So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".
The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. — Thanatos Sand
The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept.
— Thanatos Sand
Strange that there are such disciplines as mathematical physics, then.
Well, if you say you're an atheist, then it's a fair assumption that you know what an atheist is - or certainly you have your own idea of it. I, however, do not. And here's an opportunity to ask. What do you say an atheist is, at least in terms of your own atheism?Of course this is likely because I'm an atheist — dclements
There's not much of a significant difference here. The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. The universe is only guided by rules dictating the mass, energy and movement of its phenomena."
--Thanatos Sand
In what context are you using this in since it could be from a variety of paradigms and it doesn't sound like a thing that most Christians would say since if there is no "rationality" or "good" that it is sort of a given that there is no God, but than again your definition of rationality or good may be different than what is commonly used.
"No context is needed here. "Rational" is a human concept also applied to human behavior and is constantly changing in its definition. So, it can only religiously be applied to the universe which entails neither the arbitrariness of human behavior, nor the arbitrariness of definition."
--Thanatos Sand
It is pretty much a given that your statement (or any statement coming from anyone) is coming from some context/paradigm unless all you are doing is trying to blow air past your teeth and [waste your time as well as our own.
As a person partial to nihilism, I'm aware of how the whole "God", "morality" and "rationality" stuff are loaded words and mostly made up (or at least I'm aware of it on my better days), so I'm not entirely interested in it unless you really have something to add that I haven't really come across or perhaps even come across not that often. Even if someone is a nihilist they have to subscribe to some sort system of beliefs because it is part of the human condition to do so, and when doing so they adhere to some kind of "morality"/"rationality" even if it is merely hedonism or some kind of fabricated set of rules.
If there was a God I think he would be closer to what some people call "collective conciseness", — dclements
And atheists of any stripe reject the good of religion, that collective wisdom for which they are repository. This is just plain a mistake. Admittedly, it is work sometimes difficult to listen to any religion as it expresses itself in non-natural terms and translate where possible "on the fly" into rational discourse. But the fact is that's where that wisdom is, and that's the work that needs be done to get it.
Agnosticism is simply immature atheism and unattractive in any adult.
"No, it's more like you're not a person partial to sufficient education as none of those words are "loaded" words, and they are part of common usage in the English language and present-day American culture. I'm sorry you missed that."
--Thanatos Sand
Actually I dropped out of high school and got a GED so my education may be lacking a little in certain area, although I guess I'm about as much a product of American society/education system but I'm pretty sure that is true of you too more or less. Even if I claim to be a person "partial to nihilism" it doesn't mean I'm able to avoid aspects of the human condition which it seems that you are implying I'm saying which I think is due to you mis-reading my posts.
I think the term "forum trolls" is used for those who wish to rant and rave about that which interest them while at them same time while at the same time ignoring the interests of everyone else; and this seems to be the kind of mentality you have.
Fair enough.Atheists don't reject the good of religion; they reject the existence of God.... the mistake is to reject wisdom--religious or not. — Thanatos Sand
Proofs engender agreement/acknowledgement/acquiescence, commitment neither required nor entirely appropriate. Commitment, on the other hand, requires at the least a step or a hop of faith. To not commit is a form of commitment. To commit to non-commitment is an absurdity. Absurdity and inability are not hallmarks of mature character.Agnosticism is simply the inability or refusal to commit to theism or atheism. It's neither immature nor unattractive and has its own wisdom, since atheism itself cannot be proven and arguments can be made, if not convincingly, for the existence of God. — Thanatos Sand
Requiring proof of posited supernatural beings like God, ghosts or Santa Claus is just being a rational grownup. And to say one needs to commit to such supernatural entities to make a commitment is truly absurd. — Thanatos Sand
To require proof, then, is simply to misunderstand the nature of the beast.
If I cannot accept something as a matter of faith, I might well - I do - consult the possibilities for proof. Absent both faith and proof, all that's left is to make the best of it and try to make sense of it. In any case, absent faith or proof it's a mistake and a waste of energy to keep looking for them.
No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you. — Thanatos Sand
I mentioned Santa Claus. Apparently there's enough evidence for you to believe in him. — Thanatos Sand
Requiring proof of posited supernatural beings like God, ghosts or Santa Claus is just being a rational grownup. And to say one needs to commit to such supernatural entities to make a commitment is truly absurd. — Thanatos Sand
No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you.
— Thanatos Sand
All right, what is the thing for which no sufficient evidence is presented?
I mentioned Santa Claus. Apparently there's enough evidence for you to believe in him.
— Thanatos Sand
I'm glad you have replied as you did, because your reply captures most of what is difficult and problematic in these discussions, while grounding it in something itself not too difficult or controversial.
In writing "Santa Claus," you have given the least possible specification of your thinking, unless the entirety of your thought is captured in "Santa Claus." It may be, but Santa Claus is not a univocal expression, and consequently I do not know what you mean. If my experience is a guide, you don't either. If we start here, neither of us will know what the other is talking about.
The problem, if there is problem, arises when "Santa Claus" is not adequately understood, and the non-belief is thereby unrestrained with respect to both subject and criterium. If in rejecting the jolly fat man in the red suit for lack of "proof" you also reject what Santa Claus represents (for present purpose understood only as a personification of a gift-giving spirit), then you've made a plain error in rejecting for lack of proof something that certainly exists and is easily provable. This is a sign of infection with what I call "global or general atheism," a hallmark of which is flawed reasoning - that is, being unreasonable and even irrational.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.