Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Might it be because "nature abhors a vacuum?" I'm always reminded of Freewill by Rush, and especially the line, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." So, from my perspective, there is a void there to be filled and it must be filled by something.
This would be the thing most misunderstood by believers. They're so caught up in believing and worshiping that they can't even comprehend the idea that not everyone else is the same.
How much do you worry about the void not filled by your lack of belief in a continual cycle of death and rebirth? Probably not at all - you wouldn't have even thought about the idea unless I mentioned the concept. The void not filled by your god in our lives is the same.
The problem is not that we've seen an airplane and don't know what to do with it. It's that we've been shown empty space with a claim that there is an airplane there.
And rather than describe the mechanics and function, we are told that really, it's very pretty.
Then we get various factions of airplane believers arguing about whether the seats are leather, fabric, or plastic. One gets the distinct impression that none of the airplane believers have ever seen the plane either.
Is the position that the other positions are unsubstantiated really a position?
Perhaps, I have a meta-position, if you'll forgive the jargon. I have a position on their positions
If we can't see evidence of any god, of the spiritual, then we don't reject gods; we reject the claims of their existence.
Yeah, it's semantics. I argue semantics from time to time because if we don't we get equivocation. As a joke on FB, I said "Life is a disease and it's terminal." In response, a friend said something like "what about heaven?". There was a subtle shift in the meaning of the word life where I clearly meant physical life and nothing else and he shifted it like he had a point.IMO, yes.
Shrug. If you like. As I said, the argument is largely semantic. However it looks like you must jump through hoops to maintain your distinction, and sometimes even struggle with that.
Actually, I think version 1 and 2 are essentially similar. There is a 3rd version. Let me re-write:Consider the following 2 versions of a quote taken from your post.
"We reject your claim that there is anything."
"We reject ... that there is anything."
I know I've twisted it somewhat, but I did that to emphasize how you're trying to walk a razor's edge. When you say it, you probably intended something like the first version, but I suspect many people hear it as the second version. Why? At least for Christians that is because of sections of scripture like Matthew 25, Luke 16, and Revelation 3.
And what I would say is it's not that you can't see the evidence, but that you insist on interpreting it a different way. I fully acknowledge that is what I'm doing. When I'm told that my rejection of inward looking religions like Buddhism is a rejection of their experience, I disagree. I don't dispute the experiential evidence they hold up to justify Buddhism. I don't say that I can't see anything there. Rather, my position is that I interpret the experiences differently.
Why do you insist that we see something when we say we cannot? I could theorize but I'd rather hear from you.
I would supposes that in debates with atheists and agnostics, three misconceptions come up with great frequency; I can't really say which one is the most common.OK, some interesting thoughts on how we view others. So, now, what would you say is the one thing that others misunderstand most about your position?
... the standard position among mainstream Christians ...
This reminds me of something that came up in an essay on the philosophy of science. The author of the essay once got into an argument with his wife about whether their house had mice. At one point he said to her, "Yes, I can hear something in the wall, but I've never seen one." At that point he realized how ridiculous he was being. Why was he insisting that only the sense of sight be used to detect mice?
The human animal is dominated by the sight sense. We even use "I see" to mean other things like "I perceive," as you did above. Writing is one of my hobbies, and I once wrote a story called Dark World about beings without the sense of sight. It was fun (and incredibly difficult) to write a story where those beings never fall back on analogies of sight. It was even more fun because the main character meets another being who can see but can't hear, and I played with the difficulties of how they would find common ground for communication.
Anyway, I'm a believer in the "gospel" idea that words have communicative power that goes beyond reason - that there is an art to words. So, the first thing (though not the only thing) I would point to that you can "see" (and yet interpret differently) is the Bible.
But to voluntarily participate in these forums - to make comments on posts about religion - and then to claim you have no position on religion just seems absurd.
As soon as I see a god flying through the sky I'll let you know what I think about the experience. Until then, it's just something other people worry about.It's like a person seeing an airplane for the first time, and when someone asks what they think of it, they reply, "What airplane?"
Ignoring the fact you're changing the question from god to religion
I don't claim I have no position on religion. I do claim I don't have any religious beliefs. I also tell you that I don't have some gaping god-shaped hole in my consciousness due to this. You can believe me or not, but it's the truth.
As soon as I see a god flying through the sky I'll let you know what I think about the experience. Until then, it's just something other people worry about.
I don't really want to turn this discussion into you listing things you think are evidence and me saying why I think it isn't.
#1: I think you missed my question. I was expecting either that you saw atheists as delusional or dissembling. I'm OK with admitting that my question should have been more direct. So, which is it?
I'm glad I misunderstood you. I wouldn't have thought you'd have made what appears to me to be a basic mistake.Understood and hopefully you understood me (even if you don't agree). Though I suppose we might have to bring in a bit more of the list before you understood me ... I wasn't claiming the Bible (as a physical object) can use it's own bootstraps.
Hmm. Both words are a bit stronger than what I would have chosen, so I guess I would need a 3rd option. I suppose that over the course of my many conversations I've experienced both the delusional and the dissembling, but that isn't the root issue.
As I would state it, I think the evidential atheist view is too narrow, and is therefore mistaken.
I appreciate your attempt to explain, but this doesn't work for me either. Yes, if you had never heard of nor imagined the concept of religion then it would make sense that you had no position. But, since you are here (in this forum) - since you have obviously been introduced to the concept - I don't see how you can remain there. Like I said, if you reply "I have no opinon" or "I haven't made a conclusion," or "I don't worry about it," I could understand that. If I cold-called you and your reply was, "I never think about it," I could understand that. But to voluntarily participate in these forums - to make comments on posts about religion - and then to claim you have no position on religion just seems absurd.
[edit] It's like a person seeing an airplane for the first time, and when someone asks what they think of it, they reply, "What airplane?" Sure, they've never ridden on an airplane so they can't speak to that experience. Nor would they understand the mechanics of flight or the mechanisms that make an airplane function. So, they can say they don't know about or don't have opinions on those matters. But they definitely have seen an airplane.
As I would state it, I think the evidential atheist view is too narrow, and is therefore mistaken.
Yeah but the real question is can you come up with a word that continues the alliteration?!
Question1: What do you mean by evidential atheist?
Question2: What do you mean 'too narrow'?
The "evidence" requested as proof of God comes from a very narrow definition of the word. It excludes data that, in other situations, would be allowed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?