I can assume that what I observe through my senses is accurate. If it were not accurate, I would not ever be able to observe that it was not accurate, after all, so it would make no difference to me.
This is not entirely true. Your senses can be partially accurate. Your senses could be inaccurate until a point where they become accurate and you come to a full realization they were previously inaccurate. I could tell you they are inaccurate and give you evidence on why they are (giving evidence to a deaf person on why we can hear and they can not). All but one sense could be accurate. Or all senses but one could be accurate. Your senses could be accurate, but your memories partially inaccurate and accurate. Or your senses could be accurate and your memory entirely inaccurate. You could temporarily be in a reality that you will be taken out of, like the matrix. So what basis can you assume everything in your reality is perfectly accurate? The agnostic position would be "I do not believe they are accurate" because absolute truth has not been established. I've been arguing that it is no more reasonable to assume your senses are accurate than to assume the existence of god being unreasonable is accurate. Neither, at our current state, can be tested.
But how can you assume I cannot observe them? I am the divine unicorn. How could you possibly take a stance on that, since you cannot observe my divinity.
You are not the divine unicorn, if you were your hooves would be too large and unwieldy to type on a keyboard
Neighing would not be compatible with voice recognition.
Why use magic to print text on a forum when you could be using magic to speaking to people directly?
If you were really a unicorn god you would be doing a better job to represent your people...
It is equally valid to say that "the monitor I am looking at definitely exists" and "The god that is obviously a result of evolving stories definitely does not exist". They are both appropriate assertions within the scenario in which one chooses to exist. It is equally valid to say that both lack continuous proof to absolute base principals and therefore cannot be proven, but that way lies madness...
MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAHAHAHA heh HAA HAA hee weehee HAHAaaaaaaaargh!
. Generally, I think that the polite thing to do is just not bring it up unless the conversation swings that way, and once you do, you drop it once somebody else says they're getting uncomfortable or starts getting angry about it.
Part of it is also the attitude; a lot of evangelism comes off as "You're wrong, listen to my way." It's not so much evangelism, I suppose, as zealotry that irritates me, and every belief set seems to have some people that suffer from that, including Atheism.
The main thing that annoys me about the common atheist arguments is that they frequently discuss blind faith and the cruelties that religion can lead to, ignoring that it's not unheard of for atheists to display the very same problems.
This is an appropriate forum for religious debate, choosing to partake of this thread is choosing to be involved in a religious debate. To enter a debate about religion and expecting others to cease because it causes discomfort on is imposing their will upon others and severely restricting their freedoms...
Transfer of knowledge requires assertions, you object to extremely arrogant and/or forceful assertions, but where exactly is the point at which is becomes a problem?
Atheism is compatible with blind faith, religion requires it. It is impossible to fix the problem while religion persists. If people can understand the problems with religion, which are obvious, perhaps they will be able to see the problems in more mundane forms of obsession.
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 392174 times)