The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 17, 2010, 22:21 (5232 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Thank you George,
> xeno wrote: I think he got further confused when I argued that zero evidence of God doesn't allow us to say in the definitive "God does not exist." Safer is the claim, "God probably doesn't exist," or my preferred, "I have no reason to believe in God."
> 
> What's wrong with this argument is that you are assuming that you know what is meant by "God". People have all sorts of ideas about different kinds of "God". Most of them are easily shown to be nonexistent by science, or even by simple logic.
> 
> Of course if you are prepared to water down your concept of "God" until it is so vague or so ineffectual as to bear little resemblance to any "God" that has ever had any popular acclaim, you are on safe ground in being agnostic.-This is identical to another Dawkins' argument. "Someone claims that Zeus is the cause of lightning, we show him the difference of equipotentials is the cause. We reject Zeus and Accept the natural explanation." -However, the water is still more murky than you think; to some Christians, the shroud of Turin to be evidence of Christ's existence. This is because the threshhold they have for evidence is drastically different than someone who is more materialistic. The difficult part about this for everyone involved, is that it isn't necessary to be a strict logician to go about one's daily business; and I don't get to tell evangelicals that they're wrong because of the level of relativity that is permissible. Because everyone is a metaphysician, we all have our own personal criterion for what is credible and what isn't. -There was a fellow I met once. I don't even remember his name, but he told me that he believed in God when a car careened through our neighborhood, hit his father, and his father got up without a scratch. -To him and his father, his father's brush with death was evidence enough. And as I've wandered through this small world, those I've met that are the most devout, always have some tale like this one to tell. -When you get down to this level, what exactly can you say or do? -What my point was with this post, was to demonstrate that the reason why the conflict of materialism and immaterialism exists to the extent that it does. It boils down to what is acceptable evidence. And no one really gets to determine that on the grand scale, because not everything man does is science. If things were so simply logical as Dawkins asserts, no one would believe in any gods at all; but they do. Why do they? It comes down to the items faith, and a lower criterion of what is acceptable evidence.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"