Keep in mind that evidence requires an interpreter. The book of Romans makes it clear that although men know God, they would not acknowledge Him nor give thanks to Him as evidence of His wrath is clearly seen and understood. The problem, according to The Scriptures is not a lack of evidence but rather men suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
In a court of law (based on judeo-christian models) a judge has to make a decision whether evidence is admissable. Typically, a defense attorney seeks a motion to "supress", evidence whereas the prosecutor seeks to have the evidence admitted. Ultimately, the judge as the decisionmaker renders a decision whether to admit or suppress this evidence. The question we have to ask is whether the evidence we choose to suppress is disposed of justly.
Often in an exchange of ideas, the party who seeks to suppress the evidence is the same party who judges the evidence inadmissable. Moreover, even if all evidence is deemed admissable, the judge would have to have capacity to interpret the evidence correctly. It may be presumptuous to assume that the judge himself is able to discern and interpret the evidence correctly.
On Sunday, March 24, 2013, Chad wrote:
Atheists and religious people alike have beliefs that cannot be proven by evidence, logic, or reason. An atheist does not know there is no god, they believe it to be true. Atheists accept this belief because it works out better intellectually than the religious alternative. However, they can never know for certain. Which brings me to agnostics. An agnostic carries the same beliefs but portends to be more clever or smarter than the atheist. Boiled down both have the same beliefs. Recently, I watched Dr. John Shook in one of his God debates. He rather smartly pointed out that scientists and philosophers all around the world
believe in the principle of uniformity: what we observe now of the laws of nature happens everywhere in the natural universe, always has and always will. However, there is no evidence to support this whatsoever. They assume it from the outset in order to explain coherently scientific evidence about the Universe. Makes things make sense. Religious people make this same assumption with the Koran and the Bible to explain things about the Universe. My overall point is that there are many things people BELIEVE to be true but could never KNOW to be true. For example: I don't believe the Dali Llama is living his seventh life cycle but i cannot know-know.
What makes an atheist/agnostic better, I believe, is their
logical assessment of evidence. Religious people tend to lack real intellectual curiosity (outside of church/temple/mosque propaganda) and are from birth bullied into their beliefs. It should be a capital crime to damage a the soft brain of a child with tales of the Arch, sharia law, or whatever it is the jews do their kids.
Matthew, good points and good question "why are we atheists." I've always been curious about this answer from other people as well.
My answer is I consider myself an "atheist" more so on the grounds of
semantics, after long discussions with a good atheist friend. Though, what I really consider myself is an agnostic--one who does not know whether there is a god or not. Again, it's
purely a semantic difference here. If to be an atheist is to say "I do not believe in god," then I'm an atheist. However, a belief is not the same as "I know there is no god." For to "know" in this case is to say I'm absolutely certain there is no god. And I can be absolutely certain of nothing, not even "I think, therefore I am." <- this is another topic, i won't get into here> Thus, I still consider myself an agonistic.
The word God is an overloaded term which means many different things to different people. If you define god as an all good, all powerful, all knowing creator of everything that
sent Jesus down to absolve our sins, then I can safely say I'm 99.99% certain this god does not exist. But, if you say god is simply the creator of our universe, and that's all we know (it could be limited in power, intelligence, or even dead by now), then I would be fully agnostic in this definition, for I have no evidence or experience to suggest that this god does or does not exist.
I'm also a fan of quantum physics, though it's way above my IQ grade, I read the dumbed down laymen's books of it. In this relatively new field of physics, it opens up a lot more possibility for there to exist this creator/god. For example, in recent science news, physicist are now searching for proof that we live in a simulation. Here's one such
If it turns out to be true that we live in a matrix like simulated world, then there is a God(s)--with respect to the definition that it is our Creator(s). What then do we make of such a group called the atheists?
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Chad ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Chad , visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]