Originally posted by KellyJayYou choose the word "atheist" to describe me, but to my knowledge I have not used that word to describe myself on this forum or any other. I see a distinction between lacking belief in deity, which I do, and a positive belief there is no deity, which I will address in a minute. That distinction is understandable by some people but not by others. You use terms like "stand against," "rejection," "opposition," and capitalize "atheist," which tells me you are not likely to see the distinction unless you have given it more thought than your words suggest.
Atheism is against another belief system, it stands against theism, and it is
a rejection of it. Since its very reason to be is to be against or reject God it
is opposition to God by its very nature. You cannot even call yourself an
Atheist without someone else having views or beliefs and you have to be
against them. I do not call myself against the too ...[text shortened]... ingless to me, I do not choose
a word to describe my very unbelief from the tooth fairy.
Kelly
I see the distinction because I can see the reason for the theist's saying that the existence of any god -- depending on the formulation of that god -- cannot be disproven. Some formulations o a god cannot be disproven. I also think that God is a useful principle -- I think there is benefit in thinking and talking about our view of God is or would be like, regardless of belief.
By thinking about what God could be like, we refine our moral sense. People's concept of God will reflect on their character and tell us a lot about what kind of people they are. For example, I believe that God would be a god of universal reconciliation. I can't understand why people hold to a belief that god would tolerate letting people suffer eternally or die a permanent death for their beliefs or lack thereof. That idea has no good purpose. It represents an immature and inadequate level of moral development. I think it is an un-Christian holdover from ancient pre-Biblical days. I do reject THAT idea of God, and because the hellfire model is defended strongly as the only TRUE religion by some people on this forum, I get labeled by them. Others, who might actually have similar thoughts to mine, excepting that they do not lack belief, buy into the labels, which shuts down any possibility of discussion. I even tried to bring that topic up, and it got no traction.
The outcome is that this forum is dominated by the two extremes, and people are classified accordingly.
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, I am an atheist. I am also a million and one other things. Being an atheist tells you nothing about me except that I don't believe in any gods. It tells you nothing about what my beliefs are.
Are you an Atheist? If not than the topic does not apply to you, if you say yes
you are, you do define yourself as one.
Kelly
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are many possible ways. Do you appreciate Mozart? Does that equate to the claim that you wrote it? Does it equate to the claim that you can play it? It is you that is making ludicrous extrapolations.
how else were you prepared to establish your ludicrous assertion?
Originally posted by KellyJayMan's belief that this universe is the "one and only universe" may be one of the last conceits to be proven wrong by science in the not so distant future, along with the conceit that ours is the only planet that harbors life.
It is funny in my opinion to have someone talk about God not being real while
at the same time spouting off about an infinite array of parallel universes and
claiming that the beginning and end of things is a moot. The things people
cook up in their heads.
Kelly
There was a time when it was believed the Earth was at the center of the universe, and then later that our galaxy was the only galaxy. The one thing nature keeps teaching us again and again is that, much to the chagrin of man and his massive ego, we're nothing special.
Originally posted by SoothfastPshaw! As the multiverse theory is absorbed into popular culture, our universe will come to be known as the special one.
Man's belief that this universe is the "one and only universe" may be one of the last conceits to be proven wrong by science in the not so distant future, along with the conceit that ours is the only planet that harbors life.
There was a time when it was believed the Earth was at the center of the universe, and then later that our galaxy was the only ga ...[text shortened]... in and again is that, much to the chagrin of man and his massive ego, we're nothing special.
2 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastWhat a pile of conjecture and speculation, take it to science spanklberger, this is spirituality, here we are interested in truth not what is plausible.. The Bible itself stated that the Universe had a beginning and was caused, almost three thousand years ago it was written down. It has taken science until the nineteen fifties to acknowledge that this was the case. The conceit is your own.
Man's belief that this universe is the "one and only universe" may be one of the last conceits to be proven wrong by science in the not so distant future, along with the conceit that ours is the only planet that harbors life.
There was a time when it was believed the Earth was at the center of the universe, and then later that our galaxy was the only ga ...[text shortened]... in and again is that, much to the chagrin of man and his massive ego, we're nothing special.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehere we are interested in truth not what is plausible.
What a pile of conjecture and speculation, take it to science spanklberger, this is spirituality, here we are interested in truth not what is plausible.. The Bible itself stated that the Universe had a beginning and was caused, almost three thousand years ago it was written down. It has taken science until the nineteen fifties to acknowledge that this was the case. The conceit is your own.
LOL!!!!!
Originally posted by Proper KnobThis is my youngest of four sons. He was the only son I never had
Is your gay son a sinner in your eyes then?!
disciplinary problems. I never punished him because he always obeyed
me. He was the top student at every school he attended, from grade
school all the way through college. I have a room full of his academic
trophies and awards. His scholaships covered most of his schooling
costs so I paid only about $5,000 total. He went to California to get
his masters degree in mathematics and Physics. He intends to get a
PHD later but the only disappointment I have had with him is he found
a gay partner in California. But since I love him so much I will not
judge him for I know he was raised a Christian and I believe he will be
able to overcome any fault he may have. I just don't understand the
gay thing very well.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is not an exaggeration to say that a life dedicated to the pursuit of scientific truth can itself be a spiritual journey,* and perhaps more so than confining oneself to studying the words in a single Book. Moreover, the idea of creation having a beginning is hardly original to the Bible. The Hindu religion takes the view that creation endlessly cycles, which may well be the case in reality.
What a pile of conjecture and speculation, take it to science spanklberger, this is spirituality ... The Bible itself stated that the Universe had a beginning and was caused, almost three thousand years ago it was written down. It has taken science until the nineteen fifties to acknowledge that this was the case.
*Though it's a little dated, I recommend watching Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series to get an idea of this.
2 edits
Originally posted by Soothfastyes i know, i was only messin wid ya! But its true, and indeed the Bible itself states that one of the ways a person can get to know God, is through an observation of the physical world, Romans chapter 1:20 I think. Yes the Bible itself mentions certain natural cycles although it has been disputed by some in the forum on the flimsiest of grounds.
It is not an exaggeration to say that a life dedicated to the pursuit of scientific truth can itself be a spiritual journey,* and perhaps more so than confining oneself to studying the words in a single Book. Moreover, the idea of creation having a beginning is hardly original to the Bible. The Hindu religion takes the view that creation endlessly cycles ...[text shortened]... 's a little dated, I recommend watching Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series to get an idea of this.
(Romans 1:20) For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's ok, I have trouble understanding my girlie's sexuality after 8 years ;]
This is my youngest of four sons. He was the only son I never had
disciplinary problems. I never punished him because he always obeyed
me. He was the top student at every school he attended, from grade
school all the way through college. I have a room full of his academic
trophies and awards. His scholaships covered most of his schooling
costs so I ...[text shortened]... be
able to overcome any fault he may have. I just don't understand the
gay thing very well.
edit:"girlie" here referring to "girlfriend" but she doesn't like that term hence "girlie".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse," was written based on the understanding of the time about what was supposedly "made." Back then, the understanding of what had been made was quite unscientific.
What a pile of conjecture and speculation, take it to science spanklberger, this is spirituality, here we are interested in truth not what is plausible.. The Bible itself stated that the Universe had a beginning and was caused, almost three thousand years ago it was written down. It has taken science until the nineteen fifties to acknowledge that this was the case. The conceit is your own.
Paul didn't count on the possibility that the understanding would change. And it may change again. If the truth of Paul 1:20 becomes contingent on scientific findings, its truth will be contingent forever, or at least until religion re-appropriates science.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen that entity is called 'God' then the name for that default position is 'atheism'.
I didn't claim it was the default belief for any of the reasons you suggest. I claim it because it is essentially true by definition. Unless and until one gains belief in an entity, the default position is lack of belief in that entity. When that entity is called 'God' then the name for that default position is 'atheism'.
So until you ask 'pertinent ques for the universes existence. It is the lack of belief in God as an explanation.
Atheism is a positive belief; i.e., it is belief in the proposition, "God doesn't exist,"—as such, someone (or something) that lacks belief that "God doesn't exist," cannot be deemed an atheist.
Notice that the 'rational creature' in question started with the default position of atheism and only after being faced with a problem and finding a specific solution did he change his stance?
Again, atheism is belief in the proposition, "God doesn't exist"—a positive belief arrived at through inference. The lack of belief inanimate objects share with non/pre-rational creatures cannot thus be considered atheism.
It is for you to convince me that there should be a reason for our existence and that that reason is the one you are promoting (God).
Think about it: If I were to "lack" belief in God, it would still be necessary for you to convince me that there's definitely no reason for our existence. Obviously, then, what you are promoting is a positive belief, no less in need of a defense than theism.
Atheism is not an explanation for the universes existence. It is the lack of belief in God as an explanation.
I've thought about this over the last couple days—the idea that atheism is some sort of "default position" has come to seem obviously wrong to me.
First off, it is quite apparent that atheism is belief in the proposition, "God doesn't exist," and not simply lack of belief. Further, it's easy see how atheism does indeed propose an explanation for the universe—namely, that it came into existence without the help of a God (an assumption that carries with it many important metaphysical and scientific implications regarding the origin of the universe), and that life on earth evolved unaided by the intervention of a God. Both of these propositions are direct offshoots of the overarching proposition that "God doesn't exist." As such, atheism entails metaphysical naturalism—a philosophical belief system which itself is not falsifiable according to the standard set by scientific inquiry. In so far as atheism presupposes naturalism, therefore, atheism can be evaluated based on how successful it is at explaining phenomena.
In other words, atheism is not merely the vacuous absence of belief that you propose, but a belief system (i.e, materialism), in as much need of defending as any other. The fact that you've adopted a skeptical attitude towards theism proves this, since skepticism cannot proceed from a position of "lack of belief"—it must proceed, rather, from a belief (i.e., "God doesn't exist" ).