people are not born as non believers.. it has more to do with the lack of religious teachings as more and more self-searches and spirtuality seeking movements have been popularized. the belief in an unseen God to atheists is not an argument that is heard from them in defense of the obvious claim that God is everywhere. they believe in humanity, personal reasoning, powers of the earth, nature and no after-life. they also acknowledge limits of human capabilities in the face of external factors. yet atheists cannot answer both from a scientific or clearly from a religious point of view as to where human life began. as long as stressing the presence of God on them is concerned it is wise to let them see it for themselves. they can still be good people, except that belief in no God.
cheers!
When you tell an atheist that there is God. An atheist will just nod his head and say ok watever makes you happy. But when an atheist is forced to express his opinion and tell a religious person that there is no such entity as God why the religious people gets so furious and start justifying their claims. dont you think its weird.
^
No, on those who are trying to convince the other. So, those who care not either way have a right to demand proof...but those who insist there is no God, or even suggest that the notion is absurd have an equal burden to prove their contrarian point of view.
In a nutshell, anyone who makes a claim...be it for or against.
^I'm not a mod, but I think it is a valid question he's asking... what say you?
The basic premise presumes that an omnipotent, eternal being requires a creator. If one supposes that such a being is absurd in the first place, then clearly the question falls into the realm of the absurd, and can't be taken as a serious query.
The basic premise presumes that an omnipotent, eternal being requires a creator. If one supposes that such a being is absurd in the first place, then clearly the question falls into the realm of the absurd, and can't be taken as a serious query.
This (or similar) argument was presented by Ibn-Rushd (I hope you know who he was) ... I have his book at home and I will quote from it on the weekend ...
I hear you, but I do not think it is a silly question.
^
No, on those who are trying to convince the other. So, those who care not either way have a right to demand proof...but those who insist there is no God, or even suggest that the notion is absurd have an equal burden to prove their contrarian point of view.
In a nutshell, anyone who makes a claim...be it for or against.
Now, what constitutes a proof?
why must a person that says they cannot see, feel, nor perceive 'X' in any manner, have to prove how/why they can't? they would have to though, if they're the one to come up with the idea of 'X' in the first place.
and i'm sorry, but i'm not clear on what you mean when you say, "those who care not either way."
This thread will go nowhere. Those who claim there is no God cannot disprove his existence and those who claim God exist cannot prove his existence beyond a certain level of comprehension. Its where your comprehension gets defeated that you must have faith. The smaller your circle of evidence remains the more liable you are to have atheistic views or even what we would call narrow minded pertinent to any discipline in life. The higher your view of things the more assumptions and unbelief you have of things. The deeper you get into it the more you comprehend and eventually it all leads to the existence of some creator. I think atheists try to figure out who created the creator, which honestly we have no answer or cannot comprehend. This is where the line gets drawn. Religionists put faith in it and say that there is a creator whereas atheists will not put faith in it until they can prove it. Some people die still trying to prove whereas some eventually realize they cannot and accept God. The more an atheist tries to disprove God I think brings him closer to the existence of God where those who do not try to prove it stay atheists (they never examine any other evidence other than what they are content with).
why must a person that says they cannot see, feel, nor perceive 'X' in any manner
Because that's a criteria restricted to natural phenomena. It's absurd to apply any kind of scientific reasoning to God, as God by definition falls outside of natural causality, on which such reasoning predicates itself. It also presumes that God's presence should be knowable outside of any kind of historical event. Why is this a valid presumption?
Exists or does not. That is the extent of your choices, and the two form a duality. So, if proof is the game we want to play, it applies both ways.
The concept of God is no mere X...
[quote]
and i'm sorry, but i'm not clear on what you mean when you say, "those who care not either way."
[/quote]
Agnostics in the true sense of the word, who just don't commit either way.
