The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Atheist Gullibility.
30 Answers
Do secular materialistic humanist atheists ever delve into the evidence for their faith, (which is what it is), or simply swallow the drivel poured out by the likes of Richard Dawkins, or even worse, shape their world view simply because they did not bump into Jesus whilst walking down the street today?
Not doing your own research is lazy, and leaves you open to the next spoon fed populist theory.
What do you think?
Not doing your own research is lazy, and leaves you open to the next spoon fed populist theory.
What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was at the local park the other evening when a large dog looking very happy with itself bounded up.
"Hello, what's your name, have you enjoyed yourself" I asked.
"I'm Rex, he replied," had a great day playing in puddles"
"In and out of puddles all day".
Then another large dog, and another, and another, same story.
Finally a little bedraggled sorry looking pooch arrived.
"Hello little friend, what's your name, how was your day?" I asked.
"My name is Puddles and I've had a terrible day".
"Hello, what's your name, have you enjoyed yourself" I asked.
"I'm Rex, he replied," had a great day playing in puddles"
"In and out of puddles all day".
Then another large dog, and another, and another, same story.
Finally a little bedraggled sorry looking pooch arrived.
"Hello little friend, what's your name, how was your day?" I asked.
"My name is Puddles and I've had a terrible day".
//Do secular materialistic humanist atheists ever delve into the evidence for their faith, (which is what it is)//
No - it isn't. It's an absence of belief in supernatural gods. No belief or faith involved.
//Not doing your own research is lazy, and leaves you open to the next spoon fed populist theory.
What do you think? //
I think I've done my research which is rather more than I think you have.
No - it isn't. It's an absence of belief in supernatural gods. No belief or faith involved.
//Not doing your own research is lazy, and leaves you open to the next spoon fed populist theory.
What do you think? //
I think I've done my research which is rather more than I think you have.
Richard Dawkins is an intellectual Titan compared with you, Theland. You’re the one spouting drivel.
Any kind of religious fundamentalist, such as yourself, would still believe what they have come to believe or always believed even if irrefutable evidence of the non-existence of any form of god became available. That is because their faith would remain unshaken.
Dawkins has consistently - and often - explained how his atheism would disappear instantly if similar evidence of any god’s existence became available. He does not require ‘faith’ in what he believes and that’s the difference between you and him.
Any kind of religious fundamentalist, such as yourself, would still believe what they have come to believe or always believed even if irrefutable evidence of the non-existence of any form of god became available. That is because their faith would remain unshaken.
Dawkins has consistently - and often - explained how his atheism would disappear instantly if similar evidence of any god’s existence became available. He does not require ‘faith’ in what he believes and that’s the difference between you and him.
// He (Dorko) does not require ‘faith’ in what he believes //
yeah he does actually
he has to believe in Induction - that if you do an experiment today - weigh an electron or clone a kudu - that the result will be the same tomorrow as it is today
David Hume in his erm refutation of induction 1800 asked
what makes you think that you can draw conclusions from your observations ?
sort of done a bit here
https:/
[ in Ab speak I regard intellectual difficulty of this post as :
"very very difficult" You need to know a bit about Hume a bit about the scottish enlightenment ( 1750-1800) and a bit about induction]
PS and dont be beastly to theland ( easier to understand)
yeah he does actually
he has to believe in Induction - that if you do an experiment today - weigh an electron or clone a kudu - that the result will be the same tomorrow as it is today
David Hume in his erm refutation of induction 1800 asked
what makes you think that you can draw conclusions from your observations ?
sort of done a bit here
https:/
[ in Ab speak I regard intellectual difficulty of this post as :
"very very difficult" You need to know a bit about Hume a bit about the scottish enlightenment ( 1750-1800) and a bit about induction]
PS and dont be beastly to theland ( easier to understand)
Hi Theland, I was thinking about you the other day, hope you're feeling better and that you're troubles lessen.
with regard to your question, I don't think being an atheist / agnostic/ not deeply religious necessarily means you are materialistic.
I'm happy to say I simply don't know, I verge on my more logical days on being an atheist, although I do feel spiritual connections so I'm loathe to label myself as anything to be honest, but one thing I will say is I'm definitely not materialistic, and I can't see that the two ideas go hand in hand at all.
The religious I'm led to believe think of themselves as all part of some great plan, in which case god plans a lot of poor and sick people who don't deserve it. Why would there be healthy millionaires and people who have to watch their children starve to death if there was a loving God? I think the more you consider material aspects the more likely you are to draw the conclusion that if there is a god he's a nasty piece of work.
with regard to your question, I don't think being an atheist / agnostic/ not deeply religious necessarily means you are materialistic.
I'm happy to say I simply don't know, I verge on my more logical days on being an atheist, although I do feel spiritual connections so I'm loathe to label myself as anything to be honest, but one thing I will say is I'm definitely not materialistic, and I can't see that the two ideas go hand in hand at all.
The religious I'm led to believe think of themselves as all part of some great plan, in which case god plans a lot of poor and sick people who don't deserve it. Why would there be healthy millionaires and people who have to watch their children starve to death if there was a loving God? I think the more you consider material aspects the more likely you are to draw the conclusion that if there is a god he's a nasty piece of work.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether others agree with it or not is neither here nor there. Everything is debatable and open to opinion. So this 'problem' will never be resolved. There is no definitive answer because we just DO NOT KNOW. There is no fact in either case, no cast iron proof. It's something ...IMO...us HOOMANS will keep on debating and arguing over ad infinitum. However...knowing that doesn't suit AB. We all try to outdo others... Argue, harangue others and in the event...close the thread if it's too volatile.
I know I will not receive any comments on my post because it seems too sensible an answer. Life in Answer Bank is nowt, unless there is conflict and summat to generate hostile debate.
I know I will not receive any comments on my post because it seems too sensible an answer. Life in Answer Bank is nowt, unless there is conflict and summat to generate hostile debate.
