Why modern atheism is so shallow

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by Ivy

The big difference between 2000 lb purple mice living on the moon and a deity would be that one is falsifiable and the other is not. Which is, IMO, a better platform from which to attack belief in a deity, although it only shows it to be unscientific, not untrue. And I think most reasonable people acknowledge that religion has no place in scientific matters.

My point was, a rational person should assume that something does not exist until they find a reason to believe that it does. If someone says that purple mice do exist, we should ask them for their argument for maintaining that they do exist. If they do not provide an argument, we ought not to consider their point. Because otherwise anyone can simply state anything and in effect have their views regarded as potentially true regardless of their merit.

Theism is false by default, (e.g because noone gave an argument based on premises that do not require faith for such a thesis).

[Ivy]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

My point was, a rational person should assume that something does not exist until they find a reason to believe that it does. If someone says that purple mice do exist, we should ask them for their argument for maintaining that they do exist. If they do not provide an argument, we ought not to consider their point. Because otherwise anyone can simply state anything and in effect have their views regarded as potentially true regardless of their merit.

Theism is false by default, (e.g because noone gave an argument based on premises that do not require faith for such a thesis).

Fair enough. And this is why I generally do not try to convince people of my beliefs (or probably "hopes" is more accurate).

[Anja]

I don't see any room for debate in spirituality. It ends up looking like a game show to me. With all apologies if my opinion is offensive.

Edit: What's to prove? And why?

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Anja

Edit: What's to prove? And why?

Everything. For every reason you can imagine.

[Antisocial one]

I guess that it is time to take my part in this.

Modern scientific atheism is anything but shallow. From the outside it looks shallow, because average person is unable to grasp it's full size.

You can't understand science unless you are a scientist. Even in that case you know only one tiny part of the picture. I think that for an average person it is impossible to grasp the full strength of science becuse there are simply to many fact and even more interactions between the facts.

Here one practical example.

If every century is one page in a book then toward traditional Christianity the history of our world is about 60 pages long.

In the case that science is correct the book has 46 000 000 pages.

So, who is actually the one who is shallow?

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

My point was, a rational person should assume that something does not exist until they find a reason to believe that it does. If someone says that purple mice do exist, we should ask them for their argument for maintaining that they do exist. If they do not provide an argument, we ought not to consider their point. Because otherwise anyone can simply state anything and in effect have their views regarded as potentially true regardless of their merit.

That's true when we're talking about concepts and entities that fall within the bounds of empirical proof, ie within the natural realm. God by nature is of the supernatural realm, which is beyond the bounds of normal empirical proof.

Theism is false by default, (e.g because noone gave an argument based on premises that do not require faith for such a thesis).

I'll repeat the famous saying by St. Anslem again, Credo ut intelligam(I believe so that I may understand). Faith is the foundation for rational inquiry. That's the basis for the famous 5 proofs provided by Aquinas. Do they definatively prove God exists? No, but belief in God in the end rests on faith, not reason. Aquinas' proofs provide rational basis to believe there is a God.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by Anja

I don't see any room for debate in spirituality. It ends up looking like a game show to me. With all apologies if my opinion is offensive.

Edit: What's to prove? And why?

No Im not offended. I see you take the classic Kierkegaardian perspective, which claims that debates about God's existence are great sources for comedies. I agree to a large extent, but that doesn't mean that discussions about God's existence are completelty fruitless, but both sides need to understand that only so much can be discussed.

I like how Pascal noted that you can never fully convince an atheist that God actually exists. At best you can prove that belief in God has merit to it. After that, there's not much more one can discuss - it's matter of individual faith after that.

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by Peguy

That's true when we're talking about concepts and entities that fall within the bounds of empirical proof, ie within the natural realm. God by nature is of the supernatural realm, which is beyond the bounds of normal empirical proof. .

That, by definition is fiction. Natural is the real world, the antonym of real is fiction.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

That, by definition is fiction. Natural is the real world, the antonym of real is fiction.

I believe because it's bullshit.

[CaptainChick]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

That, by definition is fiction. Natural is the real world, the antonym of real is fiction.

Originally Posted by Peguy

I believe because it's bullshit.