Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael.
But you've just followed a rule: by denying you do not follow rules, you imply that there is a rule within Atheism that you do not follow rules. I don't mean to get technical... however, this is a philosophy of a philosophy that contradicts and is redundant in itself.
|
Every object is at least one colour. Many objects have the property of being not red, but "not red" it not itself a colour. There is no authority dictating to atheists "this is how you should live," the way there is in many religions. Some atheists subscribe to one viewpoint or another, some form their own viewpoints, some simply go about their lives without bothering. Whether or not there is a generalizing rule that categorizes how atheists live isn't the relevant point; that there is no (ostensibly) moral authority attempting to dictate - or even suggest - what such a rule whould be is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael.
Also, you are implying that the different types that separate a Christian and an atheist is that the "evidence" the atheist has is correct to begin with. You are BELIEVING your interpretation of the world to be correct, yet I am certain you have been wrong before and therefore can be wrong again (yes, this goes both ways I know). Let me give you an example, many people believed the earth was flat. Is it flat? No. And if you said otherwise at that time period and spoke up against the scientist you would be scoffed at and called ignorant. Might I suggest that this may be the case today? You are putting your faith in the evidences that we have to day that may be in fact all false. I am certain that if the earth lasts another 1000 years our knowledge will look so ignorant and insignificant to those during that time period, much like our view of people 1000 years ago is today. Not that ALL people were ignorant, but much of their evidences which they believed to be right 1000 years ago are in fact proven false today. Therefore you must take into account that your evidence is in fact true to begin with and therefore implementing just as much faith as any other religion.
|
You're arguing about black and white when the entire point I was making was the existance of a grey scale. How confident are you about the truth each of the following?
"The Earth is round"
General Reletivity
P=NP
The Theory of Evolution
The Collatz Conjecture
The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
"The Universe is expanding"
"2+2=4"
Fermat's Last Theorem
The Big Bang Theory
"God exists"
In each case an atheist has confidence relative to the evidence available. That meaning: confidence in "2+2=4" being as close to 1 as makes no difference, also in "The Earth is round" and, if they're into mathematics, also the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Other things on that list are either difficult to prove, unproven, or unprovable, so confidence will be relative to the evidence available. The evidence for evolution or relativity is pretty good; the big bang theory less so. For a religious person there is certainly more evidence for the existance of god than there is for an atheist, because of differences of feeling in what qualifies as evidence, but that evidence is still generally
less than the confidence a religious person will have in the existence of their god. You are yourself a good example of that, though more fervent than most.