Thanks for the response. I really can understand why such a process might lead you to believe that your conclusion was objective. Thing is, I think we always wear goggles of some kind, whether we realize it or not. To take off theistic goggles just means another pair of goggles takes its place--in this case, atheism. The supposition "God is not there" could very easily and naturally lead to the bias of thinking "Jesus was not there"--especially with a person coming from a Christian background or social context in which Jesus is considered to be God.
Atheism is just the lack of theism, though. It is the lack of the theistic goggles. Say you have two people doing research on Abraham Lincoln and what kind of person he was outside of the public eye. Would you think a person who already knows about Mr Lincoln and adores him would be more subjective, or a person from another country who has never heard of Mr Lincoln before would be more subjective?
The second person doesn't have anti Lincoln goggles on, he simply doesn't have the pro Lincoln goggles of the first person.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
flatlanderdox wrote:Thanks
Atheism is just the lack of theism, though. It is the lack of the theistic goggles. Say you have two people doing research on Abraham Lincoln and what kind of person he was outside of the public eye. Would you think a person who already knows about Mr Lincoln and adores him would be more subjective, or a person from another country who has never heard of Mr Lincoln before would be more subjective?
The second person doesn't have anti Lincoln goggles on, he simply doesn't have the pro Lincoln goggles of the first person.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.