Sunday, 11 April 2010

Evidence needed

"When people consistently seem to be sitting in a corner with their arms folded saying "prove it to me" and "give me physical evidence" with zero regard for what thousands of people have experienced over thousands of years...I do find that close minded and naive. "

I respectfully don't understand that. Setting aside the "sitting in a corner with arms crossed" as ad hominem, I don't understand how a rational person be expected to address the claims of others EXCEPT by asking for evidence. Is "thousand of people over thousands of years" the threshhold? How many thousands of people are enough to require us to suspend disbelieve and accept claims on faith? How many thousands of years? 2? 5? Is one enough? Are all claims of "experience" equally valuable or worthy of consideration? If not, how do you know which ones are not? What standard should we apply if we don't wish to be "scientific" (I'm sorry, what other word is there?) and therefore, apparently, "close minded and naive"? And, having looked at the "experiences" on what basis do I determine when I have found "the Truth with a capital T"? - Irish Lace


Religion, per se is naive.


Atheists do not believe that any gods exist. To be even more clear, atheists understand that 'gods' exist as concepts, but do not believe they exist as literal beings or independent entities.

Atheism is naive

Is Atheism naive? Discussion on Amazon


Evian spelled backwards is "Naive"