Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:15:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> Here's the other thing: Atheists can generally provide a long list of
>> "here's things that would convince me to be religious."  Theists can
>> rarely provide a single answer to "what would convince you you're
>> wrong?"
> 
> Well, that's proving a negative (after a fashion, perhaps), which is not 
> generally regarded, AIUI, as a valid scientific approach.

Errr, not at all. Of course you can prove a negative in the scientific 
sense. "This drug does not cause cancer."

I can provide a long list of things that could happen that would very 
quickly convince me that I am wrong about the non-existence of God.

I have never met an theist who could give a single example of anything 
that would convince him *his* religion is wrong. (Note: there have been 
such theists in history - people conquered by christians, for example 
who decided that meant the christian god must be stronger than their 
own.)  I guess you could call the original christians such theists, and 
probably the original muslims, mormons, etc. On the gripping hand, 
they're all followers of JHVH, so it's not real clear this was actually 
changing their minds.

Hence, all the arguments that "atheism is just another religion" is 
wrong, because atheism, not being based purely on faith, is open to 
change via argument or evidence.  At least mine is.

(There's actually a number of interesting SF books I've read wherein 
God's existence is scientifically proven.)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message