Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

But you won't know that there is a particle pattern until it is consciously perceived, however even then it is being measured by an experiment of a conscious being. The point is that the wave pattern exists until it is perceived or measured.

You are moving the goal posts again. Here is your earlier statement. You call yourself an atheist. Are you or aren't you? However you then go on to say: If you strongly believe that there is no god, (assuming that you mean an intelligent root cause for our existence) then you strongly believe that there are only natural processes responsible for all life forms. Then you are in the same position that I am in believing, or having faith in, a conclusion that we can't absolutely know to be correct.It goes back then to you believing that everything that we know is the result of a series of natural processes that exist as a result as a result of some other series of mindless processes....... and so on. You acknowledge that you believe that there is a small chance that you may be wrong, (as I do about my beliefs), but that is still the point on which you hang your hat.

I accept the agnostic position that we can't know one way or the other, but we can come to our own conclusions about what we believe.Sure theists over the centuries have made claims that have been proven to be explained by natural causes but my contention is that there is an intelligence, which I call God, that is responsible for the natural causes themselves.I know I keep repeating this but we can choose which conclusion we consider to be more viable. It is either that life is ultimately the result of a fortunate combination of mindless particles or it is a result of a pre-existing intelligence. I maintain that it isn't reasonable to expect that intelligence and morality evolved from totally mindless origins? (It is possible that some of you may not agree with that statement. )

The above is from your earlier post and then you replied to my post with the following: I agree that from reading your posts that you are a six but you have misrepresented Dawkins scale of belief. (A fine disciple you are. ) Here is Dawkin's scale of belief from "The God Delusion".

quote:

---

1/ Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2/ De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3/ Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4/ Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5/ Leaning towards Atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6/ De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7/ Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

---

On that scale the you are a 6 and I am a 2. I agree that I can't know, and just as you claim that like yourselves other atheists on this forum fall into category 6 I suggest that the greatest majority of theists on this forum are 2's. As either atheists or theists world wide we all have a nagging doubt that we could be wrong. I agree that there are theists that are going to claim absolute knowledge but let's face it they would also agree that it's a faith. Faith is an oxy-moron with claim of absolute knowledge. Of course it's a belief. Why on earth are you so opposed to agreeing with that. I'm a 2 and you are a 6. We both have as evidence the world as we experience it and learn about it but have come to different conclusions about something of which we don't have absolute knowledge. You believe one thing and I believe differently. You believe that no intelligent agency exists and I believe that one does.

[qs=DR Adequate]But if you do want to talk about quantum mechanics, then in fact the wave can collapse without conscious perception, which is why when you turn back round you see particle pattern rather than wave pattern.[/qm]I'm in no way qualified to have this discussion but certainly as I understand it, the only other way that a wave collapses is by being measured by a device constructed by a conscious being.

I know that unequivocally that the tooth fairy does not exist so presumably you believe unequivocally that God doesn't exist making you a 7 on Dawkin's scale which flies in the face of what oni claims.

Neither can I. Amen to that brother....and again

But we don't know that until it is observed, however you are probably correct in saying that the chlorophyll takes the place of a measuring device.

I'm not quite sure that you can unequivocally know that. You may be unequivocally convinced. ( I guess that is how I would be with unicorns as well. )Edited by GDR, : Picked myself up on saying that I unequivocally know unicorns don't exist.

I was just pointing out that Dawkins #7 was stronger that what you had written but I agree you were close. It does seem though that there are 7's on this forum which is contrary to what you had suggested. However it it's irrelevant anyway. I'd describe myself as a strong 2. It seems extremely unlikely to me that mindless processes are responsible for intelligent life. I believe that to be the case just as you believe the opposite.