Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Depends on several factors. Is your only goal in philosophy to acquire empirical, physical evidence? Are you receptive to intuition or religious experiences as informing your view of material existence? Evidence is a funny thing-- not always static, and of course, by its very nature must be subjected to prejudicial, flawed human inferences and analysis.

To answer what I think your question is, yes, 'evidence' means empirical scientific evidence.

Atheist = absolutely denies the existence of a God. No evidence in play. Note that lack of positive evidence is not negative evidence.

True believer = absolutely confirms the existence of a God. Also no evidence in play.

Neither side is aware that they are identical in making unsupported absolute claims.

As a side note, if your goal is to acquire evidence, then you are engaged in science, not philosophy.

I am a christian. Why? Because I want to be. I don't like the world if christianity isn't true. Do I need proof? Nope.

[Dragonsblood1987]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am a christian. Why? Because I want to be. I don't like the world if christianity isn't true. Do I need proof? Nope.

absolutely not being an asshole here, but whats your reason for holding that belief? is it a fear of death and an inability to cope with possible non existence? is it the comfort of believing that your life is in another's hands, allowing you to not worry as much about what happens? i dont understand why you wouldnt like the world if christianity isnt the right religion. all that means is that god is responsible for all the terrible shit in reality.

[fadetree]

Also not trying to be an asshole, but I simply don't care whether you understand it or not. Actually, I don't necessarily understand it either, and I don't care about that. I was clear in what I said.

[Dragonsblood1987]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also not trying to be an asshole, but I simply don't care whether you understand it or not. Actually, I don't necessarily understand it either, and I don't care about that. I was clear in what I said.

im trying to understand the logic behind it, because i find peoples various reasoning interesting. ive studied pretty much every religion there is for that reason

[Malice_Mizer]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As a side note, if your goal is to acquire evidence, then you are engaged in science, not philosophy.

That's kind of the point. People who demand physical evidence for metaphysical inquiries are missing the point entirely. As a subjective experiencer of physical reality, you necessarily cannot objectively observe it, contrary to what many materialists believe. You can't be neutral on a moving train. Demanding physical evidence for the existence of God is like demanding physical evidence that you exist. Inferences and intuitive knowledge are an entirely different beast.

[fadetree]

I'll add that I wasn't talking about religion and which one is 'right'. I don't think God gives much of a crap about religion. Christianity itself doesn't make a very good religion, in the sense that religion, any religion, is about making deals with your deity, trading correct behavior for not being fried in the afterlife or getting beaten up by current life. Christianity has no such deals to make.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's kind of the point. People who demand physical evidence for metaphysical inquiries are missing the point entirely. As a subjective experiencer of physical reality, you necessarily cannot objectively observe it, contrary to what many materialists believe. You can't be neutral on a moving train. Demanding physical evidence for the existence of God is like demanding physical evidence that you exist. Inferences and intuitive knowledge are an entirely different beast.

Yes, I agree with you. The whole idea that you could, even in principle, prove or disprove the existence of God is silly. Thats why I said agnosticism is the only reasonable standpoint.

[Malice_Mizer]

Originally Posted by Dragonsblood1987 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

im trying to understand the logic behind it, because i find peoples various reasoning interesting. ive studied pretty much every religion there is for that reason

That's interesting, because your questions are honestly pretty juvenile. If you believe that people adhere to religious systems and a belief in God simply to comfort themselves and avoid any liability for their own lives, then I don't think you've dug deep enough into the nature of human spirituality. Even the way you frame the questions betrays a shallow attempt at understanding.

For example the problem of pain is explicitly addressed and concretely satisfied in any orthodox Christian theology: God allows evil to exist to bring about a greater good, i.e. we are unable to view the entire "puzzle," and experience only a small piece, our own piece, of creation. Therefore, any judgment you make about the fairness or unfairness of existence is itself unfair, because you have no viewed existence as a completed whole. It's a teleological understanding of existence that is honestly supported now by science (now that science has abandoned the static-universe theory it slavish held onto until 50 years ago), which says that our universe has a beginning and will one day end. Until then-- until you're able to view creation as the mind that conceived it-- any analysis you make is flawed and incomplete.

[fadetree]

ooh someone's been reading Mr. Lewis.

[Vyal]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's interesting, because your questions are honestly pretty juvenile. If you believe that people adhere to religious systems and a belief in God simply to comfort themselves and avoid any liability for their own lives, then I don't think you've dug deep enough into the nature of human spirituality. Even the way you frame the questions betrays a shallow attempt at understanding.