.
olavisjo wrote:McCulloch wrote:Would it be safe to say then that you believe in God because you prefer it?
Yes, it would be. That is really what it all boils down to. What do we want to believe.
Thank you for an honest answer.
Many attempt to claim that they have “proof� that their beliefs are valid. Admission that it is personal prefereence acknowledges that the preference is NOT binding upon others or applicable to others. It is simply a personal preference.
olavisjo wrote:I can't believe in the Atheistic world view because I don't see any convincing evidence that it is true.
I agree. I cannot accept ANY statement that “gods� do not exist OR that they do exist. There is simply no evidence.
My personal position is, “I don’t know, there is no evidence; and therefore I refuse to make a decision without evidence or to commit to either side of the issue�.
That is a statement of Agnosticism (defined as: the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable;: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god). However, I prefer the term “Non-Theist� to avoid problems of “degree of disbelief�.
olavisjo wrote:Atheism reads too much like Goldilocks--Once upon a time there was nothing, not even one cubic meter of empty space, not a proton, electron or even a photon was to be found. Then one magical moment all that is, decided to explode into existence and the very space we see around us appeared and particles formed with properties that were not too strong or too weak but just right so that they could form all the complicated structures that we see to this day.
Theism also reads like Goldilocks – Invisible, undetectable super being(s) always existed and created the universe from nothing – showing particular favoritism toward a minor planet of an undistinguished solar system in one of billions of galaxies AND focusing upon a particular tribe of people on that insignificant planet AND sending representatives (angels, devils, godmen, giants, etc) for a brief period then stopping contact – BUT requiring that humans “believe in god� to acquire “everlasting life� in an “afterlife�. NONE of the above can be verified with ANY evidence other than opinion, guess, conjecture, hearsay, ancient claims, etc.
Tales of “eternal bliss� for “eternity� for those who “have faith� that invisible, undetectable “gods� will “save� them from “hell� sound very much like fairytales made to assuage fear of death. Is there any reason other than wishful thinking to believe such tales?
olavisjo wrote:To me it takes more dogged resolution to cling to that notion than just accept God.
YES – it is FAR more difficult to seek real, accurate answers to questions about nature than to make up or accept fanciful explanations that cannot be shown to be true. YES, it is easier to “just accept god� than to search for true answers. “Goddidit� is an extremely simple and simplistic “answer� that cannot be shown to be true, accurate or honest.
olavisjo wrote: McCulloch wrote:But we are easily fooled.
Speak for yourself, please.
McCulloch speaks accurately for humanity. Humans are easily fooled (but often think that they are not). Those who are most convinced that they cannot be fooled are often the easiest to fool because they typically do not require verification of their conclusions AND because they typically refuse to question their own conclusions.
olavisjo wrote:McCulloch wrote:Without an objective validation of your reasons how can you be sure? What if your assumption that there is a God did not logically connect the dots? Personally, I would prefer to have unanswered questions than questions answered incorrectly. It may be uncomfortable, but it is more realistic.
Have you found any objective validation for the Atheist world view?
That is a typical theistic dodge of a very valid question. You tell others that gods exist. It is legitimate for them (us) to ask for “objective validation� of the truth of your statement.
You CANNOT provide that validation yet you claim to speak truth. One is not entitled to tell others, “I speak truth but you have to take my word because I can’t show you any proof�. Saying that a person must “believe before you can see proof� is dishonest and dishonorable.
Remember that many (me included) do NOT maintain the position that gods don’t exist – only that there is no evidence either way and that it is NOT rational to make a decision on a matter for which there is no evidence.
olavisjo wrote:Science does not validate it, all science is, is observation.
Science is FAR more than observation. That is only the first step in understanding the events, processes and products of nature. Have you studied science beyond introductory level?
olavisjo wrote:You can observe that objects fall and you can write a formula to describe the effect but you still don't know why they do. You don't know why the needle of a compass points North. You don't know why there is a wonderful consciousness inside of your body that has feelings, wants, desires and love for others.
That is correct. The cause of many effects is unknown. That is when the phrase, “I don’t know� is applied. It is far better to honestly acknowledge that one does not know something than to make up fanciful “explanations� that are not based in fact. Those who “believe� that invisible super beings cause specific effects on Earth or in life do so because they WISH TO BELIEVE, and NOT because they have actual answers.
olavisjo wrote:Was it all one big cosmic fluke or was it intended? There is an equal number of reasons to believe either, choose this day whom you will serve...as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Do you attempt to recruit others to your belief system? Many do promote their beliefs to others claiming (with NO evidence) that they possess truth and a means to “salvation� in an “afterlife�.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
