Pemalite said:
And I am asking if he has evidence for said beliefs. Not a difficult concept.
Just like those who believe in God, you can be wrong.
Indeed. I would most certainly be one of them.
You start off stating "Why would I need to prove anything?" The rest of your post is spot on, your belief could be 100% wrong, partially right or 100% right, but it's best to have evidence before you form an opinion on such things.
There is plenty of statements in the Bible/Torah/Quran that comes into conflict with scientific fact.
Correct.
Incorrect.
There is no evidence that disproves the fact I ride a Kangaroo to work, does that mean it's true?
Many God's have been proven false over human history, Norse and Egyption Gods being prime examples... As our understanding of the natural world increases, then the more tenuous the Theistic position becomes. |
Why do you feel threatened by someone's belief in a God? Your reaction to my original statement and your replies to above, exemplify that you have some religious zealot passion towards your belief in atheism.
It's rather funny actually as I'm betting the negatives you like to portray about god-based belief systems is exactly the type of interaction you display here.
I'll go ahead and play along with you to fulfill your need to feel justified in your beliefs.
| There is plenty of statements in the Bible/Torah/Quran that comes into conflict with scientific fact. Like the Earth forming before the Sun. Again... Making comparisons between the Flat Earth hypothesis and Religion isn't that far fetched... Considering most Flat Earthers leverage the Bible/Torah/Quran to form their hypothesis anyway. |
The creation story is vague in Hebrew TaNaKh (actually two distinct versions) and Qur'an and only literal in the variations of modern Bible translations. In the Qur'an specifically, it outlines a scenario that can be interpreted as mirroring the Big Bang Theory. My personal opinion is that I don't look to religious literature for Scientific answers or validation. The point behind these religious texts is to provide parables and guidance to human interaction with life. The zealot need for literal answers to everything from these books is where you have problems because they don't account for the many generations of story re-telling and translation that guarantees loss of context.
Flat Earthers ignore blatant proof that celestial objects are in fact spherical naturally when forming from a gaseous or liquid state. Simple zero-G experimentation proves that without a doubt, if you choose to ignore the many centuries of visual data (older written accounts and modern photographic).
Belief in God does not have blatant proof for or against. It is in fact, not logical or correct to compare the two as you did regardless of what basis some of these people use to define their inaccurate view points.
|
"Atheism is a belief system in its own right." Incorrect. |
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
-ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
I guess you could be right if you are extremely literal, which you are not literal in other replies, such as the flat-earth comparison. However the definitions above (taken from google) should suffice that I am correct in stating Atheism is a belief system on its own. Additionally, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist, means you are choosing to theorize or believe that the lack of evidence equates to non-existence of a god. For instance, there is currently no evidence that life exists outside of Earth, yet, I am certain it does as I'm willing to bet you do too. Interestingly though, there is, arguably, evidence of alien life from older civilizations just as there is for a God. (No, I don't think aliens build the pyramids or any other Earth structures)
| There is no evidence that disproves the fact I ride a Kangaroo to work, does that mean it's true? There is no evidence that Dragons don't exist, does that mean they exist? Your logic is flawed. |
Is it? Again, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist. Dragons did exist. They were misidentified dinosaur bones where imagination took over as if they were still living (modern example is Loch Ness).
| Many God's have been proven false over human history, Norse and Egyption Gods being prime examples... As our understanding of the natural world increases, then the more tenuous the Theistic position becomes. |
There are volumes of human history from every civilization to have ever existed wrapped in the divine and spiritual. They have similar guidelines and themes, and even direct stories as well, even if their particular flavor of religious adherence varies. Just because Nordic peoples, Romans, Greeks, Asians, Indians, etc all formed divergent views of spiritual adherence and some were replaced with new interpretations, doesn't mean they were proven false. All it means is that human perception of God has continued to evolve including the belief that there is no god. Its not like Atheism is a solely modern evolution of a belief system as you suggest based on our progress in natural sciences.
The focus I take is in the commonality of these religious systems throughout history. They all share common bonds as guiding principles for their respective civilizations, even at the expense of other civilizations under the guise of cultural or national protectionism (generally abused doctrine by power-driven individuals). Sure, anyone who's ever stated they interacted with an angel, ghost, spirit, god, etc could be fabrication. But, in every story, there is always some thread of truth.
As our technology grows and we are able to learn and study the foundations of existence, we learn many scientific theories are debunked as well. It's all part of growing and evolving our understanding of life. For instance, we know can measure plant reaction and a sense of "knowing" that it is being culled and eaten. How much of life do we still have no understanding due to lack of the right technical solution? An aura can be measured yet people still think they are nonsense. People continue learn more and more about animal and plant culture and ability to understand / react to each other and the environment yet, majority don't understand why people protest places like Sea World. (Sea mammals are so much more intelligent and culturally rich than we commonly believe)
I don't discount the possibility of being wrong (principle of scientific method), but I don't think we've dis-proven centuries of human spiritual perception either. I think we don't have the tools yet to measure the data and I choose to believe that wrapped in existence itself is an form of sentience that has and can play a role in our individual lives.
