The extent of atheistic thought (Biblical, hell, Earth, philosophy)
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.
If you actually read my posts you would realise I used "emptiness" to describe the lack of assumption made by an atheist like myself.
You originally posted that theists and atheists both make assumptions - just two sides of the same coin. I said that some atheists, like myself, do not make assumptions at all. Since posting once doesn't seem enough for you to digest, let me post this one more time. Here are some views:
1) I believe God exists. This is an active state of the min regarding God, and may require assumptions
2) I believe God does not exist. This is an active state regarding God, and may require assumptions
1 and 2 are the theist and atheist position that you stated. However there is a third position that I have and that you don't seem able to understand:
3) I have no belief pertaining to the topic of God. This is an empty state regarding God. No assumption is needed here.
Not if evidence is provided pertaining to God, I will evaluate that and possibly change my mind.
I'm not making an assumption that evidence exists for God. I'm not making an assumption that evidence does not exist for God. I'm not making an assumption that science will be able to parse evidence for God. I'm not making an assumption that science will be not able to parse evidence for God. I'm making no assumptions.
It is up to those who want to argue that God exists, to be able to supply the evidence in a parsable and verifiable way. To the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
At least you used the word some ...
To you last line ... that implies we are allowed to openly compare our beliefs using the available information.
To you last line ... that implies we are allowed to openly compare our beliefs using the available information.
what do you say about that.
There is no need for the concept of a God in order to understand available information. There are things we don't understand yet, but there is no need for a God to describe those either - that is just a God of the gaps fallacy.
As for "some" the very first sentence I wrote on this thread was "Admittedly not everyone is consistent with what they mean by atheism, but for me atheism is:"
Obviously I can't speak for everyone who proclaims to be an atheist, and I have said that from the start. But it seems some people don't bother to read posts.
So science is studying everything that it can, why things are happening, and how they work.
It looks at relative reliability of mechanisms offered to see how consistent they are with observation.
I wonder how basing everything we say on "fight religion" would go over? I wonder how it would approach talking only about how "they are wrong", everyday, all day, and not offering a counter solution to see where those solutions fit.
But we could say "we are in a belief forum fighting religion. We don't need to do squat but say what we want without evidence."
I wonder what a true science minded person would say to that.
Does your mind ever not just wander.
The other poster said something like science is studying god. I think it's fair for us to ask him what he means by "science". And who are these scientists who are studying god, because we need to know who they are and how reliable they are; are they heavily biased or truly open-minded in a scientific way; are they even sane?
If you actually read my posts you would realise I used "emptiness" to describe the lack of assumption made by an atheist like myself.
You originally posted that theists and atheists both make assumptions - just two sides of the same coin. I said that some atheists, like myself, do not make assumptions at all.
That lack of assumption is preemptive to eliminate any need to substantiate what you take as "given." You presume that what science is investigating and describing is something OTHER than God without substantiating that is the case. That was the reason for my question about the probative value of being responsible for our existence and the existence of everything else.
Quote:
Since posting once doesn't seem enough for you to digest, let me post this one more time. Here are some views:
1) I believe God exists. This is an active state of belief regarding God, and may require assumptions
2) I believe God does not exist. This is an active state of belief regarding God, and may require assumptions
1 and 2 are the theist and atheist position that you stated. However there is a third position that I have and that you don't seem able to understand:
3) I have no belief pertaining to the topic of God. This is an empty state regarding God. No assumption is needed here.
Let me correctly state them for you so might see what is currently hidden from your atheist biased psyche.
1) I believe what exists is God. This is an active state of belief regarding God, and may require assumptions
2) I believe what exists is not God. This is an active state of belief regarding God, and may require assumptions
You see it is not a question of existence at all, since what we are disagreeing about DOES exist. There is no neutral corner to escape to and pretend you just lack belief in the existence of something. It EXISTS. It is either God based on the probative attribute I asked about or it isn't. The only debatable issues are what OTHER attributes than the probative one may or may not exist.
The other poster said something like science is studying god. I think it's fair for us to ask him what he means by "science". And who are these scientists who are studying god, because we need to know who they are and how reliable they are; are they heavily biased or truly open-minded in a scientific way; are they even sane?
More like I never hyper focus on "fight religion". I do not focus on what theism is saying. I don't base any choice on the word god phet. You are only hyper focused on the word god.
In fact, I remove the word god because it has so much baggage and see if what they are saying holds up.
Science studies the system we are in. We are not the top of the reality stack. We are in a vastly more complex sytem than humans. Maybe even more "alive". I don't hyper focus on a deity and evil religion. I look at what classifications do we have that may explain, offer a mechanism, and predict what people are doing. Is anything they are saying consistent with observation.
Using a deity and FFR as the standard we should be evaualauting what people are saying is flat insanity to me. In terms of talking about beliefs in each thread that is.
So I believe I don't "wander" as much as you are dug in on ffr deciding how we talk about beliefs.
More like I never hyper focus on "fight religion". I do not focus on what theism is saying. I don't base any choice on the word god phet. You are only hyper focused on the word god.
In fact, I remove the word god because it has so much baggage and see if what they are saying holds up.
Science studies the system we are in. We are not the top of the reality stack. We are in a vastly more complex sytem than humans. Maybe even more "alive". I don't hyper focus on a deity and evil religion. I look at what classifications do we have that may explain, offer a mechanism, and predict what people are doing. Is anything they are saying consistent with observation.
Using a deity and FFR as the standard we should be evaualauting what people are saying is flat insanity to me. In terms of talking about beliefs in each thread that is.
So I believe I don't "wander" as much as you are dug in on ffr deciding how we talk about beliefs.
Do you have some scientific articles to link us to where scientists have been studying god?
Do you have some scientific articles to link us to where scientists have been studying god?
Yes or no?
then ask question that actually relates to what he believes.
Mystic's god:
spacetime exchanging information via the mechanisms in QED is responsible for our being here. That we are more like nodes of complexity in the system than isolated pieces acting independently.
then ask question that actually relates to what he believes.
Mystic's god:
spacetime exchanging information via the mechanisms in QED is responsible for our being here. That we are more like nodes of complexity in the system than isolated pieces acting independently.
Yes ... science is studying that.
wait for it ...
Phet: "Figures, you don't answer again" ...
lmao ...
I didn't answer again ... that is like so funny.
So the answer is no, you don't have any articles to link to.
So the answer is no, you don't have any articles to link to.
lmao ... well, like you and other people of faith like to say ... You don't need actual evidence to believe what you want to.
we are in a more complex system. we are not the top of the reality stack. Some people call that god. and science is most certainty studying it.
i know phet ... i know ...
FFR and a deity is the primary concern .. sorry man ... I didn't have poor old Grandmom and antie wailing me. I had normal people telling me about religion. And its limitations. They pointed to the good and bad.
I understand that it is only about how consistent with observation a claim is. FFR does not decide the reliable belief. thats not its function.
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.
