I wanted to add to my last post, but because Edgar wrote another post before I was able to, I could not.
Anyhow, what I wanted to say, was that if if you look at the top of a post of yours, to the left of "report" there will be an "X". If you hit that, and no one is quicker than you, the post can be deleted!
Snood- The fact that you were able to make the change that you did, meant that no one had added to the thread yet, and you simply edited your post. You probably were just unaware of the "X"!
Frank Apisa wrote:They need the security blanket of a "belief" in gods....just like you need the security blanket of a "belief" there are no gods.
That's one argument that never quite added up for me. I do not see why the belief there are no gods produces a security blanket. At least if you take the term security blanket to mean something that provides comfort.
Why?
If the Atheists position is that there is not god, then without a god one could argue the universe is a much more hazardous and scary environ than with a god. Presuming a benevolent god that is
edgarblythe wrote:......I have never seen his posts as mean-spirited.
Frankly, Frank's posts are very cool, whether I agree, disagree, or have no view.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Chumly wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:They need the security blanket of a "belief" in gods....just like you need the security blanket of a "belief" there are no gods.
That's one argument that never quite added up for me. I do not see why the belief there are no gods produces a security blanket. At least if you take the term security blanket to mean something that provides comfort.
Why?
If the Atheists position is that there is not god, then without a god one could argue the universe is a much more hazardous and scary environ than with a god. Presuming a benevolent god that is
Most people are more comfortable with certainty than uncertainty.
Yes I understand your point well from the philosophical aspect of one intellectual certainty alone, but it still leaves the very cold gap of a godless uncaring universe to contend with.
I am not convinced at all that is an equitable trade off in terms of security blankets and hence my point.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Chumly wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:They need the security blanket of a "belief" in gods....just like you need the security blanket of a "belief" there are no gods.
That's one argument that never quite added up for me. I do not see why the belief there are no gods produces a security blanket. At least if you take the term security blanket to mean something that provides comfort.
Why?
If the Atheists position is that there is not god, then without a god one could argue the universe is a much more hazardous and scary environ than with a god. Presuming a benevolent god that is
Most people are more comfortable with certainty than uncertainty.
And, I would add that a certain amount of self-rightousness goes along with most belief systems. Not only the certainty that one is right, but that others are wrong.
I too do not see Frank's posts as mean-spirited, only abrasive. Scorpions sting because they are scorpions, not because they are mean-spirited. I think that Frank shows a tendency toward altruism by taking regular vacations.
Phoenix. By 50% for and against I do not intend to make a mathematical calculation; I just mean that, for Frank, the evidence is completely ambiguous or "equally" dark on both sides. I, for example, could not say that the evidence is 99.9% in favor of god's non-existence. I enjoy the comfort of subjective certainty that God with his stifling morality and punitive Hell do NOT exist.
Momma Angel wrote:edgar,
That's my point. Once he starts implying I don't know what I think I know or I'm an idiot for what I think I know, etc., I completely miss his message because I'm reeling from being hit over the head with his verbal baseball bat.
Marshall McLuhan: "The Medium is the Message"
If it had not been for my abrupt and very forthright Polish wife, I might have a problem with Frank as well, as it is it all sounds like home
The security blanket of being certain does not apply to me. As I have bored members by noting a number of times, I tried my best to become a Chrisian many years ago, mainly because a security blanket was the very thing I needed. Needed or not, it just didn't work out.
I believe "a security blanket" describes religion to a "t."
CI,
Thank you for stating that the way you did. You got your point across without offending in any way. Good for you. :wink:
Does anybody here understand the point that the words "know" and "guess" as used by theists and agnostics presuppose an "objective reality" ? The atheistic position allows for questioning of such objectivity by relegating the "God concept" to the social reality of subgroups. THIS is the essential transcendence of the atheistic position NOT the "non-existence of God in an objective reality" which is what naive realists would suppose.
What other kind of reality could there possibly be in a discussion of this nature and/or in any similar discussion when you are referring to your own views and understandings?
It's not like a well understood, provable and widely agreed upon (with it's confines) mathematical theorem such as Pythagoras's Theorem.
Also I don't see why, for the sake of argument at the least, a theist or an agonistic could not presuppose no god.
When a thiest says "I know god exists," it's strickly in their own mind. That is their "reality." When a agnostic says "guess," it's because nobody is able to prove there is or there isn't - in their own mind. My atheism is based on what I see as my reality, and nothing in this world has shown to me the existence of any god. I see many forms of gods created by man in most cultures of human kind. They believed in their gods as strongly as many theists of today in their bible god. I also believe humans are prone to believe in gods; it's in our genes. I just don't see it as truth.
Fresco,
I assume I am correct in that the you are saying the beauty of the Atheist position is that is allows you the freedom to deny the god concept?
I believe we are born with such in our makeup as to make it easy to believe in gods, but, as CI says, that's no evidence there are any.
Just for fun couldn't the same argument be made for many things such as morals or love?
