Even God suggests using candles.
Not everyone can learn science, so if science was the way to find God, not everyone could find Him, which would make God a crazy asshole. That’s why He makes it very simple to find Him, to just believe. Something everyone can do, even scientists can do this. Can you think of a better single way that anyone can seek out God, by some other method that would allow anyone to find Him, regardless of education level?
Why are you assuming we’re seeking God at all, or seeking better ways to seek God?
In bible, phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny. [ /Yakov Smirnoff voice ]
With respect - I strongly disagree. Atheism is a belief, it’s the belief that there is no theos - quite literally - no God or gods.
Science is a word perpetually misused here, I’ve noticed. It is derived from the Latin word ‘scientia’ and simply means knowledge. It is not in and of itself anything in particular. Every branch of knowlege, including all religions, are sciences. I’ve noticed that atheists, in particular, tend to deify science. Curious.
One further point, if I may, one’s belief in God is not always taught - many times it is the result of personal experience. So few seem willing to consider this possible - another odd trait for those claiming to be ‘scientists’ or seekers of knowledge and truth.
Have a spectacular day! - Jesse.
As I’ve said before, not according to any dictionary or encylopedia of philosophy that I’ve ever seen. Every single dictionary that I’ve consulted, for example, defines atheism as either the belief that there is NO god or the disbelief in God. These same dictionaries almost invariably define disbelief as “the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true” or words to that effect.
It has become fashionable for people to claim that atheism is defined as the lack of belief. Sure, some people may choose to use this term in that manner, but it’s not the traditional usage, nor is this definition supported by many authoritative texts on either philosophy or philology.
But I can’t “just believe.” I’ve tried. It doesn’t work for me.
And what do you “just believe” in? Coyote? A ten-year-old boy with a powerful gaming computer? Nyarolathotep? Yahweh? The Force? ALl of them simultaneously?
I’d assume an all-powerful God could make science be one path among many to finding It. Or, hell, it could make the human brain as innately capable of apprehending scientific principles as it is of acquiring language.
Daniel
One could just as easily argue that atheists tried to kill or shut up the theists. In fact, we have plenty of historical evidence to that effect.
So? We’re just talking about the finer points of attitudes toward something that has never been proven or even firmly demonstrated to exist. If “fhalskejel” is an ill-defined concept, does it really matter if someone believes there is no fhalskejel or someone who disbelieves fhalskejel or thinks the issue of fhalskejel is unknowable? If you want to assert a distinction, seems to me the burden is on you to demonstrate that God/fhalskejel has some property capable of analysis in the first place.
What difference do you find between “without theistic beliefs” and “disbelief in God”?
Since we’re going to prove points by dropping links:
http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2008/01/communism-and-atheism.html
From that link:
Plain wrong! A theist doesn’t have to know that God or gods do exist, he just has to have belief- and an atheist just has to be without belief.
As I believe i’ve said before, there seem to be examples to the otherwise. And I think I said before as well that an inability to believe something is not an active belief - inability to believe or accept is in fact a very good alternate way of putting “without theistic beliefs”. Inability to believe does not translate to active belief against; it certainly does not rule that option out, since a person with a strong belief there is no god likewise is unable to believe, but by the same token a person who is entirely neutral on the issue is also covered by that definition.
I’m not sure “fashionable” is the right word. “More common”, perhaps? And i’d personally say the most authoritative source on what words mean are everyone who uses them, but then i’m still of the opinion that the definitions you cite in general there include the one Diogenes has put forth.
Really? I’m perfectly willing to accept that many people’s belief in God is the result of personal experience. Being an atheist I don’t believe that personal experience is interpreted correctly, but I have no doubts that such experiences do happen. I honestly don’t think acceptance of that point among atheists is all that rare. I mean, you’ve essentially suggested that atheists as a majority believe all people who claim to have had personal experience leading to religion are liars, which seems a pretty harsh position.
Looks to be a couple hundred pages long. Please summarize. And since it’s the religious ones who left behind the art and documents and wrote the histories, I’m really interested to see what you’re referring to.
G’morning Revenant Threshold!
It is not my intention to label any or all atheists liars. I’ve contributed to many forums in the past decade, and since my belief in God does comes from personal experience (I come from an irreligious family), and I’ve believed since I was three years old, I’m well acquainted with the usual reception that kind of statement gets. I’ve been called everything from delusional to a liar - all by atheists and agnostics, and for the most part from people who pride themselves on their scientific knowledge and objectivity.
You yourself don’t believe revelation is valid, it’s ‘interpreted incorrectly’ according to you, so you no more believe it is possible than the other atheists I’ve met. Given that, the logical assumption is that you are calling me a liar - following your line of reasoning. That’s a ‘Pretty harsh position,’ don’t you think so? I know something that you don’t, so I must be in error, a liar, or delusional - or am I misunderstanding your position?
Because you don’t believe in God or a god, anything outside of your accepted belief system must be erroneous - or misinterpreted. If all scientists thought like you, we’d still be in the stone age. No offense intended. - Jesse.
Flawed conclusion, and we got out of the stone age before anything resembling modern monotheism existed. The Higgs boson represents something not yet firmly established in science, but its eventual acceptance or rejection has no relevance to the existence of God.
For that matter, how did belief in God enable the creation of the computer you are using to post to this board?
Technically it’s afternoon here - what’s the system of greeting politeness for different timezones? 
I wasn’t accusing you of thinking any or all atheists were liars. I was accusing you of thinking that any or all atheists believed that people whose faith stems from personal experience are liars - that the atheists think the religious are liars, not that the atheists are themselves liars. As you yourself say, you have been called a liar (among other things, sadly); it is your apparent belief that the majority of atheists think that of you that I believe is harsh.
Not at all. First off, it’s certainly possible that you are right, that you have truly experienced what you believe you did and interpreted it entirely correctly. I have no problem admitting to that possibility. And no, i’m not calling you a liar, i’m saying you’ve misunderstood, that you’ve misinterpeted events. Out of your three options you provide, that you are in error. I don’t think you’re being dishonest at all, nor do you seem particularly delusional to me. I just think you’ve misunderstood; which must be pretty much the position of everyone towards people they disagree with on this issue.
Must be? Not so. There is most certainly the possibility i’m wrong. After all, if we accept that your personal experience might be faulty, then by the same token mine is equally likely to be flawed. I think you might need to get your money back from those mind-reading lessons. After all, a true religious experience would be some good evidence against my atheism - it would be silly for me to automatically and completely disregard anything that might be it, since otherwise i’d never know if I was wrong! Now, certainly, my atheism means that I have a certain amount of scepticism going into looking at it, but I would say that that’s a perfectly reasonable and “scientific” reaction; my ideas are based on all the evidence I have so far, but I am certainly willing to throw out all my theories if new, impressive counter-evidence pops up that they’re wrong. What exactly is the unscientific part?
The Straight Dope Message Board summed up in 5 words.
Okay, given that you read RT as calling you a liar, that pretty much calls into doubt the fact that you’ve been called a liar elsewhere–although I’d understand if you made a similar statement elsewhere as the one you m, and someone interpreted it as dishonesty.
That’s not what I think happened. I think you just had the experience of someone telling you you’d mistakenly interpreted something that happened to you, and you mistakenly interpreted that experience as being the experience of being called a liar.
I don’t deny that you had the experience. I deny that you drew a valid conclusion from the experience.
That’s what I believe happened with your religious experiences, also. I’ve already got evidence that you interpret experiences incorrectly on occasion; I suspect your religious experiences are just another example of that phenomenon.
Note that if you interpret this as my calling you a liar, you will be mistaken.
If you interpret this as my calling you delusional, you will only be correct to the exact extent that you are calling me delusional for denying your interpretation of your religious experiences.
Daniel
Yes, I’m sure the Free Republic is a completely unimpeachable source, with no agenda or axe to grind.