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)
 
Old 06-03-2014, 05:56 AM
 
39,211 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K View Post
All anyone needs to do is look up words and terms they don't understand, and it would be realized the referred to world view alongside the explaining, not only has nothing to do with emerging from atheism, but defends atheism.


Existential nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I understood the words perfectly, thanks. It was putting them together in something of what is called a 'word salad' that made it hard to understand what you were trying to say.

"above described existential-nihilistic world view -holds no objective meaning to reason.

so the view overthrows an answer to its own question before any answer can even be considered. The existential-nihilistic world view is a confusion. Plus it concedes to a place , for meaning by its comprehension of a potential for meaning other then desire, and all that..

so the position already knows and identifies an objective meaning, admits and deny's. Its just a confusion probably from thinking about it too much .

( edit last night I was in rush due to things not in my control and want to say in general because some of the theists read this as well, the discussion re church was also in attention to rules for this area of forum, thanks
. )"

I only got the idea that the 'Nihilistic worldview' (in the context of an atheism discussion, remember) being described as 'confusion' was a bash at a misrepresentation of atheism.

I suspect that English is not your first language and the word -salad arises from direct translation (possibly through an electronic device) but the result is to blame for any misunderstanding of mine, not my comprehension skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K;
the post above asks a question and the problem is I don't believe the philosophy enclosed in the post is atheist, but a confused view.
All you have to do is accept that your post was hard to understand and explain further, not lash out with a martyr's hat on. Taking the best view, I still assert that the nihilistic world - view in NOT what atheism is and so it is a slander to atheism to even bring it into the conversation, whether you were actually saying that it it is confusing to relate it atheism rather than it is a confused atheist view.

Stargazzer, eh? If you are now breaking lances for atheism, you have changed since you first posted here.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-03-2014 at 06:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2014, 12:05 PM
 
122 posts, read 79,806 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Very true, but this simply means that they were in a time where being an atheist, as opposed to a deist who believed God had no practical influence on the world, was a stand that could get you socially ostracized, if not killed. See for example, Thomas Paine, who was a deist, but was branded an atheist and went from Founding Father to pariah virtually overnight. The social cost for being an atheist was incredibly high, whereas simply giving a head nod to a god, but living in every way like a non-believer was as least somewhat acceptable.

That is a tremendous bunch of unfounded ad hominim, ridiculous claims, and a gross distortion of Dawkins' position. He like most of us non-believers is an agnostic atheist, that is we do not believe, but we recognize the limits of human knowledge and leave the possibility of a god existing. All we need is sufficient evidence...

As far as atheists not having studied religion, or not being capable of understanding it, that is simply laughable. I spend 20 years of my life as a devout theist. While I don't know everything about every religion or sect, I am certainly not some clueless novice as regards religion...


Thats nice. And your point is? People change their beliefs all the time, people convert, they deconvert. What is important is why and what they convert to. Flew converted solely on the the teleological argument, that is that there must a have been a first cause. However convincing he may have found this argument, others of us see only special pleading for God. Why can the universe itself not be the uncaused cause? In addition, Flew explicitly denied that the concept of God he believed in had any onging interaction whatsoever with the world. No moral rules, no worship, no intervention, no son, no salvation, simply a philosophic first cause.


Please, elaborate on hiw uneducated we are, and what our blind spot is. Educate me.

-NoCapo
Above it's asked , Why can the universe itself not be the uncaused cause.

Objectively speaking its not a very inviting intellectual suggestion.

There is nothing in existence which is not a reflection of something and express's many things, boundaries, laws, environment etc in its own manner.

The quantum observations are observed within the universe, if man cannot figure out how things pop up or behave in the quantum observations, there is no rationale available to suggest this is a happening which can happen , without an environment which does nothing but measure and reflect.

So there is zero foundation for the suggestion. Because the suggestion has nothing in common with anything known in order to give any attention to it. ( no foundation , wandering from the exploration.

The universe is accomplishing something, it is accomplishing itself. To consider the universe is not reflecting something would be abandonment of science. So objectively its not a very inviting intellectual suggestion.

Last edited by Drew K; 06-03-2014 at 12:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 12:18 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,253,561 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K View Post
Above it's asked , Why can the universe itself not be the uncaused cause.

Its not an inviting intellectual suggestion.
And all of your objections to an eternal universe, apply to any uncreated creator. The simple fact is that we have two options, something came from nothing or there was always something. These apply to gods as well as observable reality.

Thus if we have to postulate that something always was, it stands to reason that we would look at the things we know exist, instead of making something up for which we have no evidence.

So, the teleological argument fails becasue it gives us no reason to prefer the explanation of a designed universe with an undesigned creator over an undesigned universe. What is more, the lack of evidence for the existence of a creator at all points us in the direction of an un-designed reality.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 12:49 PM
 
122 posts, read 79,806 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I still assert that the nihilistic world - view in NOT what atheism is and so it is a slander to atheism to even bring it into the conversation, whether you were actually saying that it it is confusing to relate it atheism rather than it is a confused atheist view.

.
No , I believe the view is simply a confusion. ( that's why I offered a possible reason saying its probably from thinking too much about things.

Is above suggesting I'm the guy who introduced the nihilistic-existential view.
Are you saying this is my quote here below ? I'm not the guy who introduced this thing at all, give me a break !

English is my first language and I'm very comfortable with my posts or will correct as in this thread, where it was mentioned, 'below to better explain last two entries, there was a problem with them.

Anyway this below is not my quote, and it was in attention to an attempt to teach the rudiments of atheism. Maybe it was mis-worded , I donno, but its intro has nothing to do with myself .

"You are mistakenly conflating your ability to subjectively find goals and meanings in life.... with life actually having that attribute of meaning. They are different things.

Again no, but actually thinking that this means life HAS meaning is the error you seem to make."

Last edited by Drew K; 06-03-2014 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 01:53 PM
 
122 posts, read 79,806 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
And all of your objections to an eternal universe, apply to any uncreated creator. The simple fact is that we have two options, something came from nothing or there was always something. These apply to gods as well as observable reality.

Thus if we have to postulate that something always was, it stands to reason that we would look at the things we know exist, instead of making something up for which we have no evidence.

So, the teleological argument fails becasue it gives us no reason to prefer the explanation of a designed universe with an undesigned creator over an undesigned universe. What is more, the lack of evidence for the existence of a creator at all points us in the direction of an un-designed reality.

-NoCapo
I don't object to an eternal universe . I think its a good suggestion . I don't posit an eternal universe either because when exploring things, unknown assertions especially directly at one of the explorations greatest questions is an amateur's mistake.

Some good points but don't forget everything we know in the things which exist, would be all about contrast.

So its not making things up I don't think , a contrasting reality relative to the world would easily be respectable to keep from the elimination process in the exploration.

( with regards to a possible eternal universe, there could be a contrasting reality , within and apart from the universe by association - time , motion , gravity and all that. ( not to be confused with the pantheisms. ( not saying obviously in some kind of surety or anything close to it.

Last edited by Drew K; 06-03-2014 at 02:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 02:23 PM
 
39,211 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K View Post
No , I believe the view is simply a confusion. ( that's why I offered a possible reason saying its probably from thinking too much about things.

Is above suggesting I'm the guy who introduced the nihilistic-existential view.
Are you saying this is my quote here below ? I'm not the guy who introduced this thing at all, give me a break !

English is my first language and I'm very comfortable with my posts or will correct as in this thread, where it was mentioned, 'below to better explain last two entries, there was a problem with them.

Anyway this below is not my quote, and it was in attention to an attempt to teach the rudiments of atheism. Maybe it was mis-worded , I donno, but its intro has nothing to do with myself .

"You are mistakenly conflating your ability to subjectively find goals and meanings in life.... with life actually having that attribute of meaning. They are different things.

Again no, but actually thinking that this means life HAS meaning is the error you seem to make."
Sorry, I shall have to leave you to it on this subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 02:38 PM
 
122 posts, read 79,806 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Sorry, I shall have to leave you to it on this subject.
This does not address my entry which a 14 year old could understand in defense of an unfounded accusation. So it won't be considered nor the unfounded accusation.

Last edited by Drew K; 06-03-2014 at 03:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 02:40 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,286,683 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K View Post
above described existential-nihilistic world view -holds no objective meaning to reason.
Your whole post used english words but strung them together in a way that means nothing at all. What are you trying to say? Have you considered using smaller words you actually know how to correctly use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K View Post
All anyone needs to do is look up words
We do not need to look up the words. We understand them all. It is how you put them together that is at fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K View Post
I don't believe in opinion this is atheism.
You are not required to believe it. If you can rebut it however, by all means try. Perhaps learn english first before you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
It should be 100% clear what my reason is
It is. Which is why I described it as I did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
And even if it wasn't, it should be by this point because I explained it (as if anyone should need the explanation).
And I have explained why I found your reasoning arbitrary and contrived.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 06:31 AM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,245,374 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
And I have explained why I found your reasoning arbitrary and contrived.
...and then didn't give me a post number showing where you did this, even after asked.

Arbitrary:
"Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

It isn't just by chance, I wouldn't call it a whim, and it's not by some impulse of mine that I choose to tell my son "There are no monsters under your bed"; I'd call that common sense. Going with what you presume to be the standard hardly qualifies as whimsical. Necessity, reason, and principle? All there. My priorities are just different from your own. Conversely, I've found no (and have been shown no) necessity, reason, or even a consistent principle in the defense of "There is no god". I've even asked what good this would do, only to hear crickets. So it's not necessary. It's not reasonable to make this claim either (No, being technically more reasonable than "There is a god!" does not qualify it as reasonable, you should have higher standards). And the principle is basically the same as any Christian fundamentalist. It goes like,

"Here is what I believe. I shall now say it as if it is fact so my children will not question it."

Contrived:
"obviously planned, artificial, or lacking in spontaneity; forced; unnatural"

Though it's almost the antonym of "arbitrary" (I can see the benefit in covering one's bases!), it actually still doesn't describe my reasoning. Though I can explain it well, I never sat down and planned out that I would say "There is no monster under your bed" nor that I would not say "There is no god". Again, I consider these common sense. Certainly not artificial. It's how I genuinely feel about it. And though it isn't quite by chance, a whim, or impulse; it isn't lacking spontaneity because again, it's just me doing what I've always figured is the norm. No one's forcing it, not even myself, because I find it to be the most reasonable approach on both counts. As for "unnatural", me even being around my son after he's born could be called unnatural - I'm supposed to be out there making more, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2014, 03:49 PM
 
59 posts, read 59,828 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by John13 View Post
You just described a major portion of my miserable childhood which included physical abuse from my religious father.
Then your father was not a true 'believer' ;A true believer has a kind of peace and inner wisdom ,which translates into a benign attitude most of the time to their fellow citizens. They do not need to spend a great deal of time berating people ,but by their example,and their optimism pass on a positive love to their family .The message of Christ would be against most external forms and rituals,and must tranlate into justice and honesty in the affairs of life .
Here I mean honesty in not lying about others . Many over zealous so called christians say you must never lie. I never lie about others ,but an astute lie saved my life,and not only do I not consider it a 'sin' ,but challenge those who unthinkingly push false ideas about what Jesus was trying to teach us.
These people commit a terrible sin in twisting God' message since they have never learned it themselves.
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