Well I'm antagonistic to the suggestion that atheism - at least an atheism for whom religion and God means nothing - ought to be more curious about religion. — StreetlightX
'Be curious' - you may as well say 'don't be indifferent'. What kind of counter-point is that? — StreetlightX
Right, I seem to recall the current Pope has declared a less stringent admission to heaven. :)
That said, there are people on this forum that has declared the above, thoughtful people if you will.
I'm wondering, though, why wouldn't Catholics (and Hindus) make such declarations...?
There's no arbiter around to set the record straight, they can only go by some scripture reading.
Surely it's not a matter of some personal moral sentiments or preferences? — jorndoe
I'm an atheist.
But what does that mean? What kind of atheist am I? It means that I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist.
In other cases, I accept that it is possible that God exists.
However, there is no case I know of where I think it would be right to conclude that there is a good enough basis to believe that God exists.
Absence of evidence can be, and in some cases is, evidence of absence.
Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith?
Not enough indifference.
Still treats the problem of God's existence as a legitimate question, even if answered in the negative.
An atheism that simply doesn't give a damn about whether or not God exists - I don't think, that against this, one can argue: 'oh but you should give a damn because curiosity!'; — StreetlightX
[...] they can say nothing at all definitively about anyone's salvation because you can not know the heart of another or the mind of God — Rank Amateur
[...] the Catholic teaching on salvation. — Rank Amateur
I see no reason to criticise your position, because in the OP, you do not suggest that people are mistaken if they have a different position.
Taken literally, the OP just says - I don't believe in god(s) and here's why. Tell me if you think you have an objective criticism of that.
As a devout pluralist, my response is Absolutely Not. It seems from some of the posts since, that some have interpreted your post as implying that you think people are being unreasonable if they do not share your position. I don't get that sense from reading the OP. Did you mean to imply that, or are others just over-interpreting your post? — andrewk
Thanks what I was looking for, a clear straightforward unambiguous answer. Thank you! Huge time saver. — Jake
You have failed to rip my position to pieces or demolish it, as you claimed. You haven't even scratched the surface. — S
That sounds like an expression of strong atheism. — yazata
I'm inclined to think that way when it comes to the arguments of natural theology: First-cause, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on. To me, these are among the most fundamental metaphysical problems, and I don't have a clue what the answers might be. I don't think that any human being knows the answers, or even whether there are answers. This is when I enter into my agnostic mood. — yazata
The problem with natural theology is that it delivers us to a set of hypothetical metaphysical functions. Tradition has long associated them with God, but I'm skeptical about that connection. Whatever fulfills the metaphysical functions, if anything, needn't be divine in any religious sense. The 'Big Bang' might arguably represent a first cause, but it isn't something that most people would want to fall on their knees and worship, or that people would consider holy.
So my view is that natural theology's metaphysical functions, should they exist, still aren't "good enough basis to believe that God exists" as you put it. — yazata
I agree. And more rhetorically, it's certainly good reason to say that 'There's nothing that persuades me'.
I will disagree with you a bit, and say that I don't want to entirely dismiss things like religious experience or purported miracles as evidence. But I certainly do agree that I remain unpersuaded by it, and think that there are serious problems with these kind of evidences. So I'm more inclined to think that there is evidence for 'the supernatural' we might say, although I consider it very weak evidence and remain unmoved by it. — yazata
I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. — S
I don't know if I agree or not with you, since I don't know what you mean by the word "god". — Mariner
To keep up with the meme theme (if only because it is a nice turn of phrase), if you mean "the angry old man in the sky", then I agree with you, and I don't believe that exists; at least not if we take this to be a description of another object (actual or potential) of our experience. But if you use the expression "angry old man in the sky" (which is, after all, only an aspect of, say, the Christian God) as meaning "the love of justice that, without having a clear source from among our objects of experience, finds an authoritative voice in the heart of anyone who has been wronged", I cannot agree that this does not exist. — Mariner
One of the problems with theist/atheist interactions is that they usually don't take the time to sort out the proper use of symbolism in discourse, and plunge into the debate without realizing that they are speaking different languages. — Mariner
not sure your point here, but I wasn't making any argument, just giving you the correct Catholic teaching. — Rank Amateur
If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you would have complied with the very easy and simple instructions I've provided to you about 4 times now.
If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you'd already be engaged in trying to do that yourself. What we've learned is that, at the best, your level of motivation for such an inquiry is extremely low. And there's nothing wrong with that.
And there's also nothing wrong with an old fellow who has already typed all this up about a billion times over 20 years declining to spoon feed you analysis you don't actually want so that you can burp it back up on my shoes. Sorry, you missed this boat, and should have caught me ten years ago when I was foolish enough to engage in such operations.
I've provided you with all the clarity on your position that you currently deserve or desire. I've taught you that you don't actually want an effective challenge to your position. And I'm placing my hand on your shoulder to assure you that there's nothing at all wrong with that. — Jake
1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use. — Jake
I was not expecting to catch anything. I wanted to know what you meant by the sentence I highlighted. I still do. Let me know if you want to explain it later. — Mariner
For any opinion one holds, be it ever so little grounded in reflection, one can say the same about people who don't share it. So the statement doesn't seem to say anything at all. — andrewk
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.