Go to How the Universe looks from here
- Add a comment
- Go to God by any other name
Naut...
Ummmm...with you....not really! lol
But, I'm open to any and all correction, which I'm sure you have in abundance.
Actually, I'd like to hear your side of this, as I'm certain that it's much more informed and analyzed than my incomplete and(most likely misinformed) thoughts on the matter.
As a matter of fact, you can school me through e-mail if you like, so as not to embarrass me in public.
lmao
posted by
metalrat
on January 17, 2009 at 8:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Chuck
Wanna debate???
posted by
Nautikos
on January 17, 2009 at 7:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Like you suggested...
...non-belief is also belief...belief in non-existence, but I don't think "belief" itself is the point of departure for atheists, but, rather,
what a person believes, i.e. the existence of God.
Granted, a true "skeptic" in the original meaning of the word, doesn't believe that
any knowledge is possible....that it's all speculative...unlike Michael Shermer and other's who claim to be skeptics while buying-in to the claims of evolution without ever seriously questioning it.
Evolution has endured and thrived because, ever since it was officially sanctioned, those in secular academia accepted it without question...and promoted it. And like the major religions, to question it's validity was risky, albeit not in a martyrdom sense, but, in terms of career prestige and advancement.
To openly criticize it was to be ridiculed and exiled to obscurity, so no one dared, until recent years in which you have some brave scientists openly admitting belief in a higher being, such as Francis S. Collins, a geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project.
I wavered for a long time on the issue of God, and can see both sides of the argument, including the atheist assertion that the onus of proof belongs on those who say that a specific thing exists, not on those who say it doesn't it. That itself puts the burden of proof on believers.
It's the same as if I told a skeptic that leprechauns exist, the onus would be on me to prove my claim, not on the skeptic to disprove it. That's the approach they take to belief in God, and rightfully so.
Okay, I've ranted enough. What were we originally talking about? lmao
posted by
metalrat
on January 17, 2009 at 3:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Nicely put, Ciel.
posted by
mneme
on January 17, 2009 at 6:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut, I look forward to it, whenever it comes!
posted by
Ciel
on January 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM
| link to this | reply
God is my Father and....
loves me unconditionally. I want to be like my Father and have His eyes. Blessings!
posted by
Texas_Gem
on January 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Ciel
I really ought to respond more carefully and in detail, but it's late and I am tired...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 13, 2009 at 5:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Naut, sorry for the goof.
posted by
Ciel
on January 13, 2009 at 2:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Ciel
It was actually in 'Naut's Thoughts'...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM
| link to this | reply