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.
I don't think you're correct...at least not exactly I'm saying this as a self-described gnostic atheist, by the way.
So...I look at things like "I cannot think of any patterns in existence that point to the likely existence of a God, nor reason why a God would exist, nor explanation of how one could exist. Therefore, if I am to seriously consider the prospect of a God existing, if I am to be consistent, I must also seriously consider the prospect of other things existing that I see no reason to believe in...such as a teacup floating around Earth long before spacecraft was invented.
With that in mind, while I'll acnowledge that, technically, anything is possible...in a more practical sort of manner, I should be defining pretty much everything I can't see any possible way to come about as being more or less impossible. Now again, nothing is truly impossible...but there are a great many things that I should not seriously consider altering any of my behaviors for.
Now, that's essentially the argument I've heard from one of my fellow self-described gnostic atheists. Most atheists I've seen are significantly less aggressive than that. They're not even to the point of specifically saying they believe God's existence is basically impossible. They just say "I see no evidence for it."
My opinion is that most atheists are unnecessarily passive, actually.
I would not be surprised if the average opinion of an atheist is "No God until proven otherwise," in a sense, but that's not their default position so much as their position after looking at the world around themselves and seeing no sign of a creator.
I respect this point of view. I don't subscribe to it. The main reason is that theists invariably come with an ad hominem claim that we are arrogant and think we know everything. And they are technically correct -- to literally declare "there is no god" technically would require you to be everywhere and everywhen. While this is not really a valid argument, I prefer to short-circuit it by refusing to make that outright statement. I think the odds that someone will someday present sufficient proof of the extraordinary claims of theism generally or, especially, Christianity specifically are so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero. But it usually goes better if I say, I'm happy to believe in god if you present me with any real evidence that I can work with. And that's true -- I'd accept a deity that actually exists and interacts in some real, non-eldritch fashion with all comers.
Of course "there is no god" or "god doesn't exist" is really just a semantic shortcut that has all the above implicitly packed inside it anyway, but nuanced thinking is not a strength of god-botherers so I prefer to just bypass all that.
As I get older and more irascible I may decide at some point, to just bust out and stake a claim and watch people's heads explode, but I'm just young enough to still think you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. YMMV, etc.
I respect this point of view. I don't subscribe to it. The main reason is that theists invariably come with an ad hominem claim that we are arrogant and think we know everything. And they are technically correct -- to literally declare "there is no god" technically would require you to be everywhere and everywhen. While this is not really a valid argument, I prefer to short-circuit it by refusing to make that outright statement. I think the odds that someone will someday present sufficient proof of the extraordinary claims of theism generally or, especially, Christianity specifically are so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero. But it usually goes better if I say, I'm happy to believe in god if you present me with any real evidence that I can work with. And that's true -- I'd accept a deity that actually exists and interacts in some real, non-eldritch fashion with all comers.
Of course "there is no god" or "god doesn't exist" is really just a semantic shortcut that has all the above implicitly packed inside it anyway, but nuanced thinking is not a strength of god-botherers so I prefer to just bypass all that.
As I get older and more irascible I may decide at some point, to just bust out and stake a claim and watch people's heads explode, but I'm just young enough to still think you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. YMMV, etc.
This is a symptom of the irrational, outrageous, and just plain stupid things you actually believed ABOUT God as a fundamentalist, mordant. Your concept of God is so corrupted and tainted with primitive human ignorance, vanity, and hubris as to be deserving of the intellectual disdain you have for it.
This is a symptom of the irrational, outrageous, and just plain stupid things you actually believed ABOUT God as a fundamentalist, mordant. Your concept of God is so corrupted and tainted with primitive human ignorance, vanity, and hubris as to be deserving of the intellectual disdain you have for it.
My position is a rational response to how most theists I engage with in this space address the topic. Yes I am influenced by my own experiences, but I don't think my present position is substantively different than it would be if I were, say, a former Anglican or something. IOW my reason for not buying god belief isn't particular to fundamentalism. It is an epistemological concern, not an abreaction to particular practices.
I have had the same kinds of doofus thinking from all sorts of Christians and even a post-Christian Unitarian once. Even some of the liberal ones can get quite worked up if you don't have at least a provisional belief in god. They confuse my lack of belief for active disrespect for them.
My position is a rational response to how most theists I engage with in this space address the topic. Yes I am influenced by my own experiences, but I don't think my present position is substantively different than it would be if I were, say, a former Anglican or something. IOW my reason for not buying god belief isn't particular to fundamentalism. It is an epistemological concern, not an abreaction to particular practices.
I have had the same kinds of doofus thinking from all sorts of Christians and even a post-Christian Unitarian once. Even some of the liberal ones can get quite worked up if you don't have at least a provisional belief in god. They confuse my lack of belief for active disrespect for them.
You may continue to hold the position you do but it is not a rational response by any means if you take a particular Christian definition of GOD as the universal definition for all people who believe in a metaphysical existence. Even all Christians have a variety of way they approach divinity. YOu somehow have decided to include Buddhism as a legitimate way to be godless, but as practiced by Buddhists it is not free of divinity.
It is a very childish position when there are so many avenues to divinity you grab on to something that has had such a deeply negative effect on you and insist that is what ALL believe.
You may continue to hold the position you do but it is not a rational response by any means if you take a particular Christian definition of GOD as the universal definition for all people who believe in a metaphysical existence. Even all Christians have a variety of way they approach divinity. YOu somehow have decided to include Buddhism as a legitimate way to be godless, but as practiced by Buddhists it is not free of divinity.
It is a very childish position when there are so many avenues to divinity you grab on to something that has had such a deeply negative effect on you and insist that is what ALL believe.
Divinity (or the divine) is defined as "things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity". Buddha is not a deity. Period.
It is a very childish position when there are so many avenues to divinity you grab on to something that has had such a deeply negative effect on you and insist that is what ALL believe.
Then you are misunderstanding what I'm actually saying.
I am well aware that there is a lot of variance in what different theists believe and in levels of stridency and so forth. Where I see a commonality is in the failed epistemology of religious faith. It can fail kindly or harshly but it fails just the same. It requires no evidence, only belief and acquiescence to asserted dogma. That is my objection.
I have also clearly stated that a minority of theists regard their faith and practice as a personal preference and not as something binding on anyone but themselves or something they would proselytize over. I have zero problem with that. It is not unlike the silly "religious wars" that many of my colleagues in software development hold to. I do not care if someone choses a different language or toolset, so long as they get the job done. Similarly I don't care how someone chooses to (not) worship god so long as they can manage to be a decent human being in the process and not promote beliefs and attitudes toward reality that erode the underpinnings of civil society, namely, the notion that facts are whatever one decides they are or prefer them to be.
I respect this point of view. I don't subscribe to it. The main reason is that theists invariably come with an ad hominem claim that we are arrogant and think we know everything. And they are technically correct -- to literally declare "there is no god" technically would require you to be everywhere and everywhen. While this is not really a valid argument, I prefer to short-circuit it by refusing to make that outright statement. I think the odds that someone will someday present sufficient proof of the extraordinary claims of theism generally or, especially, Christianity specifically are so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero. But it usually goes better if I say, I'm happy to believe in god if you present me with any real evidence that I can work with. And that's true -- I'd accept a deity that actually exists and interacts in some real, non-eldritch fashion with all comers. Of course "there is no god" or "god doesn't exist" is really just a semantic shortcut that has all the above implicitly packed inside it anyway, but nuanced thinking is not a strength of god-botherers so I prefer to just bypass all that. As I get older and more irascible I may decide at some point, to just bust out and stake a claim and watch people's heads explode, but I'm just young enough to still think you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. YMMV, etc.
bold above
first bold is demonstrated and evidenced by second bold
reeks of arrogance, markedly absent nuanced thinking,
and downright funny to fancy any of that as "honey"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-15-2022 at 07:18 AM..
bold above
first bold is demonstrated and evidenced by second bold
And they do it on Passover/Holy Week, no less.
No respect & lacking in class.
I apologize on their behalf...and Blessings to those that are focused on The Divine in a special way at this time.
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.