Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Beyond Christian dogma though? A cosmic mind? Anything beyond the physical universe?
Yes of course but since we know nothing about it, it would be absurd to believe anything about it.
Also what we find out beyond what we know of the physical universe seems to come from science rather than metaphysical speculations.
There's also the point that what is beyond the physical universe is a bit academic, really. What concerns us and our lives and how we live them relates to what is not beyond the physical universe and, in fact, what is here with us. On all evidence it ain't any of the personal gods, little doubt about that.
You hit on it yourself, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888
I am sometimes doubt ridden about Theism and at other times about atheism. I do believe we are all a part of a super existence yet I can't prove it physically and I don't believe that omnipotence meddles in the physical.
The super-existence..well, yes, there's obviously a lot more out there than we can imagine and while what we have fund so far loks natural, the sub - atomic complexities sometimes make us wonder..could it up to a Cosmic mind? That said, if Omnipotence doesn't meddle in the physical, then it's nothing to do with atheism.
Buddhism (therevada, anyway) is considered an atheist religion, not because it doesn't believe in gods, it actually doesn't deny them, but it doesn't see them as anything much to do with their religious needs. Karma operates with or without gods.
On the other hand, it were proven that there was some god developing life, operating our consciousness and saving a few cancer victims, giving a glimpse of a computer screen during an operation or getting the team with the most sincere Christians prayer on it a winning try in injury time, then perhaps one might have serious doubts. But as yet, the doubt is best directed at those claims, not by or from them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-22-2011 at 02:03 AM..
Just passing through and thinking what a depressing black hole atheism seems to me in that it's purpose seems to be to suck souls into outer darkness - to "turn off the light" (so to speak), to "shut one into a philosophical coffin". I just don't get why people are drawn to it. There is no hope for the atheist. That's why it makes no sense to me to embrace it as a definitive answer to our questions about reality. Apparently I'm incapable of being an atheist. Maybe it is as if one is born with or without that ability, just as we are born with sexual preferences and so forth.
I think your comment gives some insight to the nature of the whole tension between theism and atheism. Though an extreme skeptic at heart I cannot seem to dismiss the concept of a universal designer. It's just the nature of my perception AS I simultaneously reject the claims of those who believe in magic books.
Is it just an idea planted into my head by our culture? Or a gene which causes me to believe in AND experience something from beyond this realm?
I would like to say no, but the skeptic in me is always open to the possibility.
But that's MY doubts, let's here more from the atheists.
Religion(s) aside - do you ever wonder if there is something beyond this physical universe?
Certainly. Just going by science, there is a hypothesis (no proof behind it) that our universe is part of a multiverse with more than three spacial dimensions. If there was a being in this multiverse that could move about in more than three dimensions, it would probably be omnipotent from our perspective.
I read another hypothesis (again, no proof, just conjecture) that when we collide subatomic particles at high speeds, we may be creating universes that from our perspective last nanoseconds but from within the universes last billions of years. If this hypothesis is true, would it make us deistic gods? What if we were able to observe what went on in these universes or even alter them?
It's also possible that this universe isn't real, that we're living in something like the Matrix and that death will more or less be an awakening. I don't put much stock in this or the other hypotheses, but I wouldn't say that there's no chance whatsoever that at least one of them is valid.
I am quite confident that every religion was fabricated by humans though. Whatever the truth is, our ancestors who lived millenia ago certainly weren't closer to the right track than modern science.
I think your comment gives some insight to the nature of the whole tension between theism and atheism. Though an extreme skeptic at heart I cannot seem to dismiss the concept of a universal designer. It's just the nature of my perception AS I simultaneously reject the claims of those who believe in magic books.
Is it just an idea planted into my head by our culture? Or a gene which causes me to believe in AND experience something from beyond this realm?
I would like to say no, but the skeptic in me is always open to the possibility.
But that's MY doubts, let's here more from the atheists.
There is this tension in me, too. The tension is between a view that things happen in nature without a Mind behind it. That's a basic observation that things happened without anyone doing it and I have never had any serious cause to doubt it.
Against that is the idea of the Bible claims which were instilled in me as a kid but they never really survived learning about rival religious claims. Personal gods just collapsed overnight. There was still this idea of a controlling mind, intelligent nature or the god of everybody.
That was an idea I had as a youngster, long before I even knew that I was atheist, so it's no surprise to find the idea being mooted by the non - religious theists here. The possibility is still there but, despite the best efforts of those trying to make a case by philosophical constructs about First cause, appeals to flawed statistics, faulty analogies about cats on keyboards, arguments from necessary conditions which ignore a lot of counter - evidence or claims that what may be our delusions are probably real, I have to say that the sorta -god case is far from made credible, though it can be very persuasive in a sort of easy - answers to tough questions way.
Not being convinced of course then leads to a flurry of illogic about closed - mindedness, giving an unproven theoretical possibility undeserved weight of credibility or using inverted and faulty logic which woefully puts them on the same page as creationist twaddle-mongers, and that's sad to see.
Because we apparently do agree on the implausibility of man - made religions and thus worship and prayer in the sense of trying to whine for divine favours. The other thing is so academic that it is truly too sad to see the New Agnostics getting so het up over our reasonable doubts about poorly supported claims when we atheists are apparently expected to shout 'Yes! We believe!" where there really, really is no sound reason to.
Just passing through and thinking what a depressing black hole atheism seems to me in that it's purpose seems to be to suck souls into outer darkness - to "turn off the light" (so to speak), to "shut one into a philosophical coffin".
Funny, it seems to me that this is a description of theism. Sucks people into a black pit where everything they do or think is a sin and convinces them to just accept the impossible and not to question what they are told or think for themselves.
Quote:
I just don't get why people are drawn to it.
You know, atheism is not some cult like Scientology that people are "drawn to". I myself am what I consider a natural atheist as I never believed even when indoctrination was attempted when I was a child. Theism in all its forms never made any sense to me and therefore I never believed it. Atheism is in fact my natural state.
Quote:
There is no hope for the atheist.
Of course there is. Atheists hope and dream just like everyone else. I don't spend my life waiting for some fairy tale afterlife, that's true, but I am perfectly happy living the life that I've got now.
Quote:
That's why it makes no sense to me to embrace it as a definitive answer to our questions about reality.
It makes no sense to me to embrace age-old mythology as reality. Of course it is not a definite answer as atheists will readily admit - it is the answer that makes the most sense with the data that we have. We may never have a definitive answer - just as we can never definitively prove that leprechauns do not really exist. So long as there is no data to suggest that they actually do, it makes no sense to believe that they do.
Quote:
Apparently I'm incapable of being an atheist. Maybe it is as if one is born with or without that ability, just as we are born with sexual preferences and so forth.
Obviously I do think some people are more prone to religion than others. Since I myself am incapable of suspending my disbelief of unbelievable things, I am sure it also works the other way around. Some people are incapable of suspending belief. However, most atheists are not like me - most atheists were once indoctrinated theists who woke up one day, applied their logic to what they'd been taught, and realized that it made no sense. So I think there is hope for you yet.
I used to have occasional doubts. Occasionally someone would make a decent argument for the existence of god, and being open-minded, I'd listen to their evidence. However, all such arguments turned out to be flawed in some way, and as I continued to read and research, my conviction that there is no god has become ever stronger. Short of incontrovertible proof, I'm not going to change my conviction and adopt an intellectually inferior superstition.
Isn't everything flawed in some way? I get that many atheist rely on evidence and science. I admit I'm not a scientist or thoroughly educated in science. But, from my limited knowledge, it seems to me that even science is also (flawed) at least sometimes.
Apparently my limited intellect is preventing me from comprehending a few things about atheism. I keep seeing a few statements repeated by some of the atheists in this forum.
I am getting the impressing that it is the consensus of most atheists, that if you can't prove it, then it doesn't exist. Is that correct?
What I am having trouble with, is the fact that certain things that we know now, were not "proven" at some point in time. Did that mean those things did not exist? I may have asked this question already in another thread, but you'll have to bear with me, apparently, I'm a little slow.
And whatever answer I got, didn't quite clear it up for me.
I am getting the impressing that it is the consensus of most atheists, that if you can't prove it, then it doesn't exist. Is that correct?
No. It's more like - if there is no evidence to convince you that something is true, you don't believe in it. It's a subtle but important distinction.
Quote:
What I am having trouble with, is the fact that certain things that we know now, were not "proven" at some point in time. Did that mean those things did not exist?
Of course not. Reality exists independent of our understanding or lack thereof. Was the world flat because people believed it was, or was it always round?
I am getting the impressing that it is the consensus of most atheists, that if you can't prove it, then it doesn't exist. Is that correct?
Of course that is false, and I'd love for you to show me one quote from any atheist poster in this forum in which he or she ever said such a thing, because I have been here for years and never once saw an atheist poster write that. I have, from time to time, seen theists try to accuse us of believing that, but it is a straw man argument, meaning a position we do not hold and is easily knocked down.
I hesitate to speak for other atheists, so I will speak from my perspective which I believe is similar to the perspective of most other atheists I have seen expressed here.
Things may exist before any evidence is gathered of their existence. But, humans are capable of dreaming up all kinds of fanciful things for which we have no reason to believe exist in the real world, for example, trolls, elves, fairies, unicorns, etc. My default position is to not believe these things exist unless and until I am convinced by evidence that they do exist. I acknowledge the very, very remote chance that one of more of these things might exist somewhere, but I find it so very unlikely, that for now I don't believe they exist. Same thing goes for gods and devils, etc.
That's basically what I'm asking. I think all the religious gods have been shown to be less loving than many humans and so have disqualified themselves from being absolute truth.
I don't think you understand the question.
What is true is true, regardless of whether it's nice.
After all, the physical universe is absolutely not loving at all. It just is, and things happen according to physical laws. Whether reality is loving or not has nothing to do with it.
What atheists are interested in is whether something is true, not whether we like it.
I apologize if I wasn't clear enough: they're all comic book gods. There is precisely as much reason to believe in Thor as in the god of the bible or Santa Claus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
