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.
Why is it,I wonder, that there is this tendency to an either/or approach. Why must God be indifferent or intervening? Is your imagination so constrained that no other possibilities present themselves?
I'm not sure how a higher being could be otherwise. IMO, evidence suggests that there is no intervention. Either way, it can only be one or the other.
I'm not sure how a higher being could be otherwise. IMO, evidence suggests that there is no intervention. Either way, it can only be one or the other.
The way it works is - there appears to be no intervention and we do what we do and what happens, happens. But you then claim that a Higher Being is somehow moving all that along - except where it goes wrong, and then it's all us on our own andd it's all our own fault.
Versus the currently cropping up atheism fatalism which is like "I dont believe in God but its all God's fault this is happening." Uhhhhhhh....
Here again you put words in people's mouths. I am not aware of an atheist on these fora who blames god for their unbelief; it is logically impossible anyway to blame a non-existing being for anything.
Instead, they give good and sufficient reasons they do not afford belief, namely the utter absence of any evidence at all to support it. They make logical arguments against the proffered deities of believers, but that is simply to demonstrate that the god-concept on offer makes no logical sense on its own terms, much less being unsubstantiated to begin with.
Try to understand that when one says "if god is as you say he is, how do you account for X Y and Z" is not the same as blaming god for X Y and Z. It is a hypothetical.
Why is it,I wonder, that there is this tendency to an either/or approach. Why must God be indifferent or intervening? Is your imagination so constrained that no other possibilities present themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
I'm not sure how a higher being could be otherwise. IMO, evidence suggests that there is no intervention. Either way, it can only be one or the other.
You assert that but make no explanation for the assertion. Where in our reality is this absurd requirement spelled out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The way it works is - there appears to be no intervention and we do what we do and what happens, happens. But you then claim that a Higher Being is somehow moving all that along - except where it goes wrong, and then it's all us on our own andd it's all our own fault.
You are so intellectually constrained by the religious conceptualizations of God that you refuse even to engage in thought about alternatives. Life itself is such an enigma that we seem to forget that it along with consciousness is the reason we even contemplate these issues. Many things do not even exist without consciousness (like suffering, despair, hope, love, etc.) which transcend their biochemical antecedents. But your anchoring to those physical antecedents seems to prevent you from objectively considering the true nature of our reality and the alternatives you so cavalierly reject by your binary options.
intellectually constrained? You are assuming a "free" thought process. Be that is may, he is not "intellectually constrained", he is "emotionally imprisoned", from past abuse. There is a huge difference.
You assert that but make no explanation for the assertion. Where in our reality is this absurd requirement spelled out?
You are so intellectually constrained by the religious conceptualizations of God that you refuse even to engage in thought about alternatives. Life itself is such an enigma that we seem to forget that it along with consciousness is the reason we even contemplate these issues. Many things do not even exist without consciousness (like suffering, despair, hope, love, etc.) which transcend their biochemical antecedents. But your anchoring to those physical antecedents seems to prevent you from objectively considering the true nature of our reality and the alternatives you so cavalierly reject by your binary options.
Maybe you can explain how a higher being can be interacting in our existence and not be at the same time. And if you believe he is, can you provide a shred of evidence? The who.e point of faith is because there is no proof.
You assert that but make no explanation for the assertion. Where in our reality is this absurd requirement spelled out?
You are so intellectually constrained by the religious conceptualizations of God that you refuse even to engage in thought about alternatives. Life itself is such an enigma that we seem to forget that it along with consciousness is the reason we even contemplate these issues. Many things do not even exist without consciousness (like suffering, despair, hope, love, etc.) which transcend their biochemical antecedents. But your anchoring to those physical antecedents seems to prevent you from objectively considering the true nature of our reality and the alternatives you so cavalierly reject by your binary options.
I think about them enough to see how your claims fail to stack up. If you then tell yourself I am too stupid to understand the reality that is beyond any mind other than...well, yours, I suppose... there is no law to say you can't do that
I believe there is a God or Higher Intelligence; I can't believe all this complexity got here by itself.
But there absolutely no proof or evidence this God interacts with the human race on any level. He's totally AWOL. I have no idea why He would have bothered to create all this but I see no possibility it could have sprung into existence on its won. So there's no proof for God and there's no proof for abiogenesis. Bluntly, we're in the dark about everything so far as I'm concerned it takes faith to be an atheist, a theist AND a deist (which is what I am). The only position that makes any sense is agnostic.
Here again you put words in people's mouths. I am not aware of an atheist on these fora who blames god for their unbelief; it is logically impossible anyway to blame a non-existing being for anything.
Instead, they give good and sufficient reasons they do not afford belief, namely the utter absence of any evidence at all to support it. They make logical arguments against the proffered deities of believers, but that is simply to demonstrate that the god-concept on offer makes no logical sense on its own terms, much less being unsubstantiated to begin with.
Try to understand that when one says "if god is as you say he is, how do you account for X Y and Z" is not the same as blaming god for X Y and Z. It is a hypothetical.
I don't "put words in people mouths." I make observations about behavior from things I see. What I am quoting here, is the fallacy. Based these articles.
Fatalistic articles. Written (predominantly) by atheists.
You're welcome to tell me what they're saying. But I don't think I've "put words in people's mouths."
Fatalism is a type of design. Like evolution, these are called patterns. You can claim no creator if you want, and indeed welcome to whatever belief you want as long as you aren't actively oppressing people for their faith, but falling into a logical fallacy afterwards creates "Yes but no" thinking.
This is like saying "I don't believe in luck" and then placing $5000 on a roulette table. If you do not believe in luck, then random chance cannot possibly work for or against you, so why are you gambling?
I do believe in things like fate (somewhat, though I believe it is not set in stone, just the default). I believe in evolution. I believe in most science (so long as it does not seem to be politically backed). I studied world religion, and while I mostly I believe in the same assertions as thrillobyte that neither atheism nor strict theism nor deism could be proven, agnosticism seemed too shaky. I became a panentheism. To me, the reason God appears to be AWOL is that God is the universe and all who live therein. This means that patterns can happen on their own as a default system (the unconscious God framework of the universe), or people being part of God can take an active part in the universe. The AWOL part is because the default pattern is very little happening, but the world slowly getting worse from greed and violence and particularly apathy. One could also however pray in the desert "please let it rain." Normally, with the mindset that God and human are two different things, this often does absolutely nothing. But a person who perceives that they are co-authors of the universe could basically pray for anything.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 11-20-2016 at 06:22 PM..
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.
The way it works is - there appears to be no intervention and we do what we do and what happens, happens. But you then claim that a Higher Being is somehow moving all that along - except where it goes wrong, and then it's all us on our own andd it's all our own fault.
