This isn't mockery. I actually appreciate and enjoy reading atheist replies which are indicative of high degree of thought and the sound reason and lack of flimsy logic.
However, I have a serious request. Contemplate this. Have you ever (humbly) considered that your own system is fallible? That perhaps your understanding could be limited?
2007-09-26 08:33:09 · 42 answers · asked by Pansy 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Oooh, BGrimey, a bit suave there.
2007-09-26 08:40:04 · update #1
Perhaps I am wrong, but by basing my beliefs on testable evidence and logical reasoning I reduce the chances of being wrong significantly. I know of no other method of reaching truth which is superior.
2007-09-26 08:38:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
YES!
Sorry, I'm not typically so fervent, but this is actually a MAJOR component of my personal philosophy and of scientific reasoning in general. It doesn't get talked about enough.
In order to learn ANYTHING, you have to admit that you don't know it to begin with. This is why there are no absolutes in science. Everything is subject to change, depending on the available evidence. Any attempt at discerning truth must maintain enough intellectual honesty to admit its own ignorance and fallibility.
This goes to the very core of the scientific method of inquiry. Every rule and technique and method of science is designed specifically to either limit cognitive bias or enhance human perception, which is inherently fallible.
Quite simply, I rely on evidence BECAUSE my perception and understanding is fallible. Real evidence exists apart from my own perception, can be measured objectively, and produces reproducible perceptions in others. All of these measures serve to limit the errors of my own fallible logic.
2007-09-26 08:50:11 · answer #2 · answered by marbledog 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course my faith is fallible, that's why I believe. It's like true love you not only embrace the good but also accept the faults. Faith isn't logic.
I'm not an atheist but I'm not a Christian either. I'm not interested in finding my spiritual truths solely in a book or solely through Christ or any single prophet. The mysteries of life are what life worth living. And if I'm wrong I'll embrace that too for I'd rather go hell true to my beliefs than go to heaven a hypocrite. And if God has a problem with that, then it's his problem not mine.
2007-09-26 08:50:45 · answer #3 · answered by brianjames04 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. In fact I am sure that my system of belief is flawed and that I will be adjusting it throughout the rest of my life. I acknowledge that if God provided true evidence for his existence then I would most definitely change my stance. I would have to, because I rely on evidence for belief.
That is the big difference between Atheists and religious folks, we have room for growth in our understanding of the world and the universe. Religious people tend to draw a biblical line in the sand and then choose to ignore all evidence that appears to contradict the bible or holy text they follow. It is very concerning.
I had a conversation with one evangelical, where he stated that evidence doesn't matter, and that no matter what was provided through science or history, he would reject it as false if it didn't follow his interpretation of the bible. That type of belief can lead to disaster and harm for the human race.
2007-09-26 08:46:56 · answer #4 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure have.
But a fallible system a lack of understanding, does not postulate the existence of a God. Just an error in human reasoning!
2007-09-26 08:37:25 · answer #5 · answered by Future 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Contemplate this, some supreme being got the ball rolling an unimaginable time ago and made it so that animals can evolve from primordial slime which could coalesce from cosmic dust which came from a big bang which came after a big collapse which has happened an unimaginable number of times making this "universe" unimaginably old. Our understanding could be very limited, but belief that things just appeared one day from a petulant god screams of limited understanding.
2007-09-26 08:50:00 · answer #6 · answered by bocasbeachbum 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course it could be fallible. That is specifically why I do not hinge my beliefs or my life upon any ideas that I'm not willing to change should a better or more clearer understanding evolve from the things that science or my own experience can grant me. In that way I remain flexible in my thinking and adaptive to better ways.
2007-09-26 08:56:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course. I KNOW that my understanding is limited. But when I reach an impasse in my understanding of things, I do not fill in the blanks with "God did it." There's no reason to believe that there IS a God that did anything. Until I have a reason to believe that there is a God, I am not going to credit any magical, invisible, supernatural beings with anything. I just leave it at "My understanding stops here. I don't know any more than this..."
2007-09-26 08:46:45 · answer #8 · answered by Jess H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you heard the story of Little Red Riding Hood , and the wolf dressed up as her grandmother talking to her in perfect English. Did you ever consider that the story might be true ?
When I read about a three-in-one "god", who was dead for three days , then came back to life , and whizzed off into "heaven" . I say to myself that the fairy tales are getting out of hand . Little Red Riding Hood is far more believable .
2007-09-26 08:42:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes I have and I am constantly adjusting my outlook when I acquire new information.
Faith in a god though? You are asking me to take the word of bronze age goat herders that magic exists without being able to prove the claim. How can my system (that is evidence based and therefore testable) be more flawed than someone who believes in magic without any evidence at all?
2007-09-26 08:40:37 · answer #10 · answered by thewolfskoll 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋