icedagger wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:icedagger wrote:Naw. You can experience love, but you can't experience god.
Except you can, and that is the point. You don't understand, because you have not experienced it. Period. And that is the entire point.
You think it is the same as believing in teapots, because you don't accept, have not seen or felt any evidence of God. So, you dismiss those who say they know him, know God, feel God, because you yourself cannot feel it.
As I said, I accept some people feel what they think is the presence of the abrahamic god. I accept some people feel just as strongly what they think is the presence of vishnu, or baron samedi, or thor. Or that elvis is still alive. You're just dismissing one claim fewer than me.
No, I dismiss the claim that there is no God. We dismiss the same number of claims, exactly.
PLAYER57832 wrote:To take another example, i worked a long time on streams. I could design structures for a certain size creek that would stay, period. An engineer would look at equations... and, well, I could do better. Why? because the engineers equations are not really exact. An Engineer, even today, even with chaos math cannot 100% predict certain aspects of a stream. I could.
So, you have concrete evidence for your expertise in the form of the stability of your structures. Well done, I would accept you could indeed accurately predict "certain aspects of a stream". [/quote]
Except, it is not something predictable, testable, etc. More than one engineer dismissed that knowledge, in real life. (not actually mine, that of my bosses).
PLAYER57832 wrote:So, well, when you say that I am stupid or just misinformed or some such. You are wrong. I cannot prove it, no. I don' t try. I do say that even though experience with God is not something you understand, that, as a scientist, you hold out the possibility that we do really and truly understand something you do not.
No concrete evidence for your expertise here though. I have no more reason to believe what you say is true than to listen to those who say elvis is alive.[/quote]
You had to do it... Elvis, Tea pots.. same thing.
Concrete, testable evidence is not the only kind of evidence. If it were , no child would feel loved.
PLAYER57832 wrote:icedagger wrote:Again, I wouldn't accept the "personal evidence" based on emotion as evidence of god, since god isn't the only possibly explanation for the emotion's existence.
The rest of your post seems to be arguing that theism and athiesm are both just forms of belief, neither of which is provable and both of which are therefore logically equally valid. I don't accept that athiesm is a belief, merely the absence of one. No leap of faith is required from me at any point. I wouldn't claim to be intellectually superior to someone just because they believe in god, though.
You are more respectful, certainly than other comments. I appreciate that. However, science is at too critical a juncture right now to be willing to so completely dismiss entire lines of thought simply because a few wish it to be so. The current atheist bias among some scientists is exactly and precisely as harmful as the stranglehold that the old Roman Catholic church held for years on investigation. It matters not that you can claim to "justify" your position. That works for you, but it is not absolute proof.
I'm pretty puzzled as to what you're suggesting here. Should science accept people's deepest-held beliefs as evidence? Should expeditions be sent to the moon in search of elvis? What scientific developments are being shackled roman catholic church-style by athiesm? [/quote]
It is not
scientific evidence. It is, however reason to move forward in certain areas of science. As for shackles... well, Caprinicus, Gallileo, etc were not precisely welcomed with open arms. It took the Protestant reformation and the idea that people could think for themselves, dispute the hierarchy.
As for scientific shackles. Right now, Christians still dominate. However, when you dismiss any alternative simply out of hand, then you, by its very nature, necessarily also omit many other things. For example, it is very likely that other universes exist. It is quite likely that many rules we consider "set" won't apply in that other universe. Just grasping those types of permeations, the possibilities means being able to look outside what you can prove, to consider the "other".
The "other" is what lead people to create machines that fly, it is what lead people to explore, it is what leads people to think and challenge anything that is "known" and accepted.
I don't have a lot of respect for flat earthers, there is just too much evidence contrary. However, we need folks, even folks like that who live on the "edge" to challenge us constantly. If you cannot understand that, without information, people could think the earth is flat, then you won't bother to take the time to make sure the true concepts are taught. If you don't understand that is is possible for people to think that way, then you cannot possibly communicate with whole groups of people.
I realize you consider belief in God to be equivalent to flat earthers, but the difference is that you cannot prove our beliefs wrong. We can prove that the earth is not flat.
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, atheism IS a belief. It is a belief because it can neither be proven true or proven false. Until it can, it is no better or worse than a positive belief in God. Anything else is a semantics game and not real.
I don't believe in god in the same way that you don't believe elvis is alive. By your logic, believing elvis is dead is no more or less valid than believing he is alive.[/quote]
No, Elvis being dead is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of proof. My belief in God is also a matter of proof, just a proof that does not lend itself to be trotted out to others, particularly on the internet. And that is the whole point.
Once again, you take something which is known to be false.. not even a true matter of possible believe, and claim that it is somehow equivalent to belief in God, which has proof and evidence, evidence you might not see, but which is really and truly seen by many, many people. We believe in something that you cannot disprove. You just don't wish to believe it could be true.
No, the only difference is that atheism is your belief. Else, there is no more evidence for your position or mine. In fact, I would suggest there is much more evidence for God. If I did not see it, I would not believe.
That is the other distinction. I understand that you don't see any evidence. I understand that this is why you believe Atheistically. I also understand that that belief is very central to your core being, something that, if challenged would shake your world irrevocably. That is the nature of belief. Its just that you, and others here wish to assert it is not belief. That is just wrong. Just because you base your belief on a failure to see evidence, makes it no less a belief.
There are two alternatives. 1. proof that can be shared and tested, etc. That is the realm of science. 2. things that cannot yet be tested or proven. Those are the realm of belief.
Belief is not necessarily inferior to proof. Belief takes us places where absolute proof cannot possibly go. They take us into the realms of what make us human. Art, music, feelings, emotions, etc... and religion. ALL religion, including atheism.
