religion
Out of context: Reply #1189
- Started
- Last post
- 3,481 Responses
- Morning_star0
Wolfboy wrote:- "For me, all you have done is devalued all faith based beliefs by lumping them together. That’s a much bigger argument for how ridiculous they are than any scientific proof you say must to be provided by atheists."
100% Agree. Ridiculous to the point of madness. My irritation was with Atheism adopting the canon of religion and the hypocrisy that, that revealed. Bringing semantics into the debate is something that is a favorite tactic of the Atheist. Just have a look at the sidebars from the last few pages.
Wolfboy wrote:- "Atheism is a refusal to believe the stories we are fed from an early age without some form of measurable proof that they are real; this in turn allows the people to seek answers to questions, acquire exciting new knowledge about the world around them and adjust their world view accordingly as civilization progresses. By this structure, if proof that there is a god became available atheists would accept it and adjust their world view."
I find this difficult to agree with. Whilst I absolutely agree that truth/proof/facts should be followed wherever they lead and world-views adjusted accordingly, without prejudice. The issue I have is with the requirement that Faiths/Beliefs should provide measurable proof, they just don't have to. If it is a requirement for Scientology to provide measurable proof then it should also be a requirement for Atheism to do the same. Yet, all you tend to get from Atheists are the semantic gymnastics that are gleaned from a 30sec search of Wikipedia. Atheism can't have it both ways.
Wolfboy wrote:- By working in the black and whites of definitions you remove all factors such as size of the following of a certain set of beliefs; the christian has no more relevance than the man in a tin foil hat protecting his thoughts from the government.
I'm not sure what your suggesting here. Surely belief is belief. Whether it's in Ancient Aliens, Buddha or The Flying Spaghetti Monster the common factor is 'no proof'. As soon as proof is available then it ceases to be a belief.
In truth, Atheists annoy me. Probably because I can't grasp the argument for an opposition to faiths that isn't a faith itself. For me it's like a boxing match and the atheists are in the corner refusing to get in the ring. Thanks for taking the time to reply though, it's appreciated.
- yeah, I was rambling a bit with the part about size of following, it's just more about the lumping together all the different faiths.Wolfboy