Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

Your religion - Christianity - does not exist in a vacuum. It has a clear history, from the Old Testament to the New, littered in ignorance. The Judeo religions, and all religions for that matter, have their foundation in ignorance. Genesis IS evidence of human ignorance.Since science has explained most of the things in our universe, you hang your hats (your God) on the origin of the universe. What you guys like to call "outside" the universe. Read what GDR wrote, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.In other words, you don't use God to explain biological life (some still do) or planetary formation, or galaxy formation, by saying "God did it" anymore. You found an area of human ignorance (the origin of the universe) to say that's what God created - or could have created, depending on which one of you guys is answering.But let us test that: Do you think the cause for the universe is God? If so why?- Oni

Why do you believe there will be an infinite processes when it comes to how life emerged?Do you believe there are an infinite series of processes to the formation of rain?- Oni

I'm guessing you're speaking of yourself in this case also? Since you are an atheist when it comes to Allah, or Vishnu, right?Now you might say you are open to the possibility of Allah or Vishnu, well, so am I. But you've ruled it out, as have I, in so far as the evidence itself falls short of being actual objective evidence.But I don't say god doesn't exist. I simply say everything seems to be explained just fine without having to include magic, the supernatural or god/s.- Oni

Have you ever studied religious history? It's all there, from Gilgamesh to virgin births to coming back from the dead (i.e. resurrections). These are myths and ancient tales. A quick Google search for Bible Stories and Myths, or How the Bible took from Mythology should suffice. If not there are plenty of threads here in this forum dealing with all that. Straggler has been here since 2006... It has been challenged. Many, many times.- Oni

Exhibit human ignorance and based on human ignorance are two different things.You can get some of the story wrong, but basing the story entirely on made up events simply because you lack any knowledge of how something came to be is what I meant by "based on human ignorance." Well isn't that convinient?Frankly, then, how did anyone ever experience or know about god to begin with if god is outside our ability to experience him?If, as you claim, we can't do science, god and the supernatural are unable to be sensed by any of our senses.So, how did anyone ever know about god or the supernatural if they are completely undetectable? It has ALL the makings of a totally made-up story. How do you reconcile that? Then you prove the point that you are basing it on ignorance. You must believe because you lack a certain amount of evidence. You must have faith because there is a lack of evidence.This is the entire point. It is based on ignorance. What type of god and why you believe in that one over any other you could have, by sheer randomness, been born into doesn't really matter.- Oni

It doesn't follow. How can you say humans can experience god but then also say this:

quote:

---

It's not that God is outside the universe, it is that God is simply untestable with science
  —Raphael

---

How then are humans experiencing god that makes it untestable by humans doing science? Wait!!!Now here you contradict yourself and change your position entirely: So now you say we CAN test the supernatural?Then when you said this:

quote:

---

The reason for this perspective is science cannot test the supernatural. It's not that God is outside the universe, it is that God is simply untestable with science. This is the first thing I learned in Biology. Science examines the natural world and creates hypotheses about how it works. You cannot find any proof for the supernatural, and I cannot demonstrate any, because it is the supernatural.
  —Raphael

---

You were just talking out of your ass? Not trying to be rude I just don't know another what to say that. Yes, I get that. But I have already countered that when I said that the scriptures, the Bible and specifically the OT are based on ignorance. I then explained the difference which you aknowledged.So we continue to make the point that your creationism requires there to be ignorance for it to flourish. The Bible is only evidence that some many years ago, a group of people ignorant to the world they lived in wrote a book and made up stories to create a perspective of their reality. It was clearly inaccurate to say the least. It is clearly based on ignorance.This is not evidence based. It is based on stories written by men who were without a doubt ignorant about their world.So I get that it is evidence TO YOU but when examined properly, unbaisly, it proves to not be evidence at all.- Oni

Atheist have no position. We don't say "maybe there is an infinte series of natural processes". You always try to force this position on us to put us at equal plane with you, since you never defend how illogical your position is. Why do you constantly misrepresent atheist?All we say is FOR NOW the evidence shows us natural processes. That is all. Nothing more. No further conclusions. No we don't. There is no reason to come to a conclusion about what is unknown. In fact, that seems nonsensical. How can one make any conclucions about the unknown? Or magical fairies, or a matrix, or some experiment, or created last Thursday, or inside an atom, or....etc, etc, etc.There is no limit to what we can be the result of. But there is no need to create scenarios or imagine supernatural concepts. There is no need or logical reason why we should conclude anything about the unknowns. If there is a limit to our knowledge then good, there is more to discover. Atheist don't "believe" anything. We've gone over this in other threads. For now there is only evidence of natural processes, so we understand that. That is all. No further conclusions. When in doubt compare atheism to religion.- Oni

Seriously? I've been defending my position here for years. Get real, GDR. This is EvC, we do more than just stick to online definitions.I don't actively believe anything - whether there is or isn't a god. Just as you don't actively believe there are no unicorns. It is a matter of deduction based on a lack of evidence. You conclude what is likely or unlikely. So based on the evidence for unicorns, for example, you would say it is unlikely there are unicorns.Same goes for god or the supernatural. I can only say what is likely or unlikely based on the evidence.This is a deeper understanding of atheism that you won't find in an online definition. Sure, there is a level of agnosticism, leaning more toward atheism.I use the Dawkins scale - 1 being "I strongly believe there is a god" and 7 being "I strongly believe there is no god." Like Dawkins, and I would say many others here, I find myself to be a 6 "I don't know if there is a god or not, but based on the evidence it is unlikely."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I gave you a scale where 7 was someone who would say "I believe there is no god" and explaining that I, and many, like Dawkins, would be a 6.I am an atheist, but I am not making the fallacy of claiming any absolutes. This would be the example of a 7 on that scale. You will find no atheist, by what I've read from them, here at EvC who is a 7.The above does not discribe me. No I don't. I just explained in two posts how I don't "believe" anything and mines is more a likely or unlikely position based on lack of evidence. NOT A BELIEF. GDR, please try to follow. It is NOT a matter of belief. I am not making the claim that I BELIEVE there are ONLY natural processes responsible for all life forms.Again: It is not a matter of BELIEFWhat I DO say is, it is UNLIKELY there is anything responsible based on the lack of objective evidence for anything supernatural or an intelligent agency.That is all. It is unlikely.- Oni

Huh? I was going off the top of my head and I got it pretty close.I wrote for a 6 on the scale:

quote:

---

I don't know if there is a god or not, but based on the evidence it is unlikely.

---

Dawkins writes:

quote:

---

I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.

---

How are you reading a misrepresentation here?! I have no nagging doubt because your position lacks objective evidence and requires faith, but I don't. Maybe you are more of a 3 on the scale. Because I don't "believe" in favor of any of the sides. I can't agree with something that misrepresents my position.Look at #6 on the Dawkins scale, and look at what I wrote. Where on either of those do you read "I believe there is no god"...? It is pretty clear that it is a matter of probability, or as I said a matter of likely or unlikely.Here again you misrepresent: Why do you keep shoving belief into my position? I have told you that I DON'T believe there is no god.The conversation goes like this:You: Do you believe in god?
Me: No
You: So you believe there is no god?
Me: No, I don't believe that either.
You: What do you mean?
Me: I don't know if there is a god or not, but from the objective evidence it seems unlikely.No belief at all.- Oni

There are gods that we are ALL 7's for. Thor, Zues, Odin, etc. For many of us, Jesus is also one of these gods. He fits all the same patterns, and all the same evidence that made those gods like Odin and Thor myths are found in the story of Jesus also - and Allah, or Vishnu.So yes, if YOU are talking about the god Jesus many of us would be a solid 7 the way you would be if I was talking about Thor.It's the famous quote from Hitchens or Harris or one of those guys: We are all atheist to some gods, I just go one more than you.However, when the conversation is about the god of a deist - the new age "Energy in the universe that created everything" or "An intelligent agent" - then I fall down to a 6.It is also the reason I call myself an ignostic. A person that needs you to define what you mean by god before I can give my opinion about the god in question.- Oni

YOU can believe that all you want, but I don't believe the opposite as you say.- Oni

It is definitely one sided as far as objective evidence goes. It's amusing to watch GDR try to apply logic to faith though.I can't decide whether he is simply being dishonest or trying to win a debate when he says it is highly unlikely that natural processes are at work when ALL the evidence we have for any phenomena is that of natural processes. Sure, which is a great point also. We are, for lack of a better word, a-theist as far as theology, specifically, goes. Those conceptualized gods of mythology, both Greek and Jewish, have seen better days. So I can fully accept someone saying they're a 7 (6.5 works fine for me) with the available evidence. I take this position when debating a deist. First they need to define what they mean by god before I can look at the available evidence to draw any conclusion.- Oni