Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
I'd like someone to respond to my post. Or is it hard to argue against?
|
I'm not sure what's there to argue against. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly, you are an atheist because your own observations have lead you to that conclusion. The observations and/or beliefs of others lead to different conclusions, but that's going beyond what you said. You've made a statement regarding your own beliefs, which while interesting in it's own right, isn't really an argument to be countered.
Your hypothetical conversation is amusing but irrelevant.
If it is your intent to assert that the beliefs of others are wrong because of your observations, well that can be argued. I would start by pointing out that unless you yourself are omniscient, your personal observations do not necessarily incorporate all of existence and possibility. Therefore I would say that your conclusions, while they may work for you as a belief system, are really no more or less valid than the conclusions of anyone who uses any other belief system. Interestingly, I am currently engaged in some correspondence that mirrors (and could even be said to be inspired by) this thread. When discussing a similar point I mentioned how there have been individuals I've known of theistic bent who see proof of God everywhere, and was informed that this is unsurprisingly common among theists. While it's not a view I share, this is a view I certainly understand.
If we assume that your hypothetical conversation (which, granted, I'm only assuming is hypothetical to begin with) is intended as support of your argument, I would contend that you start it out by challenging the Generic Theist (I assume Christian?) off the bat to show you something you can't explain; in essence, you're asking to be shown God. While not an unreasonable request, this cannot be fulfilled. It's simply not possible, because finding or not finding God depends entirely on your own perspective.
Science cannot be used to support anything we don't have proof of. It's entirely empirical in nature, and anything that is unobserved cannot be said to have any scientific support. Therefore the belief that everything has a sensible scientific explanation doesn't really have any more validity than the belief that God did it. It's a belief, not a fact, and will remain so until we can say as a species that we know everything about everything, which is unlikely to ever happen.
To clarify, I am a dedicated agnostic, and as such treat all belief systems as equally valid. Please do not ask me any in-depth questions regarding Christian beliefs, as I don't have the answers.
EDIT -
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guyy
Sorry, i'm not interested in the question of "god" -- whatever that is.
|
How can you not be? At worst it's a question of anthropology rather than truth. I understand irritation with proselytizers, but it's been my experience that they make up a relative minority of the theistic population, and when approached from a purely intellectual standpoint the question of God is fascinating whether you believe the answers or not.
No attack intended, I just have trouble understanding how anyone can
not be interested in learning more about the world around them.