and came back saying that she really admired a religion she saw there. The Hare Christians

Do you mean we will see this objectively or subjectively FallacyCop? You can mix colours or you can put a blindfold on - both equally objective in themselves. One results in objective yellow and the other in objective black.You shouldn't push the analogy too far for when you do you realise that in the end 'objective' is only a theory which supposes that that which we experience around us is real. Its called "objective reality" curiously enough. And there is no proof of it - its a theory. Wavelength etc only describes that which is assumed in the first place. The explanation (wavelength) is a derivitive of the objective reality (red)

If red is not objective and we must revert to wavelength could you explain to me how red could ever be made objective to anybody? You can explain the science alright: 100 units = Red and 200 units = blue. What has now become objective. 100 units? 200 units? Now lets figure out how 'unit' can be made 'objective' to anybody. Can I suggest infinte regression at this point?Edited by iano, : change blind man to - anybody

see edit

and the rest of the post. It would seem that there is no such thing as objective at all. Not even objective reality. Which whilst possibly being the case kind of short circuits the discussion.A 'unit of wavelength' is only an objective thing to those who can see it. A person without the intellectual capacity to 'see' it never will either. Does that make it non-objective?

It is useful to illustrate from time to time that the sword which a person yields can slit their own throat as easily as it can mine. One might assume the higher ground but in debate one should be able to show how one arrived there. Debate doesn't revolve around simply supposing your assumption is sufficient. What can often happen is that there is agreement on the assumption and folk can strike forth from there. If no agreement then I don't apologise for pointing out that fact.A common description of objectivity (scientfic objectivity is but one attempt to work with objective reality) involves numerous observers seeing the same thing. My original point was that the observer (any observer of any objective thing in whatever way objectivity is being defined) must be able to 'see' the object.Not all are in a position to be observers. But that doesn't mean the object is not objective.

The original point was that all something had to be in order to be objective was to be apparent to all observers observing it. Someone made the point earlier of people looking at a comet from different angles. Slightly different views but both looking at something objective. This is not scientific objectivity which applies tools for a particular purpose. But the comet is objectively a comet to the observers who can observe it.That some don't see it because they are not in a position to observe the comet doesn't make it any less objective. Even if only one person saw it is is objective. That they might not be able to prove that they did in a court of law only means that the kind of objectivity a court of law deals with is another kind of objectivity than this one.Science doesn't possess objectivity. It owns it only in so far as it seeks to deal with the objective reality we all (I suppose) assume to be the case in a particular way.And so to God. I observe God. I even talk to Faith and others who I have never met before but who observe the same thing (if from a slightly different perspective from me). Millions of others do too.You don't believe us and thats your perogative. But if someone wants to tell us that what we see isn't objective simply because they cannot observe it then they will have to form a slightly better basis for doing so that is being done to date.

I haven't actually compared notes with all the others to know objectively. But the peer review principle operates effectively enough (you are familiar enough with it yourself so I won't explain further). You don't necessarily have to go out into the field and do all the 'science' yourself in order to to be sure of that which you state to be the case.We might be looking at the comet from lots of different angles but we are agreed that it is indeed a comet.

Perhaps by your scientifiky definition. But who says that has overriding say in anything?How does a person prove the existance of a sunset to a blind person. They can explain all day long but they cannot prove it. This does not make it unobjective. The problem lies with the blind persons lack of ability to see. Now the blind person, who cannot see the sunset might deny that there is any sunset at all. He can say that the person describing it is spinning them a yarn. Understandable, expecially since a person born blind has no way of knowing they are blind in the first place.They need to trust others when they are told they are blind. They don't have to of course. They can say that unless they get proof in a way that meets their 'in blindness' definition of proof then they will not believe itAnyway. I never said I could prove God I was just saying that he was objective in the sense that any observer capable of seeing him will see him. I can point you in the direction of him at best.

You apply the same logic to your health care plan as you do to this no doubt? Die/Sickness... they can happen at any time. It pays have an insurance policy

Content with something you have no inkling of. Pray elaborate.. I must say that at 29 death had about as much relevance for me as it appears to have for you. Put on a life vest in that pool of yours and live a litte longer. Your view is likely to change Another works-merchant comes out of the closet. This would all be just dandy so long as "what you did" was the measure the the twist-of-faith-god-in-your-own-image-and-likeness happens to use. It could be any number of things. Why pick on this one? If you don't know him then such misrepresentations are to be expected. For what has one to go on except the idle wanderings of an man-sized imaginationRemember that life jacket y'hear!

I said I couldn't prove God and I can't. The problem lies not with Gods lack of objectivity but in your inability to observe the evidence in such a way so as to conclude what everyone who can concludes. Take this for example: This is not a proof. Feeling the sun on you face doesn't prove a sunset anymore than hearing crickets proves a sunset. What the blind man might be able to achieve is a theory about the sunset. He would have to express total faith too in the people who are telling him about it. A sunset is not an objective reality to a blind man for one reason and one reason only: he cannot observe it - he can only infer it. Quite a different thing. Next you'll be telling me that ToE is an objective reality as opposed to an inferred realityThe definitions of objectivity include such words as "external reality" "facts" "object" "verifiable". You can't falsify an objective things like a sunset due to it being directly observable. You could shine an infra-red heater on the face of a blind man, fiddle with his braille watch and play a recording of crickets chirruping and so provide a sunset in the middle of cloudy afternoon for him. Thus are false sunsets generated as are false gods.The problem lies with your lack of ability to observe PY. Not Gods objective reality

No thats what it means to you. Your basic understanding of the gospel is so shockingly low fc it is little wonder that all you can do it pick at the crumbs that fall to the ground. Had you even elemental knowledge the you would have seen the link in the quip.What does an insurance policy do in essence? It pays up for that which you wouldn't be able to afford to pay yourself. Your going to die one day. Have you got cover for that eventuality or are you planning on paying the price of your sin yourself. Intellectual integrity? You're a fallacycop who attempts to plant the evidence on any suspect you can find in order to rack up arrests.Go and get familiar with what that about which you atttempt to speak on. Me, I tend to keep out of science threads for the simple reason I am not conversant enough with science to spot the flaws where they may arise. When I do, I get messages like this one to you.Case dismissed...