Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I am sure God will take into account those who have not encountered the message of salvation given by Jesus.
But I fear for the salvation of those who have heard His word and rejected it.

In which case only the highly credulous will get 'saved'.

Seems like a simplistic and also cruel doctrine to me, albeit I think it too nonsensical to take seriously. 

[Sebastian Toe]

I am sure God will take into account those who have not encountered the message of salvation given by Jesus.

And how do you think he might possibly do that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And Islam is the only religion where the scriptures were dictated word by word.

How does that help atheism though, Torridon?

[Maeght]

How does that help atheism though, Torridon?

It's about comparing claims of different religions, not atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's about comparing claims of different religions, not atheism.

Torridon isn't comparing religious claims though he is equating them. Read his recent posts again .What it looks like is he is saying Christianity has Jesus, Islam has the Quran, so what...where now?

I think you've had an Islamic and a Christian view. In Christ you can have a direct encounter with God...in Islam if I've got it right you can't.

[Maeght]

Torridon isn't comparing religious claims though he is equating them. Read his recent posts again .What it looks like is he is saying Christianity has Jesus, Islam has the Quran, so what...where now?

I think you've had an Islamic and a Christian view. In Christ you can have a direct encounter with God...in Islam if I've got it right you can't.

I doubt he is equating them since he doesn't believe either.

Well,  maybe equating in terms of saying that they are both religious claims but not in terms of how true those claims are. The later will depend on which religion you follow surely.

[torridon]

How does that help atheism though, Torridon?

Atheism isn't a claim, and so does not need anything. You could view it as merely a default position if you see religions as products of culture.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism isn't a claim, and so does not need anything. You could view it as merely a default position if you see religions as products of culture.

Default positions can be claims e.g.Innocent until proved guilty. The claim here is obvious. The claim in atheism is surely "non existent until proved existent.

[Maeght]

Default positions can be claims e.g.Innocent until proved guilty. The claim here is obvious. The claim in atheism is surely "non existent until proved existent.

Not convinced until convinced.

[Stranger]

The claim here is obvious. The claim in atheism is surely "non existent until proved existent.

That's not about atheism, it's basic sanity. Do you go round accepting any old myth, legend, conspiracy theory, paranormal, pseudo-science, etc., claim that is fed to you, without any reason?

Since you're back:-

Interesting that you responded to this, and some later posts, skipping over my more substantive replies: #46888 and #46891, the first of which explains the amusement I expressed in the post you responded to here and asks you a pertinent question (albeit in a rather light-hearted manner, I really do find this hilarious, sorry). The second explains (again) the exact nature of your logical blunder.

Take all the time you need but it will be telling if you end up just ignoring them...

 

[Gordon]

Default positions can be claims e.g.Innocent until proved guilty. The claim here is obvious. The claim in atheism is surely "non existent until proved existent.

Which is a sensible position to adopt - so when I take my motorbike out of the garage I am untroubled by thoughts about how to avoid annoying the dragon as I do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not about atheism, it's basic sanity. Do you go round accepting any old myth, legend, conspiracy theory, paranormal, pseudo-science, etc., claim that is fed to you, without any reason?

Since you're back:-
 

Basic sanity...........in your opinion. I don't go around accepting any old paranormal and I do not accept pseudoscientific claims. You have a one size fits view of religious people IMV.

Like many on here you probably think your just a regular guy. To which I would have to say why aren't we knee deep in regular atheist guys on the religion ethics board site?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is a sensible position to adopt - so when I take my motorbike out of the garage I am untroubled by thoughts about how to avoid annoying the dragon as I do so.

I'm glad you agree that atheism is a position. How it's the default position though perhaps you'd like to fill us in.
The disqualification buzzer will go if you make recourse to materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc including I was a senior managerism..

[Maeght]

I'm glad you agree that atheism is a position. How it's the default position though perhaps you'd like to fill us in.
The disqualification buzzer will go if you make recourse to materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc including I was a senior managerism..

Surely with everything you aren't convinced until you are.

[Gordon]

I'm glad you agree that atheism is a position. How it's the default position though perhaps you'd like to fill us in.
The disqualification buzzer will go if you make recourse to materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc including I was a senior managerism..

As usual Vlad you get it wrong, because you seem unable to think clearly.

I didn't say that atheism is a 'position', and in any event it is more of a response (to being confronted with theobollocks).

The point I was responding to was your "non existent until proved existent", and I don't need to be an atheist to conclude that there is something inherently sensible in that approach. My mention of dragons in garages, which refers to a well known essay, was intended to illustrate the very point you yourself made - so, to clarify, until the existence of dragons is confirmed I needn't worry unduly about encountering one.

Do you get it now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As usual Vlad you get it wrong, because you seem unable to think clearly.

I didn't say that atheism is a 'position', and in any event it is more of a response (to being confronted with theobollocks).

The point I was responding to was your "non existent until proved existent", and I don't need to be an atheist to conclude that there is something inherently sensible in that approach. My mention of dragons in garages, which refers to a well known essay, was intended to illustrate the very point you yourself made - so, to clarify, until the existence of dragons is confirmed I needn't worry unduly about encountering one.

Do you get it now?

I'm not sure I agree with the non existent until proved existent bit though Gordon. This where your scientism shines through. It is achingly obvious that you and many have an appalling disrespect for philosophy save perhaps for Hume and even that looks suspiciously jingoism.

God remains though "Unproven" rather than non existent...rather like empiricism and naturalism.

[Gordon]

God remains though "Unproven" rather than non existent...rather like empiricism and naturalism.

In which case 'God' should be viewed on the same basis as 'Dragons' - not sure that helps your case.

[Stranger]

I don't go around accepting any old paranormal and I do not accept pseudoscientific claims.

So you agree with what you called the "claim in atheism", "non existent until proved existent", when it comes to other claims with no evidence.

You have a one size fits view of religious people IMV.

Why do you think religions should be treated any differently?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case 'God' should be viewed on the same basis as 'Dragons' - not sure that helps your case.

Or Dark matter, or parallel universe, or simulated universe or previous universes, or infinite regresses or circular hierarchies or brute facts, or empiricism, scientism, naturalism etc, etc but no Gordon had to go for "Dragon".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you agree with what you called the "claim in atheism", "non existent until proved existent", when it comes to other claims with no evidence.

Why do you think religions should be treated any differently?

No I've said non existent until proved existent is a bollocks idea......think about it.

[torridon]

Default positions can be claims e.g.Innocent until proved guilty. The claim here is obvious. The claim in atheism is surely "non existent until proved existent.

More generally, it is a question of the burden of proof.  This is not an atheism thing per se, more a broad principle of logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More generally, it is a question of the burden of proof.  This is not an atheism thing per se, more a broad principle of logic.

It's funny then how the non existence of God, being a positive assertion therefore carries a burden of proof, as does the positive assertion of the atheist bus namely that their probably isn't a God.

It is not true imv that there aren't any grounds for believing in God but you seem to be saying that as atheism needs nothing it needs no grounds.

[Stranger]

No I've said non existent until proved existent is a bollocks idea......think about it.

I have, thanks, why don't you?

Ghosts.
Werewolves.
Aliens that abduct people to anally probe, mutilate cattle, and draw pretty patterns in fields.
The Loch Ness monster.
Vampires.
Mind-readers.
Telepaths.
Magicians (real magic, not conjurers).
Lizard aliens running governments.
...

[Stranger]

It's funny then how the non existence of God, being a positive assertion...

Which nobody here seems to be making.   

[torridon]

It is not true imv that there aren't any grounds for believing in God but you seem to be saying that as atheism needs nothing it needs no grounds.

Yes, this is the logic of the situation.

Can you please supply a tasty recipe for not spaghetti bolognaise.

Doesn't work that way.