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.
Arach, stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. Atheists do not 'believe in nothing'. The believe in everything - except the god -claim (by definition). Even parsing your term to mean 'opting for no god as the better hypothesis than belief in a god', that would be perfectly logical. That you seem to see something logically wrong in this, never mind socially wrong, shows that you have nothing to contribute here as you will not see anything other than through the distorting glasses of anti -atheist prejudice, which I can only trace back to a political dislike (as you see us representing 'liberals').
-
You said I am misrepresenting what you said and you said I am lying. I spelled it out what we are saying.
Look at your post. Look at how contradictory it is. Not to mention not at all what I said.
I said that atheist believe in all sorts of things. I said many atheist have far more super natural beliefs than I even do. I said we are in a religion and spiritualty forum to talk about those beliefs.
Look at what you said I am doing compared to what I actually said.
You are still misrepresenting and lying. I have no quarrel with 'people in either camp'. I contested 'belief in nothing' even quoting you. What then am I misrepresenting in correcting a false argument in that respect? Are you not simply trying to use my argument against me, when it actually doesn't apply?
You are still misrepresenting and lying. I have no quarrel with 'people in either camp'. I contested 'belief in nothing' even quoting you. What then am I misrepresenting in correcting a false argument in that respect? Are you not simply trying to use my argument against me, when it actually doesn't apply?
In a religion and spatiality forum ...
Again, I cleared up exactly what I meant and what many, if not most, atheist do. I, like most: I don't have to restrict people to only talking about a deity. I don't restrict atheism to just a definition. I don't restrict atheism to only a as a response to theist. I don't restrict atheism to only talking about belief that you feel is socially bad. I do not restrict talking about belief that have have merit in a religion and spatiality forum.
Your actions are different than my actions.
Its ok to call out atheist. it is not an assault on atheism. Its the beauty of atheism.
hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.
I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
Personally I'm not seeing any misconception.
The whole 'god is nature with a consciousness' thing is basically a description of pantheism.
Pantheism or views similar to pantheism such as animism seem to me to be becoming more and more mainstream.
I wouldn't be suprised if they become the predominant worldview in westernized cultures over time as mainstream religions seem more and more absurd in today's society.
I'm good with it. Pantheism hurts nobody.
If people want to believe it, then great, I don't see any issue with that.
It makes the most sense to me as religions go.
(1) there is the side issue of non-theist religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Scientology and Raelians, the religions arguably not being based on a god or gods.
Although Buddhists themselves believe they are indeed practicing a religion, worship and all, including belief in reincarnation as well as karma in most parts of the world where Buddhists actually live.
Again, I cleared up exactly what I meant and what many, if not most, atheist do. I, like most: I don't have to restrict people to only talking about a deity. I don't restrict atheism to just a definition. I don't restrict atheism to only a as a response to theist. I don't restrict atheism to only talking about belief that you feel is socially bad. I do not restrict talking about belief that have have merit in a religion and spatiality forum.
Your actions are different than my actions.
Its ok to call out atheist. it is not an assault on atheism. Its the beauty of atheism.
This is all nonsense. Whining about the definition of atheism 'restricts' people to talking about a deity? Accusing me of "only talking about belief that you feel is socially bad" and acting the martyr because I won't let you tell lies and claim that "Most" atheists agree with you. I'd suggest that 'most' are looking at your posts and wondering wtf.
And yet again we have been dragged away from the OP (nature of creator) to swiping at the kind of atheists you disapprove of, if not just a personal beef.
This is all nonsense. Whining about the definition of atheism 'restricts' people to talking about a deity? Accusing me of "only talking about belief that you feel is socially bad" and acting the martyr because I won't let you tell lies and claim that "Most" atheists agree with you. I'd suggest that 'most' are looking at your posts and wondering wtf.
And yet again we have been dragged away from the OP (nature of creator) to swiping at the kind of atheists you disapprove of, if not just a personal beef.
I am not whining or lying. If I was you wouldn't have to avoid me so hard, strawman wouldn't of have me banned from talking to him, and all gods beliefs would be open to discussion based on evidence and fair game.
It is exactly on topic ... it s about misconception of atheism.
A misconception of atheism by theist is that atheist don't belief in stuff that can be mistaken as sort-a-god" belief.
Another misconception of atheism by theist is that atheist don't belief in stuff that can look supernatural-ish.
A misconception of atheism by theist is that all atheist don't belief in stuff and and are totally against god belief.
Nature isn't too hard to define. It is everything (earth, the universe, everything), made through and running on the unthinking and unplanned laws of physics, innate or (chemically) evolved as increased complex material forms weeded out the unsustainable AND then MAGICALLY becomes conscious of itself and thinking and planning about everything.
Damn That's so nearly right. Except that you have to deny evolution as a credible explanation of consciousness, awareness and a sense of identity just as it is an explanation of life.
I don't deny that a decent case can be made for the rather amazing problem -solving facility we have, not to mention the mystery of experience and sensation. That's why it is one of the Big Three gaps for God. It only requires that the theist side drop this absurd and irrational claim that God is the only possible explanation and 'nature' could not possibly do it. I think that you know that is not tenable as a denial on abiogenesis. I (or 'we') argue that this really does apply to the unexplaineds of cosmic origins and consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I am not whining or lying. If I was you wouldn't have to avoid me so hard, strawman wouldn't of have me banned from talking to him, and all gods beliefs would be open to discussion based on evidence and fair game.
It is exactly on topic ... it s about misconception of atheism.
A misconception of atheism by theist is that atheist don't belief in stuff that can be mistaken as sort-a-god" belief.
Another misconception of atheism by theist is that atheist don't belief in stuff that can look supernatural-ish.
A misconception of atheism by theist is that all atheist don't belief in stuff and and are totally against god belief.
Rubbish, you are whining about censorship and stop wasting my time with a wordsalad about what atheist don't believe, as well as playing the 'you are running away' card a bit too soon.
Damn That's so nearly right. Except that you have to deny evolution as a credible explanation of consciousness, awareness and a sense of identity just as it is an explanation of life.
I don't deny that a decent case can be made for the rather amazing problem -solving facility we have, not to mention the mystery of experience and sensation. That's why it is one of the Big Three gaps for God. It only requires that the theist side drop this absurd and irrational claim that God is the only possible explanation and 'nature' could not possibly do it. I think that you know that is not tenable as a denial on abiogenesis. I (or 'we') argue that this really does apply to the unexplaineds of cosmic origins and consciousness.
Rubbish, you are whining about censorship and stop wasting my time with a wordsalad about what atheist don't believe, as well as playing the 'you are running away' card a bit too soon.
If that was rubbish you wouldn't be so against it trans. Nothing I said is dead wrong.
The fact that you have to avoid it because you think it hurts activism is the point.
Nature isn't too hard to define. It is everything (earth, the universe, everything), made through and running on the unthinking and unplanned laws of physics, innate or (chemically) evolved as increased complex material forms weeded out the unsustainable AND then MAGICALLY becomes conscious of itself and thinking and planning about everything.
you are exactly right, answer "its all nature" is exactly like answering "its all god" they are equally unsound in classify the "object" that we are in. Of course disallowing one and not the other clues us in to intention.
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.
That's so nearly right. Except that you have to deny evolution as a credible explanation of consciousness, awareness and a sense of identity just as it is an explanation of life.
