U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How plausible is this theory (explain)?
You've convinced me, where do I join your cult? 0 0%
Nope, totally don't buy it. 10 83.33%
Sorta of, but I believe X instead... 2 16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2014, 07:29 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,249,987 times
Reputation: 1315

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The Source does NOT need to be a created thing. It just doesn't.
Totally in agreement. In my view, the "source" is what is, reality itself. It is the thing that is what it is in and of itself. But it cannot be the source of itself, it just is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
However . . . you have convinced me that the term Source invokes a causal paradigm automatically in too many people to be useful.
Good, I was hoping I could explain that. It had been bugging me for a while, but it wasn't until I really sat down with it did I realize that what you meant to say wasn't what was being said... It does boil down to "source" being a causal word. Even when used in a locational context it still has a causal sense or sense of origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I have explained to Box that my concern is probably better expressed as desiring a status for reality and my preference is that status is as God. You and Box and others clearly consider the status of reality irrelevant and see the term reality (whatever it is) as sufficient for your purposes. I once held that view myself . . . but now consider it completely untenable.
Sure, this is the exercise in labeling that GldnRule and I have been around in circles about. I argue that to be able to determine if something is a god, one must have an independent definition of what that means, he argues that it means anything anyone wants it to mean. You seem to take a third angle in that you have not defined what it means for an arbitrary thing to qualify as a god, but you insist that it is obvious that reality taken as a singular entity qualifies.

If we could agree on what it means for something to be a god we could discuss if the label fits, but that requires defining our terms first, something you have been notoriously resistant to do.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2014, 01:48 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,279,657 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Atheism holds that there is something deeply wrong with dependence on a third party entity.
That would be far from how I would define atheism. Atheism is not seeing any reason whatsoever to think that there is a third party entity in the first place. Whether you become dependent on that entity.... real or imagined.... is a different subject entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Human beings do need each other to survive. A person completely cut off from other people typically ends up becoming a hermit, a psycho, or otherwise strange.
Your second sentence does not gel with the first. The first claims humans need each other to survive. The second sentence suggests that loners simply turn "strange". Two problems here. Firstly.... what is so wrong with being "strange"? Secondly.... you contradict yourself. If you become strange then you are surviving. You have to survive to become strange. This directly contradicts your first sentence which already asserted that you would not survive. Which is it?

Perhaps if you want thoughts on your thesis, you might attempt to make the thesis internally coherent first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 06:07 AM
 
2,441 posts, read 1,938,312 times
Reputation: 4644
Quote:
Atheism holds that there is something deeply wrong with dependence on a third party entity.
We atheists depend on other entities all the time, every second of every day. From people to institutions. The point is that all of them are real. What keeps us safe in our beds at night is neither the Ministry of Magic, nor a god, but the combined effects of the Fire Department, building code enforcement, anti trust efforts, public liability concerns, the police department, FAA, pressure to follow social codes, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 11:18 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,703,881 times
Reputation: 3108
Quote:
Lets keep it simple. The way I view the world requires no 'faith'.
The things I believe to be true are based on evidence - not no evidence. That's why I have never understood 'faith'.
You know if the above has validity I just don't understand then how humanity and its cultures progress. Somebody has to make a first move which can be fatal say when it comes to survivability. It's possible in some cases that there is no evidence as such to figure out a conclusion that cold be extremely variable. So what does one have to have? A paid-up funeral policy????...;-)....But I could see 'faith', where to make that leap it appears necessary or humanity just cannot move ahead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,862 posts, read 3,784,931 times
Reputation: 4594
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
You know if the above has validity I just don't understand then how humanity and its cultures progress. Somebody has to make a first move which can be fatal say when it comes to survivability. It's possible in some cases that there is no evidence as such to figure out a conclusion that cold be extremely variable. So what does one have to have? A paid-up funeral policy????...;-)....But I could see 'faith', where to make that leap it appears necessary or humanity just cannot move ahead.

Not sure I understand what you mean travric. Can you provide an example?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 04:13 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,840 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Instead, we're gonna view humans as spiritual beings. We laugh, we cry, we pray, and do all sorts of things.
I contend we are in fact not spiritual beings, as the word isn't well enough defined to be applicable. Spiritual shares much in common with the word god. Both are highly ambiguous. I would replace the word spiritual with emotional, as that seems to be what you are describing.


Quote:
Now, Christianity holds that viewing oneself as self-sufficient is arrogance.
As well as a whole trunk full of other baggage. I'd also suggest there are probably some sects of Christianity who do not hold to the above, as their holy text has become The Big Book of Multiple Choice. You wish to be self-sufficient? There's certainly a passage somewhere to justify that position. For instance, some Christian sects now preach the Gospel of prosperity. This is obviously in direct opposition to much of what Jesus supposedly taught.


Quote:
Atheism holds that there is something deeply wrong with dependence on a third party entity.
The ONLY thing atheism means is you are not a theist. It itself does not hold to anything else. That doesn't mean atheists don't hold other beliefs and individually exhibit different traits. Some as you suggest are fiercely independent, while others are not. We come in many shades and varieties, but the only thing we have in common is no god belief. Independence is NOT a tenet of atheism. Atheism only has one tenet; those belonging can't believe in a god.



So can atheism and theism be reconciled? No, they are polar opposites. However, that does not mean we do not share many other things in common. We laugh, we cry (most if not all atheists probably do not pray), and do all sorts of things.

The bigger question; can atheists and theists reconcile? The answer to that is resounding yes. We can be friends and cooperate even though we disagree on this one point. It should be admitted however, theism is an extremely divisive concept. Not just among theists and atheists, but also among different shades of theism. This one fact alone should cause us to strive for its dismissal from our society, especially if it's not true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 04:24 PM
 
16,092 posts, read 17,888,868 times
Reputation: 15889
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
LOL. You forgot the exclamation points !!I understand Cruithne . . . but you DO need to acknowledge that not only do you NOT have any evidentiary basis for your preference . . . you never can have. You can not evidence anything by lack of evidence!
But, the default when there is no evidence is NOT to believe.

That does not say anything about whether or not a person will believe *if* evidence appears. This is why most atheists are both agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism says that we don't know if there is a god, but atheism says we do not believe that is unless we see evidence of one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 06:53 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,840 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTheist
So can atheism and theism be reconciled? No, they are polar opposites.
This is not exactly true. While it is true that atheism and theism are direct opposites, they could in fact be reconciled and this is exactly what the debate is about. In order for them to be reconciled theism would have to make its case. This is of course a very difficult proposition, especially for the theist who claims their god is supernatural (beyond the limits of analysis), and is most likely impossible. So in order for the two be reconciled, theism would have to prove something exists that both sides are willing to refer to as a god. The reconciliation would result in the abolishment of both theism and atheism, as non-evidential belief would no longer be necessary. Because it seems quite impossible to prove a non-extant entity exists (only things that exist leave evidence), atheism will continue to exist alongside theism as long as there are people willing to positively believe in things without direct evidence.

Lack of belief in any proposition should be the default position until substantial direct evidence is provided to prove it. This is especially true when the proposition is not mundane, as in the case of god concepts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 09:06 PM
 
39,039 posts, read 10,831,421 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
You know if the above has validity I just don't understand then how humanity and its cultures progress. Somebody has to make a first move which can be fatal say when it comes to survivability. It's possible in some cases that there is no evidence as such to figure out a conclusion that cold be extremely variable. So what does one have to have? A paid-up funeral policy????...;-)....But I could see 'faith', where to make that leap it appears necessary or humanity just cannot move ahead.
Yes, there is something that could be called 'Faith', or perhaps 'instinct to progress and survive' or even 'curiosity' might be used. Perhaps even atheists would recognize that element of instinctive 'Faith' in the value of our lives and efforts. That however has nothing to do with the sort of Faith theism would ask us to invest in the God-claim, or the idea that there is an invisible creative deity that has a Plan for us.

Mystic said in a post above that to believe that it is all an 'accident' required great faith. To an atheist, it doesn't. It requires great Faith to believe that there is an invisible thinking being that has done all this for a reason.

At most one might say that to believe one or the other requires faith, but to not believe, to say that we don't know, doesn't.

We then look around for evidence of this being and its supposed plan, and atheism says that the evidence isn't good enough. Therefore the 'accident' theory seems the default until evidence of this being and plan is made credible. And that takes only one kind of faith-faith in the validity of evidence and reasoning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 05:39 AM
 
Location: Maryland
3,540 posts, read 6,080,480 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Yes, there is something that could be called 'Faith', or perhaps 'instinct to progress and survive' or even 'curiosity' might be used. Perhaps even atheists would recognize that element of instinctive 'Faith' in the value of our lives and efforts. That however has nothing to do with the sort of Faith theism would ask us to invest in the God-claim, or the idea that there is an invisible creative deity that has a Plan for us.

Mystic said in a post above that to believe that it is all an 'accident' required great faith. To an atheist, it doesn't. It requires great Faith to believe that there is an invisible thinking being that has done all this for a reason.

At most one might say that to believe one or the other requires faith, but to not believe, to say that we don't know, doesn't.

We then look around for evidence of this being and its supposed plan, and atheism says that the evidence isn't good enough. Therefore the 'accident' theory seems the default until evidence of this being and plan is made credible. And that takes only one kind of faith-faith in the validity of evidence and reasoning.

As a theist, I wonder if a fundamental difference between us, theists belief they have a "relationship" with the universe. That we are not some accidental result of billions of years of random events.

The more we all learn about this universe, the more it appears there are universal laws within it.

I think atheists get hung up on the idea that "the creator" is a person, an entity, or an identifiable being.
Most theists believe this, however you can't get two to agree on the traits of this "creator".

Nevertheless, laws of the universe appear to be pretty universal. And if I was an atheist, that would give me pause.

I'm no expert, but this universe of ours is elegant in it's design.

Some may say it's hubris to imply that we humans are so wonderful, only some kind of intelligent designer could have conceived of, and created us.

On the other hand, it would take a great deal of faith on my part, to believe its all entirely random.

Last edited by june 7th; 03-23-2014 at 06:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top