Originally posted by Nordlys I don't know how you get from a lack of belief to "rejection". How is it even possible to reject something that you don't believe is there? If I don't believe I have any milk in the fridge, do I reject the milk (that may or may not be there)? To me, rejection of God would mean that I believe God exists, but I don't want anything to do with him. Rejection of the milk in my fridge would probably make me pour it into the drain.
Your disbelief is based on something, or the lack thereof. You cannot have a specific disbelief about some nebulous unnamed non-entity. The naming of the entity demands a decision.
Originally posted by jaywill Agerg, I think you wrote:
[b]=================================
the most-asked question: [Where and why do we need to invoke "God"?]
================================
Note that under your tag you have written "Wonderer ... Nomad". And below that you have written "Wherever I may roam"
You know, not knowing God personall ...[text shortened]... utility.
Then we can "come home" and feel at home with God and in His creation.[/b]
Interesting. When I think of a wanderer (who may also be a wonderer) or a nomad, I have completely different associations. I doubt nomads feel lost or alienated from the earth. I believe that a life in a city alienates people a lot more from what you would call God's creation. Personally, I feel most connected to the earth when I am going hiking; and even if I may sometimes feel lost in the sense of not exactly knowing where I am and where the path I am walking on will lead me, I don't feel lost in the sense that I don't feel I belong.
I think I know the feeling you describe as the trees and the grass seeming greener etc. But for me, it's not connected with "meeting Christ" or believing in a creator. It is something that happens when I manage to be completely "in the now" and without thoughts of "I" vs. "the world".
I wonder if there's anybody here who feels like that "modern man" you describe. I seriously doubt it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Your disbelief is based on something, or the lack thereof. You cannot have a specific disbelief about some nebulous unnamed non-entity. The naming of the entity demands a decision.
I don't see what this has to do with my post. Of course there needs to be some sort of definition of the thing you don't believe in before you can say "I don't believe in this" (although anyone who would never have heard about this wouldn't believe in it either, but they wouldn't be aware of it and thus be passive non-believers). In case of atheism, the definitions usually come from theists who talk about their gods. If I don't believe that there is a real being behind their ideas, I don't reject an entity, I just don't believe that it exists in the first place. Some of those gods sound nice enough, so I probably wouldn't reject them if I was given sufficient evidence to believe that they exist. Others (including many versions of the Christian God) I would probably reject if I'd believe in them.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat But things only exist in relation to nothing. Things are just the universe's way of making nothing not be there... maybe......
And we could get all sciencey and talk about the partial pressure of a vacuum 'n stuff, discounting the presence of nothing entirely...
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I forget: was your post supposed to be an example of sloppy reasoning, or was it mine?
[b]The term 'atheism' may well rely on some idea of god(s) in the sense that it can be defined as an absence of theism, which in turn can be defined in terms of belief in god(s). "May?" There is no "may" to the proposition. Atheism is a rejection of any form of our day job.[/b]
I guess I'll have to remain Phlabby's roadie for the time being...[/b]
The very nature of atheism is its statement regarding any deity.
No, the very nature of atheism is in an absence of theism. So atheism is at it roots an absence of belief in god(s). Of course, that S lacks belief in X does not entail that S endorses any statements regarding any X-concepts. In fact, it does not even entail that S even holds any concepts related to X at all. Like I hinted before, if you have in mind a particular sort of atheism, you should clarify the discussion to it in particular. That would be my recommendation to you, since you obviously do have only a particular sort of atheism in mind (like explicit or strong atheism).
Or, you could of course just define 'atheism' itself into some otherwise strong or explicit interpretation of the term. That's fine, but you should then clarify that is how you are using the term. I would say there is generally some controversy over the term.
Futile Atheism
30 Apr '10 19:53
Back to Top