Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Atheism
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

The Greatest wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
The Greatest wrote:
Kazak wrote:
Not necessarily disagreeing here, but this is, however, not theism. I'm pretty neutral to this line of thinking.


I think what we have is a semantic difference. Maybe what I call God you call reality. I have no problem with praying or talking about God, and I think those things have real power. I also believe that there is something powerful in our rituals and our traditions about God, and that we shouldn't just throw them out.


ok, really confused now. didn't you say this earlier:

"I don't believe in a God who answers prayers, intervenes in human affairs, doles out tragedies, and helps athletes score touchdowns."

and now this:

"I think those things have real power."

???




Yes, I did say that. I don't believe the power of prayer comes from some imaginary God "out there" who intervenes in human affairs. I believe it comes from the vibrations created by the prayer. And ritual does have power. By traditions I mean the rituals and customs passed down by the church, not prayers at football games.


ok, well..i'll have to disagree about that, but we can't all think the same, thankfully.

Jun 25, 2012, 21:12


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

The Greatest wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
The Greatest wrote:
[quote="Mars Rover"] its confusing language to me. why would one believe we are "evolving toward god?" its really just made up - wishful thinking IMO.

If you look at all life forms from the least complex to the most complex, you'll see that there is a greater consciousness and ability in a human than there is in a microbe. If we have evolved from simple beings into more complex beings, then why is it wishful thinking to believe that process will continue?


yes, i know the process of evolution, i'm confused by the "toward god" part.


I have consciousness, but I don't have consciousness of all things at once because my perspective is limited. As I evolve spiritually, however, my awareness of things around me grows and so does my responsibility. I begin to see a larger picture. I believe that God is the unity and interconnectedness of all things, the web of life, or consciousness itself.


ok, you prefer to call that god, i just call it nature.

Jun 25, 2012, 21:13


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

The Greatest
The Greatest
309 posts

Re: Atheism

Mars Rover wrote:
The Greatest wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
The Greatest wrote:
[quote="Mars Rover"] its confusing language to me. why would one believe we are "evolving toward god?" its really just made up - wishful thinking IMO.

If you look at all life forms from the least complex to the most complex, you'll see that there is a greater consciousness and ability in a human than there is in a microbe. If we have evolved from simple beings into more complex beings, then why is it wishful thinking to believe that process will continue?


yes, i know the process of evolution, i'm confused by the "toward god" part.


I have consciousness, but I don't have consciousness of all things at once because my perspective is limited. As I evolve spiritually, however, my awareness of things around me grows and so does my responsibility. I begin to see a larger picture. I believe that God is the unity and interconnectedness of all things, the web of life, or consciousness itself.


ok, you prefer to call that god, i just call it nature.


No, I don't call it god, I call it God...we both believe in nature, I believe in something more. We're both happy.

Jun 25, 2012, 22:58


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

The Greatest wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
The Greatest wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
The Greatest wrote:
[quote="Mars Rover"] its confusing language to me. why would one believe we are "evolving toward god?" its really just made up - wishful thinking IMO.

If you look at all life forms from the least complex to the most complex, you'll see that there is a greater consciousness and ability in a human than there is in a microbe. If we have evolved from simple beings into more complex beings, then why is it wishful thinking to believe that process will continue?


yes, i know the process of evolution, i'm confused by the "toward god" part.


I have consciousness, but I don't have consciousness of all things at once because my perspective is limited. As I evolve spiritually, however, my awareness of things around me grows and so does my responsibility. I begin to see a larger picture. I believe that God is the unity and interconnectedness of all things, the web of life, or consciousness itself.


ok, you prefer to call that god, i just call it nature.


No, I don't call it god, I call it God...we both believe in nature, I believe in something more. We're both happy.


i don't believe in nature, it just is ;)

Jun 25, 2012, 23:09


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Mars Rover wrote:
[

"There is no proof that there isn't a god." jesus i hate that argument. theists are the ones claiming something exists and is theirs to prove, not ours to disprove.


You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that you have to disprove anything. What I am saying is that you cannot disprove the theory that there is a god. You can come up with good arguments to believe there is no god but it cannot be proven there isn't a god given the flimsy foundations upon which a belief in god is founded.

I do have an issue with atheists suggesting that they know for certain that there isn't a god. This strident claim is arrogant and simply not deductively valid. What atheists claim to KNOW is simply not knowledge, just as what theists claim to KNOW is not knowledge.

Jun 26, 2012, 02:25


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
[

"There is no proof that there isn't a god." jesus i hate that argument. theists are the ones claiming something exists and is theirs to prove, not ours to disprove.


You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that you have to disprove anything. What I am saying is that you cannot disprove the theory that there is a god. You can come up with good arguments to believe there is no god but it cannot be proven there isn't a god given the flimsy foundations upon which a belief in god is founded.

I do have an issue with atheists suggesting that they know for certain that there isn't a god. This strident claim is arrogant and simply not deductively valid. What atheists claim to KNOW is simply not knowledge, just as what theists claim to KNOW is not knowledge.


ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.

don't know many atheists who say they know for certain, but can only speak for myself in saying that i call myself an atheist because if i had to bet everything i own and my life on it i'd say there's probably no god. however, nobody can say for sure of course. anyone who says they know (basically all of religion) are full of crap.

Jun 26, 2012, 02:31


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Kazak wrote:
hito wrote:
Both pantheism and theism are perfectly compatible with evolution, just not Old Testament style fundamentalist Christianity.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." is not compatible with "God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." Is God present, or isn't God? BTW, before you even go there, I do not dispute deism and never have, I don't think we'll ever know, it does preclude theism though.


Why is the idea that life evolved from a common ancestor incompatible with an interventionist god. Suppose that interventionist god planted the seed 3.7 billion years ago. Hey presto, you have a god and evolution.
I can make a cake and leave it to go mouldy. It will eventually take a course of its own but I made it. I can come back to that cake and pull a piece off, squash it, set it on fire, whatever. Do you suppose to claim I didn't create the cake? Do you suppose to claim that I didn't set it on its course when I knew that it would go mouldy?
And who are you to set the limits of intervention? It is sure that some Christian claims of a benevolent god are certainly challenged by rape, famine, war, flood etc. but that is not all theism. All one needs is a creator and some capacity to intervene.

The Greatest wrote:


I'm not talking about pantheism. I'm talking about panentheism. And it is different than supernatural theism (man in the sky), which is probably what Kazak means when he says "theism." Each kind of theism is an alternative to the others. You can't lump them together. They mean totally different things.


As for the panentheism or pantheism stuff, it is still some belief in a supernatural power. It is just a subspecies of theism (belief in a god). It seems to get a cushy ride from people who care about the environment because god is in the trees and seas and bees but it is not more plausible than a god sitting on a chair in the clouds. It is not as widely condemned as monotheism - I suspect - because monotheism is linked with nasty Christian bigots, Islamic terrorists and Jewish land grabbers. As it is, many monotheists believe that god is omnipresent (meaning everywhere) and omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) so it is very similar to these pan theories. Unless you reduce panentheism down to simply being a biological life force, it is still a supernatural belief in a god that is as valid and invalid as any other theism.

Jun 26, 2012, 04:11


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

I think Richard Dawkins in pretty strident and his followers to. I don't disagree with a lot of what he says but his demeanour and language choice are often problematic.

Jun 26, 2012, 04:15


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
I think Richard Dawkins in pretty strident and his followers to. I don't disagree with a lot of what he says but his demeanour and language choice are often problematic.


i'll have to disagree about that. richard dawkins has said exactly what i just said, i like him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9103685/Richard-Dawkins-Im-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

Jun 26, 2012, 04:19


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Kazak wrote:


Heh, I just tackled this on another forum. It IS faith, and my faith is immense. Any and all belief is based on faith. The difference is, my faith is based on the scientific method, not on Bronze Age mythology. Is it wrong? Can you answer the question I posed? Will a spirit neural network produce my conscience? I'm going to need a neural network, we can agree?



I don't dispute your right to believe in science but as long as you agree it is faith, you have no power of logic over theistic faith. The scientific method can explain your birth and death just like theism can. You posit that somehow science can justify the death of you as a mortal is the end of you as an entity but I fail to see how this is deductively valid. If you suggest that a neural network is required to exist as an entity I would ask you how you know this?
The fact that your mortal self begins and ends with one is in no way grounds to suggest that the afterlife would require such a device. The appearance of Lee Majors on my TV depends upon me turning it on but the existence of Lee Majors is not dependent on my TV. Thus, in this life you may require a neural network but there is no proof that this would be required in the afterlife.
Furthermore, even if you demand to have a neural network as a necessary condition of living in the afterlife (an absurd and flimsy claim given that you have absolutely no knowledge of the conditions of existence in this afterlife) a theist may argue that god takes over the powering of your neural network. At the death of your body, the power is switched from DC to AD.

Jun 26, 2012, 04:47

Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index