Djevv said:
It's 'weak' Atheism. It's a position that people take because it is much easier to defend.
Ha! That is such classic theist thinking....such a fondness for absolutes. Of course it is easier to defend, it is the most rational stance IMO. Far more rational than sticking to a position despite evidence to the contrary! I assume that is what you would consider 'strong' atheism?
I dunno I think logic fails us sometimes, especially when we are faced with the infinite. I am happy with not fully comprehending. I don't think is is possible - whenever you hear someone give an account of heaven or something similar, words nearly always fail them.
However you are fully convinced of the legitimacy of the theist's position even though you don't fully comprehend it? How can anyone give an account of heaven?
You don't know what a revelation is?
I know what revelation is, I just don't know how you can distinguish it from other mental states.
I think these things get emphasized in the higher research degrees rather than at the undergraduate level.
They are certainly
essential in higher research degrees, but I would hope that they are introduced at undergraduate level (if not before!).
My critical analysis skills are fine, thanks.
Using biased sources would suggest otherwise. Why not look at all sides and make a decision in light of all of the available information?
Experts in the field read these publications, amateurs look at the cut down versions. I am fine with reading Geological publications as I am familiar with the jargon. I am also interested in what Christians who are experts in various fields think of some theories which pertain to the origin of things.
There are certainly less technical scientific publications that review findings in various disciplines. Why don't you read those to get some balance to your information. The fact that you rely so heavily on creationist/apologist websites suggests that you are trying to defend that position as opposed to looking at the evidence as a whole and drawing your conclusions from the sum of available information. It would also stop you presenting arguments that a little more reading would show have been thoroughly debunked.
If an ant studied a computer I wonder what kind of picture of a human being it would obtain? The evidence IS the universe not IN the universe, it's existance and laws need explanation.
Yes, the universe does need an explanation. But making one up, down to fine details, none of which is supported by any physical evidence seems a curious way to attempt such an explanation.
As for us being ants to god's computer, you are seriously claiming that some ants (such as yourself) can get a real picture of a human by studying the computer?
As Christianity is revelation, people need not believe in the same God. The fact humans have a need which is universal and seem unique to them seem to support the argument IMO. If your argument is true why do we not see it (worship) in our closest animal relatives?
Are you claiming that all the contradictory religions are equally valid (??) or are you saying that it is only Christians that have received the 'correct' revelation, while all other religions are grasping at straws with their God-given intrinsic inkling of His existence?
I would think that a more plausible explanation would be that humans have evolved such faith-based beliefs to explain the world around them. This has then been expressed as belief in the supernatural and religion. Such an explanation would account for the cultural specificity of religous and supernatural beliefs. More believable than God allowing one culture, at one time, to have it right IMO.
But I think you can become so sceptical that you become immune to change. Noone wants to be deluded, but all of us are at some stage - I mean we are all Tigers supporters here ;D. Every season we continue to hope. You see it on the site, some supporters would be unable to say anything positive about the club even if it won the flag, others are determined sceptics, some are guarded optimists (me) and there are a few wild eyed believers. Whose right?
In the Tiger supporter analogy they are all right! Feelings on the state of the club are matters of opinion. Interpretation of the universe around us and how it functions is not a matter of opinion.
I think it is human nature to be resistant to change. That is why science makes a concerted effort to avoid dogma and allow evidence to dictate its conclusions (not always 100% successfully). However if you accumulate enough evidence even the most dogged opponent must eventually come around.
When we talk about skepticism it is not about evidence, it is about assertion. We are skeptical of bald claims in the absence of evidence. Provide enough evidence and scientific consensus will change...that is one of the strengths of the scientific method.
At the end of the day does it really matter if I am deluded? I have never seen anything but a positive outcome from my faith, even if at times it is very hard to hold on to.
At the end of the day that is for you to answer. I would question whether you require that faith to achieve thoe positive outcomes?
How would you expect God to communicate with people if not through their mind?
A burning bush should suffice.
I wasn't using Klopper as an example of God's existance, just of someone who is in a position of authority and fairly inaccessable. What would induce him to be at your beck and call? Might I suggest relationship?
Klopper is human....God is all-powerful. If he can hear everyones murmured prayers he shouldn't have a problem getting in touch from time to time.
Feel free to respond when you feel up to it....or not.
.
