Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

I don`t understand that. It seems that an inner feeling that there is no god would be enough

I see no reason to believe that "redness" is an objective concept

My point exactly. Only by a scientific definition redness becomes an objective reality.In his post, iano was using the color red as example of a objective reality that exists eventhough some people are blind and won`t be able to see it.
He thinks this is a good analogy for his feeling of a godly presence, that (in his opinion) is real eventhough some people can`t see/feel it.The problem is that the feeling of redness only becomes objective under the scientific definition of wavelength which can be understood even by a blind person.For this reason, for the analogy to fulfill its purpose, he would have to be able to come up with some scientific understanding of god that even a person that does not feel god the way he does would be convinced by.But that cannot be done. That renders one`s feeling of a godly presence ireducebaly subjective. And that`s how it should be

No it isn`t. look closely at your TV screen (OK, turn it on before doing that). You will see little green pixels, blue pixels, and red pixels. No yellow pixels, thogh. So how come you can see yellow pictures in your TV?. It`s "created" by a composition of red and green. In this situation there is light with the red wavelength coming into your eyes and still, you don`t see any red!! So much for an objective comcept of redness.

You seemed perfecty happy with the idea that the wavelegth of the light yields a valid objective concept for what we percieve as color up to now. Now that you realize that eventhough you think you see yellow on your TV you are not seeing yellow at all (since there are no yellow pixels on it), you decided to backpadle, and try to build a case for an objective color experience without the scientific definition of wavelength. This enterprize, in my opinion, is doomed to failure You are the one pushing the analogy. I am just showing that your analogy failed its purpose. get a better one.

It can`t. That`s the point.

A rock doesn`t have the intellectual capacity to understand any of us. Should we stop reasoning all together or should we just stop talking to rocks? This is just a red hearing. The point is that the wavelegth of the light can be objectively defined, but the feeling of redness cannot. That makes the second concept a subjective one. Someone`s lack of intellectual capacity to comprehend the wavelegth concept is completely beside the point.

True. but it`s important to make sure that all the observers arrived at their conclusions about what they saw independently. (That`s why witnesses of a crime are not supposed to talk to each other before being interviewed by the police). But all you have to show for us as evidence that there is an god is the subjective "I feel it in my heart" which is a learned line. I do not doubt that you feel something in your heart. But I doubt that it is god.

Do you really think you made your point any better just by changing the word red for the word sunset?
That doesn`t change anything. It`s still possible to explain to a blind person what a sunset is. It is still impossible to explai the feeling that a sunset and its beauty gives us. The former is objective while the latter is subjective, just like your feeling of a godly presence is subjective. AS IT SHOULD BE, if the word faith is to be meaningfull at all.

You are being very persistent with that crackpot logic of yours. There is no difference between direct evidence or indirect evidence. They are both evidences, which is the point. But there is no evidence for your god, direct or indirect alike. If your analogy is to make any sense at all, you will have to be able to explain how come blind people consistently come to realize that they are really blind (I never met one that didn`t), but on the other hand there are billions of people on Earth that do not share your belief in a Christian god. Your analogy holds no water. Get over it.Edited by fallacycop, : spelling

So that`s what your faith means to you? An insurance plan just in case there turns out to be a god after all? That is astonishing!! What if there turns out to be a god that happens to care about intellectual integrity? I think you`d be in hot water, no doubt.

This is not only an ad hominen attack, but also a change of subject. The gospels or my understanding of them is completely irrelevant to the subject which was your misscaracterization of the christian faith as an isurance policy. Why don`t you try actually addressing my question That way, hopefully, we may start heading back to topic Again revert back to my question in post 114 (quoted above). Do YOU have cover for such an eventuality?More ad mominen attacks. why don`t you try making a point for a change? Even in the faith and belief fora a fallacy is still a fallacy. All evidence requires interpretation. Non-evidence requires faith (Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can tell.) Really? don`t you think they realize that other people can do things that they cannot? like telling how many finger in their hands are up or down without touching them. Other people seem to be able to consistently do this (And many other things of course) while he/she cannot. This is very objective evidence.

My personal observations have been the oposite of that. The harder someone`s life is, the more the clinge to the hope of a better afterlife.

Try not to be intentionally thick now, OK?
Of course the point is not that every observation is subjective. On the contrary. The point is that every observation is indirect (Some more so then others), but that does not prevent them form being objective. On the other hand, god is not observable at all. That`s why it takes faith to believe. Yes, faith, that very subjective concept. And that`s how it should be.
Only a person with a lesser form of faith would require direct evidence of god in order to believe.(I trust that you are no such person). It offends some of us (I include myself here), that you try to paint evidence for god existance as being objective. It`s as if you were telling us that even for people of lesser faith like us, still there is a path to god. That`s patronizing, and ultimately counterproductive for your faith. Phat is right to say that you`re ultimately driving people away from your faith. To many of us you just come across as misguided overzealous self-righteous arrogant and absolutist.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. For that, someone must have had some (none) evidence for some god presented to him/her, and then, based on that evidence (lack there of), made a decision whether the evidence is good enough. You seem to make the point that only if someone had never had any contact with the concept of deities, they could be true atheists. That makes no sense.