jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:20 pm
@sometime sun,
There are obviously various kinds of atheists though. One is 'don't know, don't care': never thinks about the question, is not the least bit religious. But most of them never bother to say that they are atheists, because they aren't conscious of what they are denying. The fact that God doesn't exist, or does, is simply of no interest.

Conscientious atheists are different. They make a point of saying that God doesn't exist. Most conscientious atheists can be defined by what they deny. So whatever conception of God you present, that is what they deny. This provides a lot of material to work with, because all the various arguments and debates about the nature and existence of God are all 'grist to the mill'. There is a couple of thousand years worth of documentation to deny and all of the various traditional arguments to attack.

They're what I regard as your real atheists, the others are not even serious, really.
0 Replies
 
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:23 pm
@Alan McDougall,
God of ANY religion is entirely unprovable.

However, a CREATOR is clearly evident.

You did not create yourself and yet you exist
No thing in the known universe, including the universe, can create itself and yet myriad of things exist.

Therefore, something unknown within the universe or something outside the universe greater than all the known things within the universe, including the universe, must exist.

This unknown thing can be referred to as the CREATOR.

So, does Atheism only apply to belief in a religious god?
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:40 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146390 wrote:
No thing in the known universe, including the universe, can create itself
Then there must have always been a universe.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 09:45 AM ----------

jeeprs;146389 wrote:
One is 'don't know, don't care': never thinks about the question, is not the least bit religious. But most of them never bother to say that they are atheists, because they aren't conscious of what they are denying.
Then they're aren't denying anything, because denial is a conscious action. In the UK, the question just doesn't come up, as Blair said, the religious dont talk about god because others will think that they're "some kind of nutter".
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:08 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;146396 wrote:
Then there must have always been a universe.


And yet science has demonstrated that the universe is only 14 billion years old, hence the necessity of a creator for the aforementioned reasons.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:18 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146406 wrote:
science has demonstrated that the universe is only 14 billion years old
Nonsense, (+110).
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:27 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146390 wrote:
God of ANY religion is entirely unprovable.

However, a CREATOR is clearly evident.

You did not create yourself and yet you exist
No thing in the known universe, including the universe, can create itself and yet myriad of things exist.

Therefore, something unknown within the universe or something outside the universe greater than all the known things within the universe, including the universe, must exist.

This unknown thing can be referred to as the CREATOR.

So, does Atheism only apply to belief in a religious god?


non-sense

energy and matter always existed
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:30 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146406 wrote:
And yet science has demonstrated that the universe is only 14 billion years old, hence the necessity of a creator for the aforementioned reasons.


Actually, what you are close to here, is a very ancient argument indeed, which goes back to Aristotle, called the cosmological argument.

Whether it really applies to the question of the existence of everything is very controversial. But it is worth looking up 'cosmological argument' and also 'Kalaam cosmological argument' if you're interested in the details.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:31 pm
@north,
I have never yet seen any evidence that any god(s) describe the physics or explain how any energy and matter came to be
0 Replies
 
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:41 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146413 wrote:
Actually, what you are close to here, is a very ancient argument indeed, which goes back to Aristotle, called the cosmological argument.

Whether it really applies to the question of the existence of everything is very controversial. But it is worth looking up 'cosmological argument' and also 'Kalaam cosmological argument' if you're interested in the details.


You are right, however, whether or not there is controversy amongst men will have no impact on its validity.

By the way, the idea is first mentioned in the west as an idea of pythagoras' who was said to have learned from the priests of hmnw. thanks.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:46 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;146418 wrote:
You are right, however, whether or not there is controversy amongst men will have no impact on its validity.

By the way, the idea is first mentioned in the west as an idea of pythagoras' who was said to have learned from the priests of hmnw. thanks.


apparently pythagoras' has his limits
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:04 pm
@sometime sun,
He might have had his limits, but he always knew the right angle:bigsmile:
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:06 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146425 wrote:
He might have had his limits, but he always knew the right angle:bigsmile:


NO , he just got off in the wrong tangent Very Happy
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:08 pm
@north,
north;146427 wrote:
NO , he just got off in the wrong tangent Very Happy
It was a sine of the times.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:10 pm
@ughaibu,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
NO , he just got off in the wrong tangent Very Happy


ughaibu;146428 wrote:
It was a sine of the times.


indeed , indeed
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:11 pm
@north,
north;146429 wrote:
indeed , indeed
Of cos, who could disagree?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:11 pm
@north,
an athiest is still someone who does not believe in god , at all
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:55 pm
@wayne,
wayne;145136 wrote:
I think that is one type of agnostic, yes, but the base definition might be ,has not made a decision yet. A baby would then be agnostic by default. I am able to be agnostic about many things.


First the baby would have to have the concept of god to be agnostic. A baby does not have a concept of god so it can not be agnostic.

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 07:58 PM ----------

Alan McDougall;146375 wrote:
Atheism is belief that there is a No god behind the creation of the universe.


Wrong a again Alan. You just keep perpetuating a lie to make yourself feel better.

Alan McDougall;146375 wrote:

They want us to bend over backward and believe that, everything came from nothing to create everything, (The Universe) in what is now called the big bang


Alan, don't you think god snapping his fingers and saying presto magico maketh the universe from nothing is not the same thing? You are completely ignoring the fact that if a god were to have created the universe, what did it make it from? This is how silly you are and how ignorant you are of your own argument. Tell me, if a god made the unvierse, what did that god use? Nothing?

Keep being ignorant Alan, at least you are being consistent.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:26 pm
@sometime sun,
I think the idea that understanding the way in which God made heaven and earth is a simple matter, is not really true. It comes from misunderstanding the nature of sciptural accounts. Of course, there are some who just swallow it literally - the young-earth creationists and people like that. But there are many more who understand that the scriptural accounts are neither literal accounts, nor failed scientific hypotheses. There are many 'creation stories' in world religious literature and while I don't think any of them are literally true, it is nevertheless not impossible that they contain intuitive insights or even actual 'revelations'.

For example, Thomas Aquinas had a very nuanced view of the matter. An essay on why Catholicism doesn't support Intelligent Design says that
Quote:
Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth-not a religious truth and another scientific truth-but the truth, the way things actually exist and function. Yet, what about the apparent conflict between notion of creation from nothing and the scientific principle that for every natural motion or state there is an antecedent motion or state?

Thomas points out that the judgment that there is a conflict here results from confusion regarding the nature of creation and natural change. It is an error that I call the "Cosmogonical Fallacy." Those who are worried about conflict between faith and reason on this issue fail to distinguish between cause in the sense of a natural change of some kind and cause in the sense of an ultimate bringing into being of something from no antecedent state whatsoever. "Creatio non est mutatio," says Thomas, affirming that the act of creation is not some species of change. So, the Greek natural philosophers were quite correct: from nothing, nothing comes. By "comes" here is meant a change from one state to another and this requires some underlying material reality, some potentiality for the new state to come into being. This is because all change arises out of a pre-existing possibility for that change residing in something. Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something's existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a taking of something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.

Strictly speaking, points out Thomas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist-it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates, not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.


Thomas Aquinas vs the Intelligent Designers


Now at this point in time, both scientific cosmology and Darwinian theory come to a definite halt at a certain point when it comes to understanding the origins of life and the Universe. Cosmology can go right back to within mili-seconds of the start of the big bang, but no further. Darwinian theory cannot account for the origin of life. It can only account for the way species change, once life exists. In both cases, science can only hope that one day, it will understand the last steps in these sequences. But that too is a kind of faith. So dogmatic rejection of religion is very similar to dogmatic acceptance of it, in my view.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:43 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146490 wrote:
Now at this point in time, both scientific cosmology and Darwinian theory come to a definite halt at a certain point when it comes to understanding the origins of life and the Universe.


Yes all fields have their limits when it comes to explanations of how. It is absurd to use this as an argument because religion has even a worse limit. It just stops at, "the source made it happen" or "god made it so" That to me is even worse of an explanation. Had we abandoned scientific investigation and instead held firmly to that old motto, "god did it" we wouldn't have any of the modern discoveries that we do. It is silly to say that these scientific fields are worthless because they can't explain everything. Well hate to tell you but they explain far more than any religion has about who we are. I know for absolutely certainty that science will continue to make progress and answer the questions that we still have.

Science will discover the answers that will errase every single instance of "the source did it" or "god did it".

jeeprs;146490 wrote:

Cosmology can go right back to within mili-seconds of the start of the big bang, but no further.


Some cosmologist stop at that point. I however; feel that there wasn't a single event but a reoccurring event. So I do not agree that the investigation stops at the big bang. I bet the answers will come from the current experiments. Mark my words with that.

jeeprs;146490 wrote:

Darwinian theory cannot account for the origin of life. It can only account for the way species change, once life exists.


No but we are doing experiments into just how it might have happened. We have taken what we feel the earth was like before life existed. We take the simple chemicals that make up RNA and have discovered through a process of water, evaporation and water that these chemicals can synthesize the same molecules that build up RNA. It sounds completely and utterly plausible to me that it is just that simple.

jeeprs;146490 wrote:

In both cases, science can only hope that one day, it will understand the last steps in these sequences. But that too is a kind of faith.


No, there is no faith at all, why do theists insist that faith is necessary for scientific endeavors? It is a theory, that requires testing, it is the testing, the investigation that will answer the questions. No faith is required. Faith is a guess and it NEVER goes beyond guessing.

jeeprs;146490 wrote:

So dogmatic rejection of religion is very similar to dogmatic acceptance of it, in my view.


Religion has not accomplished a single thing worthy of being considered valuable.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:47 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;146494 wrote:
Religion has not accomplished a single thing worthy of being considered valuable.


I think it is impossible to respond to this. You have such a blinkered view of the matter, it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you about it. I should have known better than to try. Will remember this next time.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2021 at 06:44:47