Does the fact that religious experience is subjective logically disprove it?

Question

I guess this is one for the atheist fundamentalists out there. Isn't any religious certainty, for or against, stupid? Surely anything might be true from Islam to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't logically prove a negative, surely. The truth might, just might, be a lot wierder than we can imagine. What makes people so die-hard certain that Bertrand Russell's teapot is not out there? Its unlikely but not actually impossible. Why are atheists as certain as religious extremists? Surely both positions are logically absurd.

Just 3 thoughts - a) religion doesn't only include theism, b) "Because it is..." is a lousy argument, and c) bigotry is alive and well on ALL sides of this argument. Yes that could even mean you!

Answer 1

No, it's not the subjectivity of religious experience that proves something non-existent. Rather, it's the lack of physical evidence that makes it unlikely. This doesn't disprove any notion by 100%, of course. To do that humanity would have to know everything about reality and the universe, and there will always be the possibility that we don't know.

I don't think that atheists are on the same level of religious extremists, who create specific gods and doctrines on "faith."

Most atheists do not have any faith or believe with 100% certainty that there is no god, only that the idea is improbable and religion is logically absurd. And evidence will change their minds.

For me, atheism is defined by a lack of belief. Can you see the difference? I'll grant you the possibility that a god exists, but I find it very unlikely.

Answer 2

There's a giant invisible hippo floating around the earth. Should we change our maps of the solar system based on that? Or should we say that it does not exist until we see proof? Should I really devote my life to something that can't be seen and comes from the same book that says the world was made in seven days? And that humans were here from the beginning when based on current research that is ALL complete rubbish. All atheists recognize the possibility of there being a god we are all agnostics in that aspect but I refuse to entertain the idea unless some evidence is shown for a man made hypothesis. I'm glad you are trying to look at the situation with an open mind and fairly but every hypothesis doesn't deserve to be looked at fairly.

Answer 3

Ever get the feeling that some people, a certain kind of person on this planet, knows something that you don't by a type of knowing that can't be explained, one far beyond the realm of science? Maybe There are two minds at work in people, they don't coexist. They both could be wrong or only one could be right. You can determine for yourself by the spirit behind each.

Answer 4

There is no such thing as a fundamental athiest because an athiest is a person that does not believe in a God. That's different from believing there IS no GOd. So there is no way for one to be fundamental about something that doesn't exist. Someone who claims to be a fundamenta athiest doesnt know what athiesm means.

So to answer your question about an actual teapot in space, it is possible. It's just not believable.

Answer 5

Because it IS possible to disprove every form of theism on the planet.

Granted, that leaves you Deism to contend with, but that's just atheism that calls the prima causa "Creator"

Answer 6

I prefer Schrodinger's cat... teapots aren't cute and fuzzy...

_()_