reply to post by Openeye
The only fact of their (the atheist's) knowledge is that they know they don't believe in God. Ok.
I suppose there's an opportunity for some self knowledge there in knowing what one does not believe in, but there's another kind of belief whereby we
what we come to know is true.
And since the "believers" (who just believe, but without any proven reason) say it's all a matter of faith and belief the atheist is forced, as a
rational person, not to accept anything on blind faith, particularly when it comes to the matter of an all-knowing all-loving God who's responsible
for allegedly causing to manifest the whole of all creation, including one's own self both morphologically as well as spiritually, that is if there's
even a transcendent self or consciousness of some sort, like a soul, in the first place.
I can see that, taking that position as a starting point, and asking for some sort of authentic evidence or authentification.
However, although an outward appearance or sign of some kind would indeed be very helpful, there are a variety of human experiences which can be
called knowledge not the least of which is deep and profound personal knowledge of the variety that cannot be discounted - a knowing unique and
personal to each person separately because it's an inner knowing.
Furthermore, while we're looking for a visible manifestation of evidence or proof (presumably upon which we can all agree is reasonable), real
knowledge and understanding and comprehension could come and does in other forms as well, like when we satisfactorily solve a mathematical equation
and just KNOW that it's right, or when we intuitively know Virtue and Quality when we see it in just about any area or arena of human endeavor. There
are many many examples of real and authentic knowledge which do not have to come in the form of a material something in a bottle, I would like to make
that perfectly clear.
I get where the atheist is coming from and why they would see the believing world as insane, brainwashed etc. Like I said in an earlier post, when I
was a kid I HAD to know precisely WHY and HOW something I was being taught really was the way it was. I read and "grokked" Descartes treatise when I
was about 10 years old. Most people don't know it but aside from "I think therefore I am" he actually seemed to prophecy the discovery by modern
science that we interact with the world as a tangled hierarchy wherein to be is to be perceived and it was at this point that he felt he had proven
the existence of God (as a mind perceiving the objective reality) philosophically, starting with the only thing that can be known (I think therefore I
Blind faith is unacceptable to me also. I'm serious.
But so too is blind and willful ignorance in the face of a well reasoned and well presented argument for no other reason than to hold to a
(even if it's "I don't believe"), position or opinion, a very strong one, potentially, if given a self-reinforcing label
Question: Is the atheist open and willing to consider the possibility
of God if given sufficient reason and knowledge and information to do so?
And if so, how could an atheist no longer be an atheist if they're already an atheist to begin with?
edit on 17-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit