A few things atheists are not...

[MarkFL]

you missed out "honest"

How is being an atheist dishonest?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Science has as its goal to get to the truth. When there is no evidence for something, why would science get involved at all? That would only serve to weaken science.

Science is a tool to attain truth, yet when science can't confirm or deny a thing it is thrown to the way side and marked as insignificant. This leads to closing perceptions and hiding reality instead of helping to verify it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

Science is a tool to attain truth, yet when science can't confirm or deny a thing it is thrown to the way side and marked as insignificant. This leads to closing perceptions and hiding reality instead of helping to verify it.

If there is no evidence for said reality, it cannot be referred to then as reality. It is only a belief. Beliefs are significant to those who hold them, but those beliefs are only of interest to those who choose to hold them. Anything which can be stated without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.

 

[popsthebuilder]

If there is no evidence for said reality, it cannot be referred to then as reality. It is only a belief. Beliefs are significant to those who hold them, but those beliefs are only of interest to those who choose to hold them. Anything which can be stated without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence.

I agree but that in no way makes the disbelieving right. Time will tell.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

I agree but that in no way makes the disbelieving right. Time will tell.

It isn't really about being right or wrong...it is only about whether you will believe something without compelling evidence. Suppose Russell's teapot actually exists...would I be right to believe it exists if I have no evidence for its existence? The fact that I believed something true would be mere coincidence, because my belief would not be based on evidence. In that way, my act of believing would be wrong.

 

[psalms 91]

Actually they have got involved I remember years ago that scienists weighed people just before they died and again right after and there was a difference that could not be explained except bu the soul leaving the body, so they have got involved and proved that something happened at death. I agree that science will never understand spiritual yet there are scientists that belive in God and miracles

 

[Josiah]

It isn't really about being right or wrong...it is only about whether you will believe something without compelling evidence.

The trouble is with that word "compelling." If you want proof - you have none that you even exist as you imagine. To not trust is to be paranoid and it's a mental illness. I BELIEVE my girlfriend loves me - but how much "evidence" is "COMPELLING?" I BELIEVE my flight next week will be safe - but how much evidence is "COMPELLING?" I believe roses are beautiful - but how much EVIDENCE is "COMPELLING?" I believe Starbucks Coffee tastes good - but how much EVIDENCE is COMPELLING?


It seems to ME, you have simply embraced absolute relativism based on emotions - when I FEEL something is "COMPELLING." As such, you have surrendered EVERYTHING related to atheism (the dogmatic proclaimation that the divine DOES NOT exist) since we can conclude that your evidence for that is not "COMPELLING." You simply have set up a situation where everyone EQUALLY can choose what THEY feel is compelling or not - since you have no objective, universal standard for what is "COMPELLING." The word itself is extremely subjective. You may FEEL God doesn't exist...... I may FEEL God does - by your standard, we're both EQUALLY based.



As for believing something, I know a lot of SCIENTISTS who believe there is life on other planets but there is ZERO, absolutely ZERO evidence for that - none whatsoever. I wonder if you rebuke these scientists. Sorry, sir, but ALL of us LIVE by faith - it is a mental illness to not do so. YOU may FEEL others have insuffient evidence for what they chose to trust (I suspect you'll never marry, never buy anything on credit, never eat out) but since you make it entirely subjective (what one FEELS is "COMPELLING") you have surrendered any ability to rebuke them.



My view.....



Pax



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Actually they have got involved I remember years ago that scienists weighed people just before they died and again right after and there was a difference that could not be explained except bu the soul leaving the body, so they have got involved and proved that something happened at death. I agree that science will never understand spiritual yet there are scientists that belive in God and miracles

From Snopes:

MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more.

Even if it were actually true that bodies lose weight at death, this wouldn't automatically mean the explanation is that a soul or spirit had exited the body. When something cannot be explained at some moment in time, this is not just cause for citing the supernatural as an explanation.

Yes, there are some scientist who have some kind of faith-based beliefs, but this has nothing to do with the science they study.

 

[popsthebuilder]

It isn't really about being right or wrong...it is only about whether you will believe something without compelling evidence. Suppose Russell's teapot actually exists...would I be right to believe it exists if I have no evidence for its existence? The fact that I believed something true would be mere coincidence, because my belief would not be based on evidence. In that way, my act of believing would be wrong.

You just said it wasn't about right and wrong and then went on to explain how it is right and wrong. Contradictory.

There is no coincidence.
Thanks.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

You just said it wasn't about right and wrong and then went on to explain how it is right and wrong. Contradictory.

There is no coincidence.
Thanks.

I was trying to explain the difference between the truth of something and when belief is appropriate. Those are two separate issues, hence no contradiction.

By the way, if would be better for you to use your closing statement "Faith in selfless Unity for Good. " in your signature instead of appending it to your posts. This will make quoting your posts much easier for others.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I was trying to explain the difference between the truth of something and when belief is appropriate. Those are two separate issues, hence no contradiction.

By the way, if would be better for you to use your closing statement "Faith in selfless Unity for Good. " in your signature instead of appending it to your posts. This will make quoting your posts much easier for others.

Don't know what you mean. Tapatalk doesn't work flawlessly on all boards. If it did I would be able to edit my profile and my Sig would work correctly. Thanks though.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

Don't know what you mean. Tapatalk doesn't work flawlessly on all boards. If it did I would be able to edit my profile and my Sig would work correctly. Thanks though.

I have edited your profile, and added your statement as your signature. Just make sure the "Show your signature" checkbox is checked when you post.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Outstanding! Could you be so kind tas to change the agnostic setting to a non particular Christianity as in no particular sect? This would be really great and very appreciated. Thanks for fixing the signature thing.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

Outstanding! Could you be so kind tas to change the agnostic setting to a non particular Christianity as in no particular sect? This would be really great and very appreciated. Thanks for fixing the signature thing.

I changed your affiliation to "Christian"...is that what you wanted?

 

[popsthebuilder]

I changed your affiliation to "Christian"...is that what you wanted?

Hate to be a bother; is there any way you could post my options and I can pick one. I cannot access it. Thank you Sooo much! Really.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

It's not a bother at all...here are the choices:

Agnostic
Anglican
Atheist
Baptist
Buddhist
Calvary Chapel
Calvinist
Catholic
Charismatic
Christian
Christian Seeker
Eastern Orthodox
Hindu
Humanist
Jehovah's Witness
Judaism
Lutheran
Methodist
Messianic
Muslim
Non-Denominational
Other Church
Other Religion
Pagan
Pentecostal
Presbyterian
Protestant
Seeker
Seventh Day Adventist
Unitarian
Wesleyan
Word Of Faith

 

[popsthebuilder]

Upon research of the religions that I was not familiar with I found that I adhered to quite a few of them. Christianity and general will be fine for now. Thank you very much for helping me.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.