1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettNo, I just don't believe there is anything in the standard definition of atheist that would mean an atheist would necessarily believe anything regardless of what kind of evidence is presented. So when you say:
If you're trying to turn this into another discussion about atheists "believing in the non-existence of god" then don't waste your time.
Atheists do not at any time deny the possibility of telepathy or other supernatural events... If you can provide any good evidence that they exist then we will believe in them.I think that is an unfounded assertion to say atheist would believe anything on any evidence. You're giving atheism more credit than it deserves.
Originally posted by ColettiYes, for once you have a good point. Atheism refers only to the lack of belief in a god and nothing more. A more appropriate term would have been "skeptic", or "rationalist", or some such thing.
No, I just don't believe there is anything in the standard definition of atheist that would mean an atheist would necessarily believe anything regardless of what kind of evidence is presented. So when you say: [quote]Atheists do not at any time deny the possibility of telepathy or other supernatural events... If you can provide any good evidence that they ...[text shortened]... st would believe anything on any evidence. You're giving atheism more credit than it deserves.
Originally posted by Colettihe said "any 'good' evidence"
No, I just don't believe there is anything in the standard definition of atheist that would mean an atheist would necessarily believe anything regardless of what kind of evidence is presented. So when you say: [quote]Atheists do not at any time deny the possibility of telepathy or other supernatural events... If you can provide any good evidence that they ...[text shortened]... st would believe anything on any evidence. You're giving atheism more credit than it deserves.
Originally posted by rwingettTo give you the benefit of the doubt - most atheist I know are also fairly rational people that I can understand even if I disagree with them on one point.
Yes, for once you have a good point. Atheism refers only to the lack of belief in a god and nothing more. A more appropriate term would have been "skeptic", or "rationalist", or some such thing.
Originally posted by Halitosethat would apply to any rational person.
Sure. But the definition of "good" is relative to each atheist, aint it?
Why I said that was simply to clear up an apparent misreading of rwinglett's sentence, without the word "good" that sentence would imply the good, the bad and the ugly.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettthere's no doctrinal reason for theists to believe in ghosts either, probably the opposite is true.
Yes, for once you have a good point. Atheism refers only to the lack of belief in a god and nothing more. A more appropriate term would have been "skeptic", or "rationalist", or some such thing.
I'm waiting to see if CERN's Atlas can detect something deeper in the onion than the sought after Higgs particle.
As it is, it would be an amusing twist if we find the "god particle" (Higgs) not far from where we found cave drawings and small sculptures of our earliest (found) attempts at religion.
