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.
This dodge is bogus. We have a reality that for all intents and purposes is our God since it is responsible for the existence of absolutely everything. We do not know WHAT the source of our reality is, but we do adopt a default view. Atheists adopt the "No God" default and theists adopt the "God" default. Pretense using semantic nonsense tries to obscure this definitive adoption of a default position. There is no objective basis for adopting EITHER position so each position is Faith-based. I tire of the disingenuous and asinine posturing of atheists. Your choice of default establishes your Faith-based position.
Your continued confusion of the absence of any truth claim with a positive truth claim is noted.
Throw up your hands in frustration and call it semantic nonsense if you want. It matters not to me.
Your continued confusion of the absence of any truth claim with a positive truth claim is noted.
Throw up your hands in frustration and call it semantic nonsense if you want. It matters not to me.
The positive truth claim is that our reality exists and is the God responsible for everything because it IS responsible for everything. Your response has nothing to do with the existence issue because you can't dispute that so you dispute the myriad beliefs ABOUT the attributes of God posited by humans which are irrelevant.
This dodge is bogus. We have a reality that for all intents and purposes is our God since it is responsible for the existence of absolutely everything. We do not know WHAT the source of our reality is, but we do adopt a default view. Atheists adopt the "No God" default and theists adopt the "God" default. Pretense using semantic nonsense tries to obscure this definitive adoption of a default position. There is no objective basis for adopting EITHER position so each position is Faith-based. I tire of the disingenuous and asinine posturing of atheists. Your choice of default establishes your Faith-based position.
The case for a sentient creator has not been made IMO. That's not the same as faith that there isn't a sentient creator. I would have to have faith to believe in one. As far as default positions go, I see my default position being that there will be a naturalistic explanation for the things we now attribute to God.
The positive truth claim is that our reality exists and is the God responsible for everything because it IS responsible for everything. Your response has nothing to do with the existence issue because you can't dispute that so you dispute the myriad beliefs ABOUT the attributes of God posited by humans which are irrelevant.
Dude. Existence isn't a being. It's just matter. It can't BE responsible for anything.
it happens to be the substrate that we exist in. Unless you want to make an argument that's similar to fine-tuning in terms of question-begging then we don't worship the puddle we live in, we note its existence and try to learn something about it.
IIRC you also tend to conflate composition with inheritance -- "is a" relationships with "has a" relationships. I think we had a convo about this once, that because conscious beings live in the universe does not make the universe itself conscious. If that was someone else, I ask your forgiveness in advance.
Anyway we're not going to get any closer on this topic and I think you just have to accept that this is going to be true of an awful lot of people.
I have to agree with mordofarant, than anything else.
the top 15% of sociology majors and people in the field understand religion's role.
85% don't. anti-religion is definitely part of the 85%. the bottom 50% think that some science should be withheld from people because it makes selling atheism harder.
I have to agree with mordofarant, than anything else.
the top 15% of sociology majors and people in the field understand religion's role.
85% don't. anti-religion is definitely part of the 85%. the bottom 50% think that some science should be withheld from people because it makes selling atheism harder.
The case for a sentient creator has not been made IMO. That's not the same as faith that there isn't a sentient creator. I would have to have faith to believe in one. As far as default positions go, I see my default position being that there will be a naturalistic explanation for the things we now attribute to God.
The Creator meme is clouding your understanding of the Existence meme and the elimination of "separate things." There can not be any other explanation than a naturalistic one because God IS everything including what you call nature. Arach calls it the living biosphere. I call it the living God and that encompasses our entire reality as the "body, organs and brain" of God that is expanding at an accelerating rate (Growing?).
Dude. Existence isn't a being. It's just matter. It can't BE responsible for anything.
I would be interested in how you arrived at this conclusion though I know your "separate things" perspective is probably at the heart of it.
Quote:
it happens to be the substrate that we exist in. Unless you want to make an argument that's similar to fine-tuning in terms of question-begging then we don't worship the puddle we live in, we note its existence and try to learn something about it.
All the typical religious baggage around God are human creations that muddy the waters. Worship is something humans desire so they assume their God does as well. To the extent that the worship brings them spiritually closer (some harmonic resonance ) to God it is good but doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Quote:
IIRC you also tend to conflate composition with inheritance -- "is a" relationships with "has a" relationships. I think we had a convo about this once, that because conscious beings live in the universe does not make the universe itself conscious. If that was someone else, I ask your forgiveness in advance.
The composition fallacy presumes there are "separate things." Since my view rebuts that premise the composition fallacy does not apply.
Quote:
Anyway we're not going to get any closer on this topic and I think you just have to accept that this is going to be true of an awful lot of people.
If there is anything that this forum has made clear to me it is that, mordant.
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.
