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.
It's not to sow division. It's to be clear that there is division. Two different things. For example, MANY christians believe that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior that you will go to hell. As a Hindu, do you therefore accept that you will go to hell?
The topic of this thread is "Ask an Atheist."
So the question above is for atheists to answer.
List all your understanding of divinity. Divinity is One. It is called by different names.
And defined differently by different religious people, and often not even defined, just asserted. Being a god, coming from a god, a property of a god, being like a god, and your reality definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Tzap explained it to you, but you refuse to learn or are unable to. It is not a difficult concept.
As you disagree with the standard definitions of divine, obviously the different concepts (plural) are not that clear.
It's not to sow division. It's to be clear that there is division. Two different things.
For example, MANY christians believe that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior that you will go to hell. As a Hindu, do you therefore accept that you will go to hell?
You will not understand my response. The topic is Ask an Atheist...? I know I am not an atheist. Do you know who you are?
The topic of this thread is "Ask an Atheist."
So the question above is for atheists to answer.
I take it, that the question is "do you therefore accept that you will go to hell?".
I know for sure that hell exists as a concept produced by human brain.
The question implies that hell exists not only as product of human cognition, but also as an objective ontology, actual place somewhere were I will go to as nonbeliever.
I don't know whether such a objective ontology exists or not.
Therefore, I don't know whether I will go to hell or not.
This answer to posted question is what makes me an agnostic.
Now, if somebody claims that hell objectively exists as an objective ontology and I will go there as nonbeliever, then I don't believe this claim.
This response to this claim is what makes me an atheist.
I take it, that the question is "do you therefore accept that you will go to hell?".
I know for sure that hell exists as a concept produced by human brain.
The question implies that hell exists not only as product of human cognition, but also as an objective ontology, actual place somewhere were I will go to as nonbeliever.
I don't know whether such a objective ontology exists or not.
Therefore, I don't know whether I will go to hell or not.
This answer to posted question is what makes me an agnostic.
Now, if somebody claims that hell objectively exists as an objective ontology and I will go there as nonbeliever, then I don't believe this claim.
This response to this claim is what makes me an atheist.
Did I answer the question to your satisfaction?
I don’t think Tzaphkiel believes in the place of which you speak.
Judaism is, in fact, a universalist religion, even within the most ultra-observant factions.
I take it, that the question is "do you therefore accept that you will go to hell?".
I know for sure that hell exists as a concept produced by human brain.
The question implies that hell exists not only as product of human cognition, but also as an objective ontology, actual place somewhere were I will go to as nonbeliever.
I don't know whether such a objective ontology exists or not.
Therefore, I don't know whether I will go to hell or not.
This answer to posted question is what makes me an agnostic.
Now, if somebody claims that hell objectively exists as an objective ontology and I will go there as nonbeliever, then I don't believe this claim.
This response to this claim is what makes me an atheist.
Did I answer the question to your satisfaction?
it is not my question. it is the question asked by another poster (in his post #623 shown below and at link) who self-identifies as an atheist. He was asking posters who are NOT atheists to answer. But the thread topic is Ask an Atheist. So that was pointed out. The purpose of my post was to stay on topic, as the mod has asked us to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
It's not to sow division. It's to be clear that there is division. Two different things. For example, MANY christians believe that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior that you will go to hell. As a Hindu, do you therefore accept that you will go to hell?
These atheists were cool and super smart, and no agenda!
Now, I am an "agnostic atheist" which means I lean more towards there not being a god. Other agnostics simply admit they don't know, some atheists demand that there isn't a god. We're all different but agree on one thing that does not require "faith", as some people are claiming, it's simply just dis-belief due to lack of evidence.
"Cool and super smart" is hardly a basis for deciding where metaphysical truth is to be found.
Many of the greatest minds in human history have been deists and theists.
The notion that atheists have "no agenda" is simply false.
The "just disbelief for lack of evidence" stance is the oldest, tiredest atheist ploy.
Few atheists have done any serious study of deism or theism or have any real notion of the evidence, inferences and arguments supporting deistic and theistic belief.
There is certainly more evidence for a deity than for the absence of a deity.
That would be a good question for an atheist: "What precisely is your evidence - your evidence - for the nonexistence of a deity?"
There is certainly more evidence for a deity than for the absence of a deity.
I don't believe this claim. Do you have an argument to support it?
Quote:
That would be a good question for an atheist: "What precisely is your evidence - your evidence - for the nonexistence of a deity?"
Not believing specific claims does not automatically mean claiming their falsity. This is basic logic.
As an atheist, I don't believe claims for existence of a deity, but I don't claim nonexistence of a deity.
Therefore I don't need evidence for the claim I don't make.
I agree about uncertainties, but some things are more certain than others. And considering the many fake gurus, this increases the chances any guru is actually fake. My wife can certainly fake chi energy with her Kung Fu training (it is impressive what my Mäuschen can do (and painful)), but she has explained it is just mechanics and muscle control. I searched for 'Puttaparthi Sai Baba', I remember his image from the reports of alleged sexual abuse by him, and financial irregularities discovered after his death. And was he not going to levitate over a lake for some journalists and TV crews, but decided not to on the day? Naturally none of the negative means he was a fake, but I would need better evidence than something that can be done hand tricks.
maybe you can clarify what is meant by "fake chi energy" in bold above.
are you saying that you believe chi is fake? and that there is no such thing as chi because "it is just mechanics and muscle control"?
That is the question for anyone in this "Ask an Atheist" thread. Is it your view that chi is fake?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 08-21-2022 at 12:40 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.
^evasion
