Atheism

Some people, it seems to me, want to describe "god" in a way that takes the notion of a god out of the equation. Like clinging to the concept for a sort of security blanket, while denying the properties essential to being a god. They describe a god so nebulous and incomprehensible they lose sight of the fact no god is necessary in the light of modern science.

3 Replies

What he said.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

They describe a god so nebulous and incomprehensible they lose sight of the fact no god is necessary in the light of modern science.

Which science? Sociology, psychology, economics, politics and history are sciences which are interested in the concept of God. God is not necessary to them in circumstances where everybody is an atheist but such circumstances don't exist nor ever have where human behavior is studied scientifically.

As science is a result of human behaviour and depends upon it for funding it can be asserted that the study of human behaviour is the premier science.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
They describe a god so nebulous and incomprehensible they lose sight of the fact no god is necessary in the light of modern science.

Which science? Sociology, psychology, economics, politics and history are sciences which are interested in the concept of God. God is not necessary to them in circumstances where everybody is an atheist but such circumstances don't exist nor ever have where human behavior is studied scientifically.

As science is a result of human behaviour and depends upon it for funding it can be asserted that the study of human behaviour is the premier science.

blather

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Assertion. And a ridiculous one at that.

I thought you had me on Ignore Ed.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Some people, it seems to me, want to describe "god" in a way that takes the notion of a god out of the equation. Like clinging to the concept for a sort of security blanket, while denying the properties essential to being a god. They describe a god so nebulous and incomprehensible they lose sight of the fact no god is necessary in the light of modern science.

Yeah, but that gives you the all the advantages of being a good Christian and not a godless heathen.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Some people, it seems to me, want to describe "god" in a way that takes the notion of a god out of the equation. Like clinging to the concept for a sort of security blanket, while denying the properties essential to being a god. They describe a god so nebulous and incomprehensible they lose sight of the fact no god is necessary in the light of modern science.

To what or whose notion of God do you refer? Yours? My impression is that you are an avowed atheist: so I assume that you have none at all.

More likely you have constructed (or borrowed) a straw man that makes it easy for you to deny.

Even setting this remarkable point aside for the moment, is the "notion of god" you have in mind, from whatever source you may have got it, any less nebulous than your own concept of the origin of the observable universe? If yours is based on science then you have none at all, because science cannot answer that question.

1 Reply

How very tedious you are O'George. One doesn't need a notion of the origin of the universe in order to be alive and appreciate the state. Theists are children, huddling around the fire in the dark, making up stories to console their fears.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

One doesn't need a notion of the origin of the universe in order to be alive and appreciate the state.

Natural human curiosity, which has been present in all known societies as a scientific fact, suggests that such a need is instinctive in the human species. A pig is alive and appreciates the state it is in. The CERN project is one costly example of the expression of the need although any meaningful results from it are functionless as useful fable from which moral lessons can be taught.

Quote:

Theists are children, huddling around the fire in the dark, making up stories to console their fears.

Atheists are animals huddling around a 20 watt light bulb, looking neither to right or left and wearing earmuffs, making up stories to console their fears and blurting assertions like the above which are self-comforting grunts and, as such, hostile to communication.

And the ones who have the courage of their convictions are impossible companions which is why so few of them have that courage.

0 Replies

Spendi wrote:

And the ones who have the courage of their convictions are impossible companions which is why so few of them have that courage.

I certainly am an impossible companion, at least for those I've never met...

1 Reply

@Francis,

What does "met" mean Francois?

1 Reply

@spendius,

It means "happen to know me intimately"..

1 Reply

@Francis,

Which begs another question but one no gentleman asks of another.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Indeed, Spendi..

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

More likely you have constructed (or borrowed) a straw man that makes it easy for you to deny.

On the flip side, I'm getting a sense that you made your notion of god deliberately obscure and vague to make it hard for others to deny.

I'm still interested to hear why, since you have no problem with an uncreated god who created the universe, you do have an intellectual problem with an uncreated universe.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Because it is less fantastic than the alternative.

Why do you believe in an uncreated universe? Why do you look for quantifiable and predictable models to describe the workings of a universe that had no designer?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

To find an excuse for sexual indiscipline. What other reason could there possibly be?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Freud would have had a field day with you, spendi.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

He would have bolted from my consulting rooms howling Ed.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Let me answer your second question first.

georgeob1 wrote:

Why do you look for quantifiable and predictable models to describe the workings of a universe that had no designer?

I don't. I look for quantifiable and predictable models to describe the workings of the universe, because that's the most efficient way to figure out anything -- including the universe. I'm not specifically look for models that include no designer; only, as a general policy, models that omit needless assumption. And it just so happens that the assumption of a god turns out to bee needless for explaining anything. Give me a model that makes better predictions than the ones we currently have, and I'll take it -- even if it requires the existence of a god.

And with this, I'm ready to answer the first part of your question:

georgeob1 wrote:

Why do you believe in an uncreated universe?

Because the assumption of an uncreated creator would clutter my worldview with one more entity that needs explaining, and that still begs the questions about the emergence of our world that I was trying to answer in the first place.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know