An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Imagine you had a poet and a scientist both studying the sun, making notes about it. Afterwards, when the scientist and the poet compared notes, I think it's fair to say that they would have little common ground to compare on, since the things each put emphasis on are so different.
And yet there is no doubt that both the poet and the scientist are both speaking of something that is real.

I agree with a lot of what you have said in your last few posts. In the interest of saving words, I chose the above gem.

To add: Atheists certainly cannot be faulted for having observed the excesses of the clergy. Neither can believers be faulted for recognizing the divine hand in their surroundings. If we fail as individuals, it is because we have ignored the principles set forth by our creator and have set our moral compass according to hope for reward or desire for license

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

It's all about believing what the Bible reveals.. I get that... it's a perfectly reasonable way to live a life for those with a faith that can withstand doubt wouldn't you say? Don't feel you need to reply (you can of course) my final few words are rhetorical.

Yes, but doubts must not go unresolved.

0 Replies

Neo wrote:

Quote:

I have never had a direct revelation from Jehovah so that I would know his name. If I had, I would know how it should be pronounced.

According to some, it would be the sound of a listening ear. Wink

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:

I think that you may have misspelled immorality.

No, I meant that the church of the past, who was the moral authority as well as the religious authority, used their moral authority to strenghten their religious authority, which they used to try and stop the advance of science.

igm wrote:

Quote:

I'm a heart person using the head to refute the head so as to experience the heart fully... so to speak.

Sounds like a setup that is bound to land you on your ass. I can only encourage such bravery. Smile

2 Replies

@Sentience,

Quote:

1. The universe could not have existed infinitely.
2. The universe could not have had a creation moment.
3. The universe exists.

That's a pretty good reformulation of the problem of prime cause. Congratulation. My answers:

1) the "creation moment" could be asymptotic, meaning any event in the universe is the result of a previous event even though the universe has not been around forever - you just need to assume that events "accelerate" asymptotically when you come close to time=0.
2) imagining a creator is a solution that only exports the problem of prime cause outside our universe, rather than solve it.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

No, I meant that the church of the past, who was the moral authority as well as the religious authority, used their moral authority to strenghten their religious authority, which they used to try and stop the advance of science.

Are you suggesting that this no longer takes place? I would think that theist and atheist alike engage in practices that are not advancing mankind..

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Of course. People try to force their religion onto the domain of science all the time, and similarly, people seek to explain away religious beliefs using scientific ideas. They should all read Einsteins article about faith and science.

Religion has nothing to offer us when it comes to facts about the universe. And science has nothing to offer when someone we love dies, and we find ourselves facing some hard existential questions. Some might argue that we have philosophy for that, but what is philosophy but atheistic religion? (And here I do not mean religion in the organized worship sense of the word, but religion meaning 'how we relate to non-tangible phenomena that are unavoidable in the life of a human being', things such as wondering where we came from, why we are here, and so on.)

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Religion has nothing to offer us when it comes to facts about the universe. And science has nothing to offer when someone we love dies, and we find ourselves facing some hard existential questions. Some might argue that we have philosophy for that, but what is philosophy but atheistic religion?

I think I see your point but philosophy acknowledges "if I am not mistaken that they do not know how all of this came into being and to me this seems like the humble approach, "now if Philosophy was to say that we all came into being because a philosopher leprechaun performed a magic trick, then I would have to wonder if philosophy was being arrogant or naive if they could not prove it.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Some might argue that we have philosophy for that, but what is philosophy but atheistic religion?

Would this include religious philosophy or the philosophy of religion?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

What do you think? Read the sentence after the one you quoted, if you haven't already. Wink

To specify my position; religion is not the texts and prayers, or the dogmas and organized belief systems. Those are all byproducts of the practice of religion, which is essentially just living life. The ability to make choices without enough information is essential to our survival, and I like to think of that ability as faith. Faith is what we resort to when we are forced to make up our minds, or to act, without a sure knowledge of the outcome. Some like to dress it up, and call it estimation or plain guessing, but either way, the ability to form beliefs is part of what makes us function the way we do.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I claim to know very little most of the time but just as we all can have civil discussions about theism and morality I have also seen others like us doing the same.

I think that many of you will find this video interesting. The person who shared it would never seem like the kind of person I would think would do such a thing by reading his YouTube name.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I claim to know very little most of the time

I claim the same. But then I spoil it by acting as if I know everything.

That debate on the video sure was civil, ye. Interesting question too. My initial thought is that organized religion might emerge in a society in which all members are continually negotiating a moral code, as a sort of standardized model of moral convictions that are prevalent in individuals. Ironically, a society adhering too strictly to the standardized model might produce individuals that are less capable of, or perhaps less interested in, developing personal moral convictions.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Do we need religion to create a moral society?
Paul apparently says no:
(Romans 2:14, 15) . . .For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts,. . .

But perhaps there is more to be said. . .

0 Replies

An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know