'Evidence' or the 'lack of': The same journey

Lindsay had atheists rejecting god. Atheist reject god no more then they reject Batman. Is someone drawn closer to cartoonity if they contemplate Batman?

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

Hi lindsay, and welcome to EvC.I was having a conversation along these lines with a fellow believer only yesterday. I was recalling how, close to but still prior to my conversion how it was that I railed against the bringer-of-good-news-to-me; yy mother as it happens. She'd bring up the issue of God a she understood it; sin, men lost, no-such-thing-as-evolution, personal relationship, rebellion, my being fundamentally incomplete...and I'd grow more impatient, resentful, angry until finally I'd tell her to shove it were I wasn't in the habit of telling my mother to shove things. I mean, I'd be absolutely livid with her - and this from a son who'd never so much as dissed his mother.My friend remarked that it was my "love of truth" that caused me to react so strongly. Exposure to what elements of truth contained in my mothers diatribe when recognised by me and because I loved truth I was faced with what that truth had to say about me, and me didn't like what it heard. I didn't not like it enough to bury the truth (and so escape it) but I didn't like it.He remarked that the alternative, a hatred of the truth would manifest in the form of apathy. Someone who hates the truth will bury it so as to render what it has to say to them, meaningless to them.This is not to say that those who reject God but wonder about God are necessarily going to be saved - at some p;oint. But I certainly wouldn't be put off by an angry response.

I don't think I really understand your point here. What exactly is "cartoonity"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like what you're saying here is that the people who have achieved real insight towards the existence of God are the ones who weigh evidence and faith and decide that faith is the more important one. But how about the atheists, who have become enlightened about God by deciding that evidence is more important?

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

You are new here and I should probably make myself known to you as what seems to be the bogey man atheist of the current EvC community. As far as I am concerened all the available objective evidence points towards gods as the product of the human mind. This has resulted in much derision and no little bad feeling between myself and the likes of RAZD, LindaLou, Catholic Scientist and others who are far from creationists (and far from fools either IMHO) but who vehemnetly advocate the existence of "something else" in one supernatural godly form or another.However..... I personally think that the evidence is important. In almost every way except their theistic/deistic beliefs those who believe in god on the basis of faith rather than evidence also seem to consider evidence primarily important. But they make an exception for god. BUT....I think we all make exceptions. We all special plead something. I think we all abandon reason and evidence for one thing or another in establishing our beliefs. Just not necessarily god(s) in the case of atheists.It is my opinion that those who believe in god on the basis of faith (i.e irrespective of, and quite possibly contradictory to, evidence) are doing nothing that we do not all do at some point in some way regarding some beliefs (most of which have nothing to do with gods). And if that achieves subjective benefits like higher purpose for those who choose to believe in gods then all luck to them as far as I am concerned.But if anyone tells me that their belief in god is evidenced I will continue to point out the flaws in their arguments and in doing so invoke the wrath of the theistic/deistic community.

I basically agree with everything you're saying. Just one question, though:If, as you say, everyone agrees that evidence is most important, then those who believe in God should realize that their beliefs go against what is most important. And that means that they should realize that they are special pleading. So why don't they? Why is it that no one admits, "I'm going against all evidence when I say that God exists, and the only reason I'm doing so is to improve my life"? You'd think that if more people did this, then there would be many less arguments.

I suppose that what I would call the most "enlightened" believers do claim exactly that in one sense or another. There are some at EvC who do exactly that. Follow the link to follow the links: Message 31I think most of the argument is derived from the less enlightened. Those who are determined to consider their beliefs evidenced, or at least as evidenced and thus rational as non-belief, despite any argument or evidence to the contrary.The rationally irrational (i.e. rationally faithful) are generally some of the most sane people here. Even if I don't really agree with or ultimately understand their conclusions personally I accept them for what they are.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Domino, how's the battle so far? As a counterpoint, I can suggest reading Pseudoskepticism and logic and see if you can find any of the evidence the atheists claims supports the claim that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.IMHO, what you have are a bunch of people arguing personal opinions basied on their subjective worldviews, and not conclusions based on empirical objective evidence. The reason this issue keeps rising up and is not resolved is that neither side has sufficient evidence, all they have are arguments based on interpretations of various things (Straggler's use of "people make things up") to explain their position, not evidence. So where do you stand?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Your favoured strawman (disproving the undisprovable) rears it's ugly head yet again. ***sigh***No. The reason this issue keeps resurfacing is because you are unable to differentiate between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities. Message 153Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What is divinity if God does not exist? The state of blissful existence experienced prior to parents waking on a Saturday morning.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

Hi RAZD,First of all, here's where I stand.And about my previous post: Perhaps I phrased that badly. I did not intend to say that belief in God contradicts atheistic evidence (which there is not very much of, as you point out). I meant to say that by accepting an unsupportable hypothesis, those who believe in God are essentially saying they are willing to make decisions and form beliefs based on faith alone, rather than evidence. I for one accept this, and so (as I've been told) do some other people on this forum.(By the way, is it possible to set your signature to show by default?)

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

Ah, I think I see. I think "divinity" in this context is supposed to mean enlightenment towards the existence/non-existence of deities. If a divine being does exist, then divinity is the conclusive realization of its existence. If such a being does not exist, then divinity is the conclusive realization of the absence of deities. Or so I gather from the OP.

Hi Domino, It's part of your profile setup. You can also chose whether you want email notification of replies and whether or not you want your email accessible, display where you are from, etc. The same holds for anyone wanting to hold a negative position without having objective evidence in support.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

And if the "negative position" is actually a positively evidened position regarding a mutually exclusive alternative to an unevidenced claim..........? Message 153Your cognitive blindspots continue to repeatedly manifest themselves.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, I see the place to define your signature, but nowhere to set it to display by default. Agreed. However, most negative positions concerning specific deities are evidenced. For example, Zeus is said to cause lightning by throwing down thunderbolts from the sky. Using the scientific method, we have learned that lightning does not come from thunderbolts but from electric charge, which is not something that can be thrown. Therefore, the Zeus that throws down thunderbolts cannot exist.The only negative position that truly lacks evidence (and if I'm wrong about this, I'd love for somebody to throw some evidence out there for me) is the position that no supernatural being exists whatsoever, and that the universe was created entirely by natural processes (as opposed to by some divine catalyst).