If atheism is true would you want to know?

[FireDragon76]

What facts is what I asked.

The life sciences in particular. Many Christians on this forum seem either ignorant or dismissive of it. Probably because they perceive it as a threat to some of their cherished beliefs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Believe it or not, philosophers haven't always agreed to what constitutes the significance of the term "truth". It's been a lively debate throughout the history of philosophy. Is truth a correspondence to reality, is it based on coherence, or does it have something to do with pragmatic or eudaemonic considerations?

Then you are saying he doesn't agree with the dictionary definition and that's ok?

Fine, but again, not much of a philosopher in my view if he can't a least get that right. Pretty words are fine but they really need to make sense, but I do realize some don't have such stringent requirements.

 

[FireDragon76]

Then you are saying he doesn't agree with the dictionary definition and that's ok?

Fine, but again, not much of a philosopher in my view if he can't a least get that right. Pretty words are fine but they really need to make sense, but I do realize some don't have such stringent requirements.

This is the typical Christian anti-intellectual rhetoric that is disgraceful. It's so Lilliputian. You tear down anyone that might be better than you and might have thought more about these things.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The life sciences in particular. Many Christians on this forum seem either ignorant or dismissive of it. Probably because they perceive it as a threat to some of their cherished beliefs.

OK, if you'd rather not answer, that's fine. I just figured since you said some Christians don't like to hear the cold hard facts, you must actually be aware of the cold hard facts Christians don't like to hear.

BTW, Life Science in itself is not what I'd call a "fact".

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is the typical Christian anti-intellectual rhetoric that is disgraceful. It's so Lilliputian. You tear down anyone that might be better than you and might have thought more about these things.

I didn't agree with you would be more like the problem here.

Sorry

 

[FireDragon76]

OK, if you'd rather not answer, that's fine. I just figured since you said some Christians don't like to hear the cold hard facts, you must actually be aware of the cold hard facts Christians don't like to hear.

BTW, Life Science in itself is not what I'd call a "fact".

What "facts" are up for debate exactly? All I have argued with you in the past are Christian beliefs, which are ultimately just religious opinions. They are not objective facts about the world which are falsifiable/verifiable.

 

[Brightmoon]

Cats tend to get asymptomatic ringworm as they can carry the fungus on their fur without getting it. Us poor humans get ringworm. I guess I was fortunate and I never had a cat with ringworm.

 

[HARK!]

I'm defining "atheism" very broadly to mean that even if a god exists we humans know nothing about that god.

So if "atheism" as defined above is true would you want to know?

In the extreme case, Atheism presents a negative proof fallacy.

For the less passionate, Atheism presents an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

For the dispassionate, they simply go through life, not knowing what they don't know.

 

[zippy2006]

In the extreme case, Atheism presents a negative proof fallacy.

For the less passionate, Atheism presents an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

No, I don't think atheism is inherently fallacious.

 

[HARK!]

No, I don't think atheism is inherently fallacious.

You left one out; and in the process you presented a strawman argument.

For the dispassionate, they simply go through life, not knowing what they don't know.

I would call these folk Agnostics; but some Agnostics call themselves Atheists.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What "facts" are up for debate exactly? All I have argued with you in the past are Christian beliefs, which are ultimately just religious opinions. They are not objective facts about the world which are falsifiable/verifiable.

The cold hard facts you mentioned.

 

[Brightmoon]

I think atheists stop religious people from becoming toxic or abusive. If you don’t believe a harmful dogma then others might start to question it.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think atheists stop religious people from becoming toxic or abusive. If you don’t believe a harmful dogma then others might start to question it.

I agree. Atheists are only the "badguys" if you insist on mindless conformity. Otherwise, I think its wiser to realize that not every religious attitudes suits everyone, and that some people genuinely do best with unbelief.