After all, atheists may attack preachers, but how many attack the likes of Mother Terese?
Not being an atheist, but an outspoken critic of religions in many ways, let me say this: Attacking a preacher just for the fact that he is a preacher is wrong and calls of the same intolerance I'm opposing. What I (and various atheists and non-christians) are attacking is the intolerance and narrowmindedness that is being spread in the name of god. As I have said before, it is not god or the devil that is to be feared, it is the men who aim to teach you to fear god. Who aim to stop you from thinking yourself. And even the most tolerant preachers can't help but hinting that god doesn't appprove of you not believing in him.
Apart from that, kudos on helping the old man. Too many people would have just walked on or maybe just called the police instead. Good people are rare.
I think what my friend is refering to is that preachers ask for people to believe in them. Ie the preacher has a right to be believed, else the audience is a sinner automatically
( ... )
Maybe Jens just wants to keep his quiet little "home" of mind free of guests that don't respect him as the head of the house.
Coming from anyone else, this would offend me. Because it essentially says that I choose to be ignorant. However, I will assume that you meant that I don't like people to think for me. I choose not to be preached to, and who insists in doing so will earn my annoyance, at the least.
I can accept what you believe. I don't like it, I don't agree, but you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine.
This is part of the scientific method. If something cannot (at least theoretically) disproven, it is not a valid theory. Therefore, it cannot be assumed true even if there is no prove to the contrary.
For example, I could claim that strawberries start to taste like chicken when heated to 1000°C. Since you can't taste strawberries at 1000°C without destroying your tastebuds immediately, there is no way to undertake the experiment and prove me wrong. That still doesn't mean I'm right.
You are trying to apply logic to the argument of god's existence. That is bound to fail. The same goes for applying the scientific method. Which was my point in the first place. To an atheist, the idea that god exists is silly.
And see, my view is quite the other way around: There is god, but existence caused it (him) to be. And that is no more logical than your belief. Both beliefs are just as valid, but don't lend themselves to proving or disproving. As such, they are unscientific and rejectable to an atheist. The question of god is always a question of faith.
Also, metaphysics are based on logic just like physics are.
"You are trying to apply logic to the argument of god's existence. That is bound to fail."
Bound to fail.. what does that mean? It is not logical that something caused the universe? Some original cause? I suppose you could say the universe could be its own original cause but would the prior not also be logical?
"The same goes for applying the scientific method. Which was my point in the first place."
Precisely. So I do not apply the scientific method to God, you do - nor is logic synonymous with scientific method.
"To an atheist, the idea that god exists is silly. "
Swell.
"There is god, but existence caused it (him) to be. And that is no more logical than your belief."
Correct. In fact, it is less logical.
"but don't lend themselves to proving or disproving. As such, they are unscientific and rejectable to an atheist."
Comments 12
Not being an atheist, but an outspoken critic of religions in many ways, let me say this: Attacking a preacher just for the fact that he is a preacher is wrong and calls of the same intolerance I'm opposing. What I (and various atheists and non-christians) are attacking is the intolerance and narrowmindedness that is being spread in the name of god.
As I have said before, it is not god or the devil that is to be feared, it is the men who aim to teach you to fear god. Who aim to stop you from thinking yourself. And even the most tolerant preachers can't help but hinting that god doesn't appprove of you not believing in him.
Apart from that, kudos on helping the old man. Too many people would have just walked on or maybe just called the police instead. Good people are rare.
Reply
Oh, what a tragedy!
Reply
Reply
Coming from anyone else, this would offend me. Because it essentially says that I choose to be ignorant. However, I will assume that you meant that I don't like people to think for me.
I choose not to be preached to, and who insists in doing so will earn my annoyance, at the least.
I can accept what you believe. I don't like it, I don't agree, but you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine.
Reply
This is part of the scientific method. If something cannot (at least theoretically) disproven, it is not a valid theory. Therefore, it cannot be assumed true even if there is no prove to the contrary.
For example, I could claim that strawberries start to taste like chicken when heated to 1000°C. Since you can't taste strawberries at 1000°C without destroying your tastebuds immediately, there is no way to undertake the experiment and prove me wrong. That still doesn't mean I'm right.
Reply
God's existence is logical: here is existence, something caused it.
Unfair comparison, in other words.
P.S., And it is quite useless to apply the methods of physics to metaphysics and call it a hale argument.
Reply
And see, my view is quite the other way around: There is god, but existence caused it (him) to be. And that is no more logical than your belief. Both beliefs are just as valid, but don't lend themselves to proving or disproving. As such, they are unscientific and rejectable to an atheist. The question of god is always a question of faith.
Also, metaphysics are based on logic just like physics are.
Reply
Bound to fail.. what does that mean? It is not logical that something caused the universe? Some original cause? I suppose you could say the universe could be its own original cause but would the prior not also be logical?
"The same goes for applying the scientific method. Which was my point in the first place."
Precisely. So I do not apply the scientific method to God, you do - nor is logic synonymous with scientific method.
"To an atheist, the idea that god exists is silly. "
Swell.
"There is god, but existence caused it (him) to be. And that is no more logical than your belief."
Correct. In fact, it is less logical.
"but don't lend themselves to proving or disproving. As such, they are unscientific and rejectable to an atheist."
And acceptable to a theist.
Reply
Leave a comment