Musings about different types of atheist! (page 12)

Seraphim23

If energy is in a vacuum where these particles materialise from and then disappear again, then it is not nothing, as energy is something, either before the particle appears or when it is there and again after it goes back to energy.

rawe

Hi Everyone,

fwiw: I self-identify as an atheist, but...

I believe God does exist, within the minds of believers and often as a shared cultural experience/concept within groups.

I believe it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, thus I would not claim I can prove God does not exist.

I believe that if God does exist, is a law-of-nature-breaker-miracle-worker and interactive with our world, then knowledge, any knowledge, even in principal, is beyond what we can reach.

As an atheist, I do exactly what I want. Just turns out I want to do things, like work, be loyal, not steal or lie, etc.

Cheers,

-Randy

adamah

Seraphim said-

As for the God of the bible, I don’t believe it exists if one takes the bible literally.

So you are describing yourself as a 'hard atheist' for Jehovah, the God of the Bible (the one who condemns homosexuality, and declares it to be a stoneable offense, something that you as a gay person should KNOW sexual orientation is not a choice for many)? Welcome aboard, as I make the same claim of being an atheist for Jehovah, God of the Bible.

But next obvious question is, how do you determine which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally vs allegory/metaphorical?

Does not that ambiguity itself support the non-existence of a God? i.e. shouldn't an omnipotent being be able to communicate his master plan is more of a straight-forward manner than that? Why the big mystery, the riddle, eg Jesus admits to using paradoxical parables when communicating to large crowds, since he reserved other 'insider secrets' for his apostles. Why?

An omnipotent and omniscient (i.e. including prescient, knowing the future) being has no use for strategic mission secrets or 'battle plans': it's not like Satan can change the outcome, EVEN IF he learned of Divine battle strategies.

Adam

adamah

rawe said-

I believe it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, thus I would not claim I can prove God does not exist.

True, in a theoretical sense, that you cannot prove the non-existence of something that hasn't claimed to interact in the past with the physical World.

However, the God of the Bible HAS claimed to interact with matter, even claiming to be the maker of it all! Hence the Bible serves as 'smoking gun evidence' proving his non-existence by using many different tacts, from disproving his claim as being the Intelligent Designer by displaying his ignorance of his own designs (eg firmament, flat round Earth, climatology, ignorance of human anatomy, etc). Even from the moral angle, the Torah reveals the actions of a moral monster who operates by "might makes right" sense of "perfect justice".

I believe that if God does exist, is a law-of-nature-breaker-miracle-worker and interactive with our world, then knowledge, any knowledge, even in principal, is beyond what we can reach.

That's playing both sides of the argument, where God can supposedly interact with the physical World, but then leaves no traces of having interacted. Appealing to Divine omnipotence is a double-edged sword, since appealing to it also opens the can of worms of theodicy, the problem of evil ("why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?").

As an atheist, I do exactly what I want. Just turns out I want to do things, like work, be loyal, not steal or lie, etc.

Of course, all atheists are required to live by secular laws (the same as theists, who paradoxically feel entitled to break some laws that they feel God doesn't approve of).

Adam

Seraphim23

Well adamah I wouldn’t call myself an atheist but you can if you like. As for your other points they kind of take the subject well away from the topic. For a start I don’t think Satan is a real entity but that is another topic entirely. I’m still waiting for my other points to actually be challenged.

Remember I am only really talking about the need for a metaphysical framework and the atheist subset that doesn’t countenance any metaphorical claims as legitimate. I’m not arguing for the existence for God in this thread.

cofty

I am only really talking about the need for a metaphysical framework and the atheist subset that doesn’t countenance any metaphorical claims as legitimate.

I have not the slightest clue what that that sentence means.

Are you using "metaphorical" and "metaphysical" as synonyms?

What exactly do you mean by "metaphysical framework"? Pretend you are talking to your grandmother's great-aunt.

Seraphim23

No I am not using them as like words. I’m talking about a need for a framework for existence that includes more than this universe, some of which may or may not be testable but logically derived as with the existence of infinity for example.

cofty

So why did you mean by, "doesn’t countenance any metaphorical claims as legitimate"?

Can define what you mean by a "framework for existence" and explain in a few short sentences how it can be logically derived?

I am trying to follow this but I haven't got a clue what you mean and we are on page 6.

Seraphim23

It was a typo on my part. I meant metaphysical. As regards a framework for existence I mean in the first instance a framework around the universe itself.

cofty

I mean in the first instance a framework around the universe itself.

Please go on. What does "a framework around the universe" mean?

Musings about different types of atheist!

Share this