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.
It hate to argue with you. You seem nice. But us being here is not evidence of anything except that we are here.....I believe the sky is blue because I can see that it is blue. There's a scientific explanation for it. I believe we are alive because uh....I am breathing and typing on the keyboard while waiting for my delicious coffee to get done. I believe that 2+2=4 because it is. But I definitely don't believe in 1+1+1=1.....
A person could believe in God without necessarily believing in the Trinity or Christianity. Regardless of that issue we do know that things can have more than one nature. Electrons are both particles and probability waves. In psychology it is not unheard of to believe that in some sense we are a formation of different elements.
Further God is infinite. When you add the infinite odd and even numbers you get infinity. I'd have to look through my book that briefly discussed set theory, but I think this is true. Although I'd grant it seems like I recall some infinities being "denser" than others.
Granted our existence is not necessarily sufficient evidence of God. I'm worried I'll get deemed a horrible heathen here, but it is possible to explain our existence through natural selection of lower animals. Although the role of consciousness in collapsing probability waves to a single outcome and the unlikeliness of the fundamental constants allowing our existence is at least interesting. Even if it weren't religion or theism can deal with the "why" question in a more satisfying way than non-theistic or materialistic forms of thought I'm aware of. The science just tells us how we are here it's not very or even any good at saying why. It's not a creed in itself.
I think "Repellent" was too loaded of a word. What I mean is that for me metaphysical naturalism, which seems to be the main form of atheism bandied about, has elements that repel and attract but that ultimately I find it more repelling than attractive.
That's cool. Some people prefer to use how a concept makes them feel rather than evidence as a way of determining what to believe.
Quote:
To me atheism is inherently "negative" in the sense of it being about disbelieving in something or cutting something out.
I find a Universe where I can connect with something beyond this Earth and beyond humanity intensely appealing. I find taking that out to really "flatten" life. That flatness maybe had some appeal to me when I was through a period of mood instability, but doesn't now. Atheism means never experiencing anything beyond my limited human senses, no physical/spiritual union with a Supreme Being, no connection to the dead, man as nothing more than an animal, etc. Life and truth becomes solely the province of a naked ape that will most likely never experience anything beyond a few light years of its home. Further said apes have a life span that's a millionth of a percent that of the Universe's age. I find it narrow and lonely and in that sense repelling. And I find many to most arguments by atheists revolve around whether a similarly narrow version of Christianity (That the Earth is 6,000 years old, that most of the world will burn in Hell for being ignorant rather than any action they did or failed to do, that the only source of any knowledge is the Bible, etc) is consistent.
Again, you're choosing to believe because it makes you feel better. Others don't see any reason to think that if they believe all of these things will suddenly come true. So for them choosing to believe or not has nothing to do with missing these things, since they don't share your idea that everything we want to happen will happen if we wish it hard enough.
Quote:
Many atheists at the general R/P seem to imply you actually do have to be atheist, that it's not a matter of choice but is an inevitable byproduct of evidence.
Probably because they're predisposed to believe what they observe to be true while you seem to be advocating believing what you wish was true. Some are more willing to make special cases for things which are emotionally appealing to them, others prefer to deal with reality in different ways.
Quote:
Although I suppose that can be ameliorated some if you are something besides "just atheist." Like if you believe in Humanism or something. Still not enough to me.
Every atheist is more than "just atheist". It simply describes one thing atheists don't believe in. Just like you can't tell a Christian's eye color or country of origin from their Christianity, you can't tell what an atheist does believe just from the fact that he disagrees with you on the existence of god.
It hate to argue with you. You seem nice. But us being here is not evidence of anything except that we are here.....I believe the sky is blue because I can see that it is blue. There's a scientific explanation for it. I believe we are alive because uh....I am breathing and typing on the keyboard while waiting for my delicious coffee to get done. I believe that 2+2=4 because it is. But I definately don't believe in 1+1+1=1.....
Hi Dani,
No problem. I agree 2+2=4 because it is. I'm not asking you to believe 1+1+1=1.
Us being here is evidence that we are here, but we must ask why we are here. I believe you would say "I don't know", I would say "God created us".
Even an answer of "I don't know" doesn't imply non-existence of God. There are 3 options as I see it:
1. Something caused the universe to come into existence
2. The universe popped into existence by itself
3. The universe always existed
2 & 3 are illogical according to the laws of the universe itself. Thus I'm left with option #1 by deduction. Then we are left with determining the nature of the entity that caused the universe to come into existence.
Cheers...
PS. Don't let any misconstrued ideas about what the bible means or that God will allegedly torment people for eternity taint your view about the existence of God.
That's cool. Some people prefer to use how a concept makes them feel rather than evidence as a way of determining what to believe.
Again, you're choosing to believe because it makes you feel better. Others don't see any reason to think that if they believe all of these things will suddenly come true. So for them choosing to believe or not has nothing to do with missing these things, since they don't share your idea that everything we want to happen will happen if we wish it hard enough.
I worried that's how it would sound and there might be some truth to seeing it that way, but it's a bit dismissive.
The will and emotion certainly has something to do with what most anyone believes. Most likely you too even if you do not wish to admit that. However it's not a matter of thinking or wishing anything and that makes it occur. If it were I could just believe in anything completely of my own devising.
I am unconvinced that naturalism should be deemed the de-facto position with anything else a variance or deviancy. If anything human history would seem to indicate quite the opposite. Non-theism is one notion, which I've considered and rejected. I find it unsatisfactory for many questions and issues without any solid reason to prefer it to something else. It is one concept among many. I can not prove it's false, but this is not sufficient reason to adopt something I find unsatisfactory.
Besides it could be argued that atheism is also "wishful thinking." Many atheists have rather wishful ideas about human perception and reasoning. Or it provides the comfort of there being no Hell or, for that matter, karma.
Nevertheless what you believe or disbelieve is up to you. You may find atheism more satisfactory because it involves less assumptions or you dislike the Bible or something. Whatever, it's your life. It's still ultimately something you've considered and decided.
Still if you want evidence I suppose I could round up some things on saints, Marian apparitions, strange coincidences in history, arguments of Thomists, arguments of ex-atheist intellectuals (I don't mean evangelists, I mean like academics and scholars), the anthropic principle, and so forth.
Not that that necessarily proves anything, but "no, such things don't happen and those people are stupid" doesn't necessarily prove anything either.
It is called lack of faith plain and simple. People who do not believe have to see things(tangibles) in front of their eyes
Not the lack of faith, but the lack of delusion disguised as faith. I have faith, faith in my mate, children, my abilities, etc. Just no faith in non-existent deities when there is not the first crumb of evidence to support.
Why do people not believe: Deception, or their own choice?
People do not believe because they are deceived. And God has not yet given them eyes to see or ears to hear ... They are ensnared by the devil. However it is only a matter of time and the works of the devil will be destroyed and those caught in his devices will be set free at last. Then they will see and hear the truth of Christ and believe. AS it is written, Christ has come to set the captives free ... Each in his own order, to be testified in due time.
I worried that's how it would sound and there might be some truth to seeing it that way, but it's a bit dismissive.
I'm not trying to be dismissive of why you believe what you do, it's just that you can't help but come at it from an "atheism means losing something". That's only true if you believe already. If you don't think there's anything to religion, you're not losing anything by not believing in something you don't think exists anyway.
Quote:
Besides it could be argued that atheism is also "wishful thinking." Many atheists have rather wishful ideas about human perception and reasoning. Or it provides the comfort of there being no Hell or, for that matter, karma.
I'm not sure any of these are unique to atheists. They are views which can be held to varying degrees by both believers and non-believers.
Quote:
Nevertheless what you believe or disbelieve is up to you. You may find atheism more satisfactory because it involves less assumptions or you dislike the Bible or something. Whatever, it's your life. It's still ultimately something you've considered and decided.
Lacking belief in someone else's god isn't a necessarily a conscious decision, nor does it require that much consideration beyond the obvious sniff test. You think it is the most important choice anyone can make ... but that's because the belief the center of your life. The lack of that belief in others isn't nearly as important.
I'm not trying to be dismissive of why you believe what you do, it's just that you can't help but come at it from an "atheism means losing something". That's only true if you believe already.
I disagree, the former delusionalist a.k.a. believer has gained freedom from false beliefs. They have gained a much more realistic view of the world, their life, and the things that really matter without the guilt of placing false beliefs over true needs.
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.
