~why johnny (atheist) can't beleive ~ and the cure~

This is simplistic. It doesn't take an enormous amount of imagination to dream up a very long (and constantly growing) list of things for which there is no evidence. The full list is flatly infinite. But who has time to explicitly disbelieve in an infinity of things whose existence is not evidenced? So for reasons of sanity and simple practicality, the DEFAULT we all follow in nearly every one of these infinity of cases, is that nothing exists unless some evidence of it should surface. This isn't exactly disbelief in all those things, it's simply a rational recognition of the nature of evidence.

Scientists fall all over themselves investigating something anomalous. As Asimov said, the most important phrase in science isn't "Eureka, I've found it" but rather "hmmm, that's funny..." As an example, dark matter wasn't even dreamed of before someone noticed that certain visible parts of the universe weren't acting quite as they should. The evidence was subtle, but most important the evidence was unexpected. That's critical. A hint, a clue, is all we need.

Atheists argue that when it comes to the supernatural, we cannot even DEFINE the "supernatural". We don't even know what evidence of it might look like, never having seen any that withstands any informed scrutiny.

But atheists go further than that, and argue that if the supernatural existed, we would almost surely be overwhelmed with evidence of it. If any god should ever DO anything supernatural, we'd be all over it. But it never happens. What is ALLEGED to be the action of the supernatural, never is. Gods are like the elephant in the bedroom - if it were there, surely there would be SOME way to detect it. And if it defies all efforts at detection, then (as one philosopher said) the distinction between the indetectible and the nonexistent is too small to be meaningful.

 

This conundrum is resolved by understanding that we must be speaking about multiple gods. If you study the times of Abraham, you find that initially there were multiple gods, and these tended to be local - the god of this lake, or that woods. Gradually, within one culture, one god gained primacy. The First Commandment doesn't say there is only one god, it says that the god of OUR culture must be Boss God. It outright concedes that there are other gods, but demands to be primary god.

Move forward a millennium or so, and that primary god has come to be regarded as the only "real" god, with everyone else worshiping false gods. And that one real god was quite bloodthirsty, really a nasty character. For the political purposes of a primitive tribe, it was a god to fear, not a god to love.

Move forward another millennium, and we still have one "real" god, but now it's a god of love and compassion. And associated history shows that the metamorphosis of this god (or these gods) tracks the evolution of the culture that designed it. As one would naturally expect.

I think the "all the same god" crowd simply does not grasp the sense of those thousands of years. Hell, the Europeans laugh at Americans because Americans think 100 years is a long time, and Europeans can look back 700-800 years! But it was 2000 years from Abraham to Paul. Compare European culture of today with early dark ages fuedalism 1000 years ago. Even the languages they spoke are incomprehensible to us. Who would argue that the god of the Goths was the same as today's god of the Baptists?

 

Post of the week !

- - - Updated - - -

Second best post of the week

 

True. Nothing wrong with simplicity. However, even trying to break it down into simple terms still has atheists disagreeing, running off an hiding and mixing terms.

 

Of course he was real, a real Hobbit....prove he wasn't

 

Having no evidence of something is not the same as without evidence. There is either evidence or no evidence. Believing in no deity because there is nothing proving there is a deity.

 

Nice twist, but not true. Believing in no deity is fine. Saying "there is no deity" as fact without evidence is as erroneous as saying "there is a deity" without the evidence to back it up.

 

No, denying something exists that someone else made up is not erroneous, it's common sense.

You're insisting that there HAS to be the possibility of a "deity"....there doesn't.

If my neighbor believes there are pink elephants dancing on his lawn I would not be erroneous in saying, "no, there isn't".

 

Not without proof it isn't.

"HAS to be a possibility"? Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

Do you ever think outside all preconceived ideas you've been fed?

I'm afraid you listen only to yourself and will never get past "there IS a god because I said so because I said so because I said so"

Just like the neighbor who says, "There are dancing elephants on my lawn because I said so"

 

Absolutely! Do you?

FWIW, even Richard Dawkins doesn't rule out "possibility". Smart people don't do that. Smart people recognize the possibility, but also consider the likelihood. This explains why Dawkins, on his own belief scale, counts himself a 6.9, not a 7. He understands it's stupid to rule out the possibility of something without evidence.

Have a nice day, FoxHastings. I can tell by your tone and insults you have nothing intelligent to say to me.

 

What insults? Because I don't agree with you you're insulted? Weird.

Tell me this before you "pout out".

If a person recognized the possibility of some magical being or that there might really be elephants dancing on the lawn, what difference would it make?

If you can't enjoy watching the elephants dance it doesn't matter if they're real or not...

YOU refuse to recognize that there may not be a god......it would be stupid to rule out that possibility....

 

Not exactly my argument...but true nonetheless. Obviously it seems a bit "odd" for all the talk of "worship no other gods but Jehovah" in the Old Testament....unless the Hebrews accepted the equal reality of other gods....just considered them "evil gods".

Today, those who try to make apologia for those references TRY to claim "Oh, that's referring to the 'god' of lust...or the 'god' of hoarding your wealth....symbols of human sins"....but that's a pretty far stretch to try to keep "monotheism" as consistant....and not "OUR god is the good god; those other gods are real but bad guys"

 

Since when have the writings of mankind always been logical?

IF there is a fundamental power in or outside the Universe, I doubt anyone on this planet could ever understand it.

 

If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. It is you getting all twisted up.
Can you say with 100% certainty, there is no tooth fairy. By your logic, you can't.

 

Correct. I can say there is a high probability there isn't a tooth fairy since there is no evidence of magical beings but oodles of evidence parents place the money under pillows, but I cannot say with "100% certainty, there is no tooth fairy" just like Richard Dawkins cannot say with 100% certainty there is not God. He's just fairly certain about it and believes there is little likelihood to the existence of eternal beings.

Do you understand the difference here, [MENTION=52125]dairyair[/MENTION]?

 

That would put god and the tooth fairy in the same category. I can agree.
And I've learned throughout life, never say never, and never say always.

But there are some things that can be 100% certain at any given point in time.

 

Excellent advice and one not everyone on this thread seems to understand.

 

Sometimes those words roll off too easy. I am guilty of it myself. Not thinking, being emotional, tired, what have you.

 

That's both understandable and agreed. We all have bad days. Some, as I'm sure you've noticed on this and other forums, seem to have lifetime of "bad days" all strung together.

 

The difference isn't about probabilities though. The idea of a fairy that exchanges teeth for money in the middle of the night is logically consistent. The idea of something existing independently of time being able to create is not.

 

Disagreed, but I'd love to see you prove your thoughts with 100% certainty.

 

I have no particular issues with people of faith if they will just keep it to themselves and leave me out of it:
(1) I don't appreciate any kind of public prayer....I bought a ticket or paid for my gas to get there
(2) I don't want to see "In God We Trust" On Anything
(3) I resent a public display of the ten commandments or a Virgin Birth manger scene during the holidays
(4) I will not swear to god.....I don't believe in god
(5) If so called missionaries show up at my door I send them on their way

Chances are pretty good that for the first time in 2000 years the young people are catching onto the spread of fairy tales:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/survey-one-in-five-americans-is-religiously-unaffiliated/

Washington – The fastest growing "religious" group in America is made up of people with no religion at all, according to a Pew survey showing that one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion.

The number of these Americans has grown by 25% just in the past five years, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The survey found that the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing even faster among younger Americans.

Thirty-three million Americans now have no religious affiliation, with 13 million in that group identifying as either atheist or agnostic, according to the new survey.

Pew found that those who are religiously unaffiliated are strikingly less religious than the public at large. They attend church infrequently, if at all, are largely not seeking out religion and say that the lack of it in their lives is of little importance.

 

So you think displaying an atheist symbol should also be banned? That people can't wear this?:


I disagree on such limitations. What I do agree upon is that such things shouldn't be taxpayer funded. If someone want's to put up a manger in their yard, that's their choice. If they want to put it up on the courthouse steps, then no.

 

I agree with what you say. I live in rural east Tennessee....if an atheist around here even let it be known his ass would be in danger much less displaying something on the clothing.