Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 11-05-2016, 04:35 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
WADR to Gldn's views, God is and always has been the placeholder for "Why anything and everything exists."
And that is and always has been, Ok. As is well -known Einstein Hawking and others have used the term "God" to denote reality/existence and its workings.

Where he goes wrong is in taking issue with our preference for 'Nature'. Perhaps Naturalphobia is the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2016, 07:18 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,483,918 times
Reputation: 2070
nature
nature is god
god is nature.
the universe is natural
the universe is god
god is natural.

it makes total sense to me. it makes sense on many levels.

The nature around us is better described as "alive". Unless someone would try another term that is better.

The universe made us. It did not point a finger and go "poof". God (the universe) made us through evolution. We have emotion , the universe probably has some quantity more emotion. So it may indeed love. It definitely can not be described as all hate or love.

it needs no praise
no thanks
unless you need it.
But that's means honest'y
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 08:00 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Default blocking options.

I wondered where to post this, but anywhere will do, and the sheer horror of hellfire indoctrination cannot be overstressed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxJFE1FdEM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 10:37 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,483,918 times
Reputation: 2070
insane mantels come up with insane solutions to problems. "eternal fire and torture" is what broken brains come up with. Oh yeah, they can recall any lists real well. good even. Sociopathic and pathological doesn't mean stupid.

we ca play with insanity and look crazy too, or we can control insanity. But we know who is afraid act, and it aint religion. So the rest of us have to play in an unsafe sandbox. Lack belief in anything and all observations is kinda crazy too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 01:29 PM
 
143 posts, read 77,797 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I don't think you followed my argument. To choose to not believe is a faith -based process.
I'm sure you didn't follow my argument.

No one chooses to believe.

Imagine someone walks up to you on the street and tells you something - doesn't matter what it is.

You're going to believe it or not believe it - but it's not conscious decision. This subconscious decision is based upon the things I mentioned; education, experience, psychological priming, etc...





Quote:
To those who go with the evidence -as you do - to choose to not believe is not what you do.

For sure, we trust a lot of what the experts tell us without checking. We trust the peer -review system, and anyone can use the 'publication' ploy to look authoritative. The 'slide -show presentation' gimmick is used by theism to pretend the stuff they believe is as valid as science.

Wher we have questions about either science or religion, we dig. And if it turns out that there are doubts,we keep digging and questioning.

But theism chooses to believe. Thy push away the doubts. Indeed I have an axiom "The only real sin is doubt". And they opt for faith - not evidence.

Though of course fishing around for 'evidence' (wrong or invented 'evidence' will do nicely) to support the faith is part of the fakery like theist publications and presentations
This is more the difference between belief and knowing
I, mostly, agree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 02:24 PM
 
2,469 posts, read 3,116,197 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r View Post
Personally, you can call beauty and love whatever you want and I don't care. It seems weird to me to call it love, but that's your choice.
What I find a problem with is when you say "God exists because beauty and love exist therefore atheism is objectively wrong". Because you want to redefine God doesn't mean we're going to redefine atheism.
I'm not saying this is your point in any way, but it's been done so many times by a few members who shall be left unnamed.

Anyways, yeah, that's my opinion.
I'm not redefining God. I'm using definitions that are thousands of years old.
"God is love."
"I AM THAT I AM" - these are in the Old Testament, which Islam, Judaism and Christianity has honored for a long long time.
And my point is that you cannot logically prove or disprove subjective ideas like love and God. Agnosticism is more logical, though less wise/intuitive.

Atheism is illogical because
1) The term itself is contradictory: "A-theism" means literally "without theism" - without writings of beliefs. Yet, there are countless books out there on Atheism and how to "be a free thinking Atheist."
2) There are countless definitions of god - I've yet to come across an Atheist who even has considered a fraction of them, yet somehow, through blind faith, they claim that all definitions of God are impossible.
3) The main argument of Atheism is basically a counter-argument against Theism, one of the points being that Theism are NOT free thinkers - that they subscribe to group thought. Well, Atheism is also group thought - in fact now there are "Atheist churches," Atheist groups all over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 02:34 PM
 
2,469 posts, read 3,116,197 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Where we might well differ is in how much weight we are willing to give intuition, and what issues are consequential enough to demand they fulfill a higher burden of proof.
Yes, maybe that is where we disagree. I believe that both faith and doubt serve a purpose.
Forgive me if this was already brought up but I think that many people at some point in their lives also acknowledge this, as noted in the theory of stages of faith by Fowler & Scott Peck:
Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

Quote:
Most generically, and with a minimum of begging of questions, I would say that subjective transcendence of the human condition can only be accomplished within the purview of one's own mind. And that while whatever works there for each individual is perfectly fine, it isn't normative, binding or applicable to anyone else.
Frankly, I have no desire to subscribe to a religious group thought, nor do I want to proselyte. I think we can agree that "the kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you" - it's unique in you. How you define God or spirituality or Creation or Chi, or whatever term you prefer, is your own subjective experience. I cannot prove or disprove your experience of God. That is purely a personal phenomena for you. And likewise you cannot prove or disprove my experience of God/Chi/Higher Energy.


I do like your implication of the need to explore and understand one's own psych-ology (study of the soul). Carl Jung had an approach I admire, in that he saw no dividing line between psychology and spirituality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 02:37 PM
 
1,333 posts, read 876,698 times
Reputation: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul View Post
I'm not redefining God. I'm using definitions that are thousands of years old.
"God is love."
"I AM THAT I AM" - these are in the Old Testament, which Islam, Judaism and Christianity has honored for a long long time.
And my point is that you cannot logically prove or disprove subjective ideas like love and God. Agnosticism is more logical, though less wise/intuitive.

Atheism is illogical because
1) The term itself is contradictory: "A-theism" means literally "without theism" - without writings of beliefs. Yet, there are countless books out there on Atheism and how to "be a free thinking Atheist."
2) There are countless definitions of god - I've yet to come across an Atheist who even has considered a fraction of them, yet somehow, through blind faith, they claim that all definitions of God are impossible.
3) The main argument of Atheism is basically a counter-argument against Theism, one of the points being that Theism are NOT free thinkers - that they subscribe to group thought. Well, Atheism is also group thought - in fact now there are "Atheist churches," Atheist groups all over.
Okay, first of all, get outta here. Secondly, I really would rather not defend the definition of atheism in the atheism sub forum.

Yes, you're redefining. Christians are not praying to "love", they believe they're talking to a deity. If you want to claim otherwise, then go to the Christian thread and see what they think about your claim.

I have yet to see a book on "how to be an atheist", but then again, it wouldn't matter if there was. There's also books describing how to use a pencil, a needle and some yarn as a lethal weapon. It does not make my pencils all of a sudden murderous tools of destruction.

Yes, I don't consider a fraction of the definitions of God's. Call whatever you want God, but realize it has no bearing on reality and it especially has no bearing on any discussion happening in this atheist/agnostic sub forum.

Atheists all subscribe to group thought? That sounds like one of the more ridiculous claims I've heard. Atheism IS nothing. It is the absence of a belief. An atheist can be a murderer or an atheist can be a servant to the poor in impoverished third world countries. It has absolutely nothing to do with what they don't believe in. Claiming otherwise is ludicrous. I allow you to call whatever you want God, now please give me and us the respect of acknowledging what we mean when we say atheist.

Thank you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 02:48 PM
 
143 posts, read 77,797 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul View Post
1) The term itself is contradictory: "A-theism" means literally "without theism" - without writings of beliefs. Yet, there are countless books out there on Atheism and how to "be a free thinking Atheist."
I was under the impression that atheism meant lack of belief in a god or gods.
Further, I was under the impression that theism meant belief in the existence of a god or gods.
From where have you derived this definition of theism meaning 'writings of beliefs'?

Quote:
2) There are countless definitions of god - I've yet to come across an Atheist who even has considered a fraction of them, yet somehow, through blind faith, they claim that all definitions of God are impossible.
Again, I don't believe that this is the claim. Atheism, as far as I know, is the lack of belief in a god or gods, not more, not less.

Quote:
3) The main argument of Atheism is basically a counter-argument against Theism, one of the points being that Theism are NOT free thinkers - that they subscribe to group thought. Well, Atheism is also group thought - in fact now there are "Atheist churches," Atheist groups all over.
Again, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Whatever you believe a free thinker to be, I'd imagine that some atheists are, and some aren't. Just as with theists.


Quote:
Atheism is illogical because
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2016, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,769 posts, read 13,299,066 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul View Post
I believe that both faith and doubt serve a purpose.
Forgive me if this was already brought up but I think that many people at some point in their lives also acknowledge this, as noted in the theory of stages of faith by Fowler & Scott Peck:
Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com
Yes I'm familiar with Peck's stages as well as a competing / somewhat similar version put out by Wilbur. I had not seen Fowler's before though, so thanks for that.

Peck would consider me stuck in his Stage III but I have always had seen some sort of rapprochement with religious faith -- just more liberal or loosely held -- as a bit of a self-biographical affectation on his part. Even Peck admitted that not everyone followed his stages in sequence or without skipping.

I think the main point of it all is the one you're making -- there is a place for logic and a place for intuition. I think one can have intuitive insight, a sense of wonder, and transcendent experiences without them necessarily involving religious faith.

I regard religious faith (belief without a requirement of substantiation) to be a failed epistemology, one that does much mischief in the world, despite often good intentions. In rejecting it, I am not rejecting beauty or love or inherently even peak experiences or similar kinds of things that people seek to get a sense of what they might call the Divine. While I'm not particularly drawn to those things and to the extent I've explored them they have done zilch for me, I am self aware enough to understand that this is a function of my personality and psychological proclivities more than an indictment of the concepts themselves.

Despite me saying that, I still couldn't do much but roll my eyes today when my wife showed me some new-agey videos put out by a guy she went to high school with in the long ago. It was about the 12 rays and how to integrate them with your chakras or some such word salad. He's tremendously passionate about it (though I note very little response to his FB page other than a few people asking him to quit bothering them). And my guess is that this stuff really makes him feel good and anchors him. And that's fine for him; I wouldn't begrudge him that or his hopes to help transform others for the better. But at the same time, I am very skeptical that his hopes will be realized -- and he may even forced to acknowledge that out at some point.

But whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul View Post
Frankly, I have no desire to subscribe to a religious group thought, nor do I want to proselyte. I think we can agree that "the kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you" - it's unique in you. How you define God or spirituality or Creation or Chi, or whatever term you prefer, is your own subjective experience. I cannot prove or disprove your experience of God. That is purely a personal phenomena for you. And likewise you cannot prove or disprove my experience of God/Chi/Higher Energy.

I do like your implication of the need to explore and understand one's own psych-ology (study of the soul). Carl Jung had an approach I admire, in that he saw no dividing line between psychology and spirituality.
That's a fair assessment with which I have no quibble. Most concepts of gods, afterlives and other trappings of religious faith are non-falsifiable so can't be (dis)proven by (un)believers.

As for Jung, I admire his fearless exploration of the sub-basements of the human psyche, and his forays into spirituality are less suspect than most. It was basically Westernized Buddhism which is still atheistic. However, I think he reads too much into his concepts of synchronicity and collective consciousness. To me they are examples of agency inference and confirmation bias, but at the same time, while I judge them unlikely to be true, I am far less confident in that judgment than I am about most religious ideation. Rather than putting them at a truth-probability of a fraction of 1%, those creep up into the 10% range for me, as they don't completely blow my BS meter off the wall.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top