Why I post about atheism (page 3)

kerj2leev

I would have more respect for "God" if it created life and left. At least then it wouldn't really be it's fault for all the bad, or good in the world. But since most believer's need a God that is involved personally in the world's affairs, it's credibility becomes lacking.

Galileo

Since there is no 'faith' to defend, according to many, why are attacks poised when flaws are suggested, as if one's religion is under attack? Just asking. Some comments just bark 'religious intolerance' while insisting that no religious nature is attached to atheism. Just saying.

People with strong reasons for belief tend to defend those beliefs passionately when attacked. This is common in religion, but it is also common in politics, art, and science. A passionate defense alone alone does not make it a religious perspective.

Shazard

My position is that each paradigm, worldview starts somewhere. Starts with some apriori knowledge and apriori modus operandi (framework of knowledge gathering, producing, synthesis, analysis) which should be taken apriori as true and good. You can't come up with any framework until you don't have some building bricks and basic tools of building.

Epistimology is science of knowledege, what it means to know. Therea are different brnaches and different views. Also there are different phylosophical results such as there is no possible to compare paradigms.

So 99.99% atheists fall into evidentalism branch of epistimology. The same Epistimology and different scientists (Alvin Plantiga, Gattier) provides counterexamples how evidentalism does not produce knowledge!

Theism is another branch which would qualify into warrant and proper function school of Epistimology, which explains and allows existence of apriori knowledge, which is kind a problemastic in evidentalism aproach.

So my position starts with epistimology, what is your framework of producing knowledge, truth and how one actually aquire information from reality. What IS reality, is it independent or dependent on ones perception. As I mentioned, atheist view mixing metodological naturalism with phylosophical naturalism fall into the pit which they themsleves fight against - they define reality by subjective perception. If I percieve it - it IS - if I am not able to percieve it - it DOES NOT exist... objectively. So objective reality becomes dependent of ones capabilities to percieve reality!

My position is that reality is independent of our own perception. X-rays where is and will be independently if we can see them or we can't. Pink Unicorn existence is independent of our perception of them. If they are, good, if they do not exist, we will never knew. It is actually very hard to be 100% sure of NON-existence of something. One good (and I am not sure if 100% true) way how NON-existent things are prooved - is by demonstrating their logical contradiction. Logic is one of frameworks of knowledge gathering and reality measure. It is pretty consistent to count that there are not invisible pink unicorns as "invisible pink" is logical contradiction atleast in our dimension/Universe!

So when I have accepted that reality atleast partially is independent of my perception, I have to come up with way how to question this reality and how to intepretate it's answers. I have to build some basic stuff, basic framework BEFORE I even go outdoors to start precieving reality! What gives me right to make such basic stuff... again... apriori BELIEF that my mind is capable of percieving THIS reality and capable of PROCESSING incomming signals and that there is correlation between what IS and what I percieve! To come to this conclusion I have to believe that my mind is working properly.

And at this point materialism is being thrown away... coz materialism insist that our mind is product of survival of the fittest which means that my mind is NOT developed for percieving truth, but for survival. If I go along with materialism I loose any base to believe what my mind is producing... I can't be sure anyway that product of my mind has something to do with reality. What materialism ought me to believe and accept is that product of my mind has only survival value, not value of truth. But ofcourse... belief that electric wires contains evil Spirit Ctulhu has the same survival value as knowledge about electricity... but which one is true in the framework of mind which is tuned not for turth but for survival? See... I can't use materialism even to START going outside in my garden and be sure that I will learn something TRUE about world. I would learn something USEFUL for SURVIVAL but I won't be sure if it is true... so I will not be sure if my knowledge has something to do with Reality and I will not be sure if my model which is produced by my mind is adequate and will not decieve me?

So this is what I need... additional BELIEF apriori that my mind is designed, produced, created with capability of percieving TRUTH and PRODUCING truth! And this belief can't be produced without inferrence to Intelligent designer!

This is not all, but I guess ppl here can get some feeling about my position!

Mariusuk.

I love these atheist/theist debates

Atheist - you cannot prove God

Theist - Can you prove there is not a God?

Whatever, it is all kind of irrelevant anyway, it is the kind of debate where everyone is a winner woohoo

I'm an atheist, I will never believe in some super duper creative being with absolutely no proof and the best argument being "I can't think of anything else". A few thousand years ago I reckon there was a guy just like me looking at the sun (not directly!) thinking "this is crap, I don't think that big, warm round thing in the sky is a god" and someone saying "aaahhhhh but can you prove it is not??"

Dorktacular

If it is important to God whether or not I believe in Him, then I should think that it would be pretty important in God's "List Of Things To Do" that he would constantly communicate with me to at least remind me of his existence. So far, I haven't heard anything from him. Not even a post card. Until I hear something, I'm an atheist.

Mariusuk.

God obviously doesn't like Dorkular

trevor

There is tendancy to want to be right. To want to know with absolute certainty the answers to everything in life. So we make enquiries and try to gather enough information to be certain.

In matters relating to unseen things outside of our normal five senses the task becomes more difficult. The minute we are certain we try to wrap up the case and close the book. There is initially a since of relief but then the mind plays its trick and asks - what if?

Believing in ‘a God’ creates an obligation. Not believing, as Terry says, creates a hole. Why be dogmatic - sometimes the middle road is the best road.

Christians are not absolutely certain and still ask questions just the same as the atheist. Somewhere, somehow we are not that far apart but separate ourselves by the use of many words and word driven thought.

The older I get and the more I find out the less I know until not being certain becomes a comfortable position. It allows me to just accept what actually is and ride life rather than trying to nail it down.

trevor

Farkel

: Faith is required in theism and atheism.

Not true. Atheism is the complete lack of faith.

I didn't catch any mention of Deism in this thread. Deism implies a Creator who doesn't intervene directly in our lives, but gives us each other to help us get through life. Of course, unlike atheism, Deism also requires faith. But debating whether a Creator exists or not is useless and we are foolish to engage in such discussions, IMHO.

Farkel

changeling

Great thread nvr! I agree with you completely.

For me, the big issue is: worship. Anyone who demands to be worshiped, or else he'll kill you, is a nutjob. If there is a god and he's a nutjob, I refuse to worship him.

changeling :)

AK - Jeff

Here, here, Trevor!

I am right there at this point in my life too.

I see no point in the entire debate to be honest. No one can prove either position with 100% affirmation can they? Reasoning that there is no God because he hasn't acted like we believe God would act, is no proof He is not there. Reasoning that He must be there due to what we see, feel, and sense, is also no proof that He is. The Deity is invisible to the believer as well as the unbeliever. No action that can be attributed to God cannot also be attributed to No-God.

In any case - if we find Him, he is likely nothing as we have dreamt he should be. If we don't find Him, we can imagine that He is nothing due to lack of proof. Dogs chase their tails with more purpose perhaps. Even if we would prove He is - how can we prove what He expects of us? The Holy Writs are all full of holes if one is a non-believer. The Holy Writs are inspired and infallible if one is not. And so it goes.

I once knew an old man. We discussed close to end of his life what he believed about life after. He stated "If God judges me, when I stand before the throne, I only hope that I can name the good I did to counter the bad. Just enough so that we can shake hands and call it even." Not a bad philosophy, I posit.

Jeff

Why I post about atheism

Share this