-->
@3RU7AL
It isn't hair splitting, it is relevent.
Loving any god is not the same as loving the truth. I know you like fill in the blanks, but this is not a fill in a blank.
And what about the content you've read in textbooks, or read in papers? What about Da Vinci's notebooks? Would consider their being texts as diminishing to their effect as evidence?Well, it depends on what we are saying it stands as evidence for. It doesn't disqualify as a possibility. Everything we have ever imagined could be real in some possible world. I just don't think the text is evidence enough for me to say, become Christian and abandon what i believe.
I purposefully said as far as i know.
But as far as i know, it doesn't seem to be repeatable with our present day knowledge simply, bc if it were... i think we would have all heard about it by now. Minus things like conspiracies to withhold this information or fringe people with no desire to share... i would say there is no repeatable evidence the rest can show. I would add that bc i have experienced stuff and know i can't repeat it... that would also be a reason i suspect this, but i can't generalize with my experience vs. others... maybe they can. But that is sorta another reason i don't think it's repeatable. We can also add other things to this like human nature and a thirst for power. I would say all combined, i'm pretty confident there isn't repeatable evidence for "a particular deity."
And what about the content you've read in textbooks, or read in papers? What about Da Vinci's notebooks? Would consider their being texts as diminishing to their effect as evidence?
I know. "As far as I know" still suggests that you know something, it's particular extent notwithstanding. So, as far as you know, how do you know?
Gauging your response, I presume your reasoning does follow epistemological form. It's just your conclusion ("there's no evidence") is at odds with it.
Loving any god is not the same as loving the truth. I know you like fill in the blanks, but this is not a fill in a blank.
If you can not comprehend what is meant by the same old unresolvable argument then why do you continue to debate it?
It looks exactly like loving The Truth and The Ultimate Reality.What does loving Krishna look like?
What do you think that an epistemological limit is? Given the philosophical and theoretical nature of epistemology.
Even if I were to grant your distinction, there is definitely a difference between someone who acknowledges a god, gods, or God and one who is in denial of God and all gods.
Your position is entirely based on looking at this "no holy rule book" thing with tunnel vision. It is also making the claim that belief in God or lack thereof has no practical implications.You don't need a holy rule book for your beliief in a god to have practical implicatons. You don't need to believe in a god for there to be a god that you in action show devotion to in spirit. Indeed, most atheists have gods, they are simply in denial of them. I would also wager that the vast majority of the different types of god believers who have existed didn't require a "holy rule book."I would also like to point out that to refer to say, Orthodox Scriptures as a "Holy rule book" is a mischaracterization and grossly inaccurate. I can't speak for other traditions who have scripture, but I believe it would be the case that most of them are not "holy rule books" as you irreverently call them.
That's all I'm sayin'.As they believe in a dead god, probably not much.
Perhaps the atheist that came to believe that the big bang as god might be inspired to become a physicist or something. Maybe they will be more charitable towards others who believe in gods or God. Maybe they find that they have trouble hanging around the same people. Who knows! There are so many variables that we can't account for, and faith is a living thing, not a casted image.
What do you mean by doctrine theology? Doctrine is simply what the church teaches.
Nonetheless the ensuing argument currently remains unresolvable
The only thing that is functionally different between an atheist and a pagan is that the pagan isn't in denial of the fact that they bow to gods.