...but my opinion is that because we do not have a replacement for that (religious) comfort in atheism, we do not yet have a way to open the door to atheism in a comforting way. — Christoffer
Sorry, I'm not searching the forums for your incoherent nonsense. If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads. — Michael Ossipoff
Sorry, I'm not searching the forums... — Harry Hindu
...for your incoherent nonsense.
If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.
So you want me to study and go through all possible Theisms for you, to show you that there's one that you can't refute. — Michael Ossipoff
2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief. — BrianW
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.
Atheism is not reason, but just another ideology built upon faith. If one is going to adopt an ideology built upon faith, one might as well just stick with the ideology one already has. — Jake
2) While religion is not necessarily realistic in it's cosmic claims it is realistic about the human condition which is why it continues to exist in every time and place. The human condition is primarily emotional, and atheist ideologues tend to be nerds like us, typically superficially clever at working with abstract concepts, but emotionally unsophisticated. Thus, atheist ideologues do a poor job of opening the door to atheism because they're working the wrong door, as your quoted words above suggest. — Jake
What is our relationship with falling in love with reality? Is one of our goals that we fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the glorious beauty of a sunrise? These kind of ideas are foreign to atheist ideology culture, generally speaking. Look through the threads on theism/atheism on the forum. How many of them explore such topics in earnest? — Jake
Want to convert theists? Teach them how to fall in love with reality, with a handful of dirt, without the supernatural middleman. And in order to do that, you'll first have to learn how to do it yourself. — Jake
But that's why you're stuck here talking to yourselves, having no effect on theism at all, enjoying the fantasy that your fantastic logic dancing calculations have meaning or value to anyone but yourselves. — Jake
If these posters don't start singing tearful tunes to Baby Jesus pretty soon we're just going to have burn them at the stake — Jake
In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable. — Jake
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence. — BrianW
2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. — BrianW
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs. — BrianW
Why put science into this? Anybody thinking that science can prove or disprove this question is in my view either naive or simply doesn't understand science. It would be like assuming science can prove what is moral or ethical. What with the scientific method you can do is only to find an answer that x amount people believe that something is morally or ethically good or bad. Science can make accurate models of how we think, but not answer the questions themselves as there isn't an objective answer.In a sense, everything you do in science is in a form, atheistic or agnostic, but agnostics use the unknown factor as a way to accept the existence of a god by that fact, which means it's closer to cognitive bias. Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. — Christoffer
Maybe what you really mean is something along the lines that the person who asserts the nonexistence of God, as per any conception whatsoever, goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaches a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. — S
Would you not take a position of strong atheism, instead of agnosticism, if you found that the conception of the God under consideration entails a contradiction? — S
Why put science into this? Anybody thinking that science can prove or disprove this question is in my view either naive or simply doesn't understand science. It would be like assuming science can prove what is moral or ethical. What with the scientific method you can only answer is that x amount people believe that something is morally or ethically good or bad. Science can make accurate models of how we think, but not answer the questions themselves as there isn't an objective answer. — ssu
It's as delirious to get science into this as it is for some religious person even to think that he might prove the existence of God. Not only would this be basically idolatry in the Abrahamic religions as if there would be a true proof of God, why need the Bible, Koran or whatever anymore? And this is true also for attempts to disprove God by science. — ssu
Yet this doesn't mean that one that has no religion would be then making the moral and ethical decisions (that basically religion has given us) on reason or based on science. This is a fallacy: moral ethics are subjective even if you don't use any religious viewpoints or answers. — ssu
A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans — Devans99
If Jesus tells us to find God in our heart, that truly isn't an order to have open heart surgery. — ssu
Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. — Christoffer
Agreed, that's what I basically meant with atheism being a bit cold in it's approach to life. — Christoffer
I am comparing the scientific method to that of how atheists view the world, i.e through facts and what is proven, not belief. This is a premiss countering the idea that atheism is based on faith or ideology, when it isn't. — Christoffer
So it's like staring into the unknown when you open the door to atheism and that is scary, which is why most people react emotionally when their faith is challenged. — Christoffer
The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. — Pattern-chaser
If you can't prove god exists, there's no reason thinking there is a god — Christoffer
I do think that it's somewhat unreasonable to believe in one or more of the specific gods put forward by the major existing religions... and especially in the whole moral system that is typically based that deity. In light of current scientific insight on the vastness of the universe, it would seem kind of strange that a deity who is the creator of all that is, would occupy itself with regulating the minutia of the behaviour of a species on one the many many planets. — ChatteringMonkey
if we have a choice in explanations, we should choose the more simple explanation. — ChatteringMonkey
Finally there also is something fundamentally un-reasonable about the methodology of religion and the morals it proscribes. In essence it's based on revelation and faith with the 'word of God' being the final word, and not on experience and reason. — ChatteringMonkey
This is a difficult one, and depends on what you mean by 'accept'. And it also depends on what you mean by 'harm'. — ChatteringMonkey
Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God? — Pattern-chaser
I don't agree that it's a choice. I can't choose to believe anything that I'm not convinced of. I can't choose to believe anything at all, it seems. That seems like a category error. Beliefs aren't the kind of things that can be chosen. I mean, I could pretend, but obviously that's not the same. — S
Whether or not either of those beliefs is reasonable or unreasonable surely depends on the reasoning or lack thereof. — S
Accept in what way?? — S
Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God? — Pattern-chaser
No, if god is proven, god exist. Atheism is a process of understanding everything through facts, what can be proven. Atheists accept what is proven and change viewpoint if it's disproven. Claiming the non-existence of god, is not an option, not because that's a statement, but because it's not proven. — Christoffer
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.