Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Atheism
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 17 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

The Greatest wrote:
hito wrote:

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.


Yes, it is in fact way more plausible than a man sitting in a chair in the clouds.

And for the record, panentheism IS a form of monotheism, since you don't know.


I will not bother with the second comment but I would like you to explain how panentheism is more plausible than a god in a seat?

Jun 27, 2012, 01:30


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Kazak wrote:
hito wrote:
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.


I said atheism, not adeism.



My explanation was theistic as it contained an interventionist creator. Deism is a creator who creates then does nothing more. So please respond to my original question regarding the alleged incompatibility of evolution and theism.

Jun 27, 2012, 01:33


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Mars Rover wrote:

whats wrong with being strident?


Mars Rover wrote:
william lloyd garrison was pretty fucking strident. martin luther king was pretty fucking strident. rachel carson was pretty fucking strident. need i go on?


Your own subsequent post answered your question. It was unpleasant, aggressive and unlikely to persuade anyone to share your point of view. Swearing, using rhetorical questions, dismissing other beliefs and more are all tactics but they are not constructive. Being forthright can be useful but being strident is a step too far.

Mars Rover wrote:

he doesn't claim to be agnostic. he has a whole chapter about that in god delusion.



From your own link
"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."

You have perhaps proved the point that few people read to the end of a news article.

Jun 27, 2012, 01:45


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

I guess I don't find the idea of an interventionist god that doesn't intervene all that plausible or useful? What would be the point in believing this this god? Of course, pink unicorns could've planted this seed too, but Occam's Razor tells me this isn't an idea worth wasting much time on.

Jun 27, 2012, 01:58


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

"as long as you agree it is faith, you have no power of logic over theistic faith."

"disagree with that because the scientific method has worked time and time again to explain things to humans that were once inconceivable to us. Faith has never had a provable outcome."

Hang on, you said you had faith (unsubstantiated belief) in science.
Anyway, I am not arguing that science has proven all sorts of things about our mortal existence. My question is about the power of science to explain that which happens after death. I don't disagree that you and I may believe that the end of our mortal lives is the end of us as entities but I am not able to convince somebody else that their belief in an afterlife in incorrect. I certainly cannot use science to prove that they are wrong. I can suggest that their reason for believing in an afterlife is based on information from dubious organisations, I can say that I have no evidence that an afterlife exists but that is about it.

"If you suggest that a neural network is required to exist as an entity I would ask you how you know this?"

"We know that because we would die without a brain."

You need to make the distinction between a mortal requiring a neural network and an entity requiring a neural network. According to those who believe in an afterlife, the conditions are different. They would argue that you as an entity exist from mortality to the afterlife but your mortal body dies.

"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."

"Kudos for using Lee Majors as a reference point."

Cheers

"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."

"anyone can argue anything. theists can argue that, you're right."

Therefore you need to counter that argument if you wish to prove theists are incorrect. You could of course leave it and agree to disagree but that empowers theism and disempowers your argument that science can explain the matter.

Jun 27, 2012, 02:08


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Kazak wrote:
I guess I don't find the idea of an interventionist god that doesn't intervene all that plausible or useful? What would be the point in believing this this god? Of course, pink unicorns could've planted this seed too, but Occam's Razor tells me this isn't an idea worth wasting much time on.


But this god does intervene according to theists, just not as often as atheists demand.

Jun 27, 2012, 02:10


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

Oh, well my faith is substantiated.

Jun 27, 2012, 02:12


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

This is getting pretty silly. If there were an intervening god, it should not evade detection.

Jun 27, 2012, 02:13


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5922 posts

Re: Atheism

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-to-consciousness-when-we-die&WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook

Not a conclusive argument and room for a variety of theories.

Jun 27, 2012, 20:50


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

Thanks for this. I can also recommend a pair of good books on this subject for anyone who'd like to investigate further, Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain, and David Eagleman's Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.

Jun 27, 2012, 21:49

Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 17 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ]

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