3 ms·
yes atheists take the "how" and use it to argue against the "why" when the truth is we don't know the why. There are strong arguments from "world renowned" ind
by kls 17y ago
yes atheists take the "how" and use it to argue against the "why" when the truth is we don't know the why.
There are strong arguments from "world renowned" individuals that items like mathematics and the laws of physics have a strong sense of order to them and could very well represent the language and rules of a designer.
An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says:
"see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible"
they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced.
I think agnostics are far more creative thinkers, as they entertain grand possibilities and have the most fascinating ideas on the concepts of why we are here and how it could have happened.
To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject.
Atheist are entitles to their views and I don't disparage them that, but they reason on misleading facts and faith just as much as the religious do.
- jamesbritt 17y ago"An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says: 'see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible' they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced. To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject." On what research do you base these broad, sweeping generalizations of large groups of people? I'm guessing you're just pigeon-holing people based on personal biases from purely anecdotal observations of a relatively small number of people (considering the number of atheists and agnostics in the world). Or you just invented definitions to suit your world view. Either way, it sounds like reasoning on misleading facts and faith. If you're going to disparage a seriously large number of people, please have at least few facts you can back up.
- kls 17y agoTo reason that there is no god is not based on factual observation. To reason that there is a god is not based on factual observation. I don't need to pigeon-holing anyone anywhere the nuances I highlighted are based on the real world definitions not ones I invented. The only conjecture that I added was my personal view that lumping agnostics (by definition) in with atheist is to deny an agnostic a more robust view on things, something that neither the religious nor atheist tend to appreciate. --please have at least few facts you can back up That's all I was talking about was true facts, it funny how emotions cripple people logically and blind them from the true quest for knowledge.