Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[ToddNotTodd]

What shall it be? Where do you feel most comfortable?

Saying that I don't know how the universe came to be and what, if anything, proceeded it. And that until I see a necessity to do so, there's no reason to bring a god or gods into it.

 

[someguy14]

There has always been something, even if that something was some sort of pure vacuum or flat spacetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your suggesting that "something" has always been. Where did that "something" come from? A scientist must believe there is an answer or a scientists research is for nought.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your suggesting that "something" has always been. Where did that "something" come from?

It isn't the result of change from anything prior to itself, for it is what initially changed.

A scientist must believe there is an answer or a scientists research is for nought.

Not at all.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[3rdHeaven]

Saying that I don't know how the universe came to be and what, if anything, proceeded it. And that until I see a necessity to do so, there's no reason to bring a god or gods into it.

None of us really know for sure do we?

I'm sure your smart enough to examine the main possibilities and analyze them.

Either there was no beginning, or there was a beginning.

Of this which do you feel more comfortable with?

Remember I took god out of the equation so you should feel a little more at ease here

 

[someguy14]

One thing I have learned is if you are to discuss any of this with an atheist you must realize that the discussion will need to stay on track with logic,

God is the logic. Only when one believes in God, will one be able to understand all things, by the grace of God.

 

[3rdHeaven]

God is the logic. Only when one believes in God, will one be able to understand all things, by the grace of God.

That will get a lot of Amens in Church, but won't get you very far with people who don't believe in god

 

[someguy14]

We believe in GOD. This concept is irrational and illogical.

Belief in God is only irrational and illogical unto the irrational and illogical.
All truth will be revealed, regardless.

 

[3rdHeaven]

Belief in God is only irrational and illogical unto the irrational and illogical.
All truth will be revealed, regardless.

You must be a new believer. You can't preach to atheists, won't work. Perhaps that truth has not been revealed to you yet?

 

[someguy14]

Yes... "calling a believers beliefs wrong is calling a believer wrong". That's a tautology. But that's not what you implied before. You implied that calling a believer's beliefs incorrect was the same as calling them liars. Which, of course, it isn't.

Please re-read that.

A tautology? What kind of error has man made now to invent such an atrocious word as "tautology". Haha. Attempting to confuse others with fake words doesn't make one intelligent.

 

[someguy14]

You must be a new believer. You can't preach to atheists, won't work. Perhaps that truth has not been revealed to you yet?

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

 

[someguy14]

Of course we came from somewhere. That doesn't mean that God is real.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ok, simple logic. Should I conclude that your not real? That is what your suggesting.
Minus suggesting your having anything to do with godliness.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok, simple logic. Should I conclude that your not real? that is what your suggesting.

I don't see how I am suggesting that. Please explain.

Minus suggesting your having anything to do with godliness.

Please explain this as well. I don't recall mentioning godliness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[someguy14]

Speak for yourself. I'm actually a virtual particle that popped into being from nothing and could at any moment just disap

Easy. The saints did not bleed in vain.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Either there was no beginning, or there was a beginning.

This might be a false dichotomy.

The word "beginning" might be meaningless in this context. Or the universe in one sense began and in another sense didn't. Or...

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I'm comfortable with. That has nothing to do with what is true.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am a believer, have been for as long as I can recall and that's a long time. One thing I have learned is if you are to discuss any of this with an atheist you must realize that the discussion will need to stay on track with logic, and tangible evidence. The Bible and our faith is irrelevant in these discussions. As soon as believers realize this it will eliminate much frustration and you may decide not to engage or if you do engage it will be on a more intellectual level.

We believe in GOD. This concept is irrational and illogical. Our only proof is our faith and personal experiences. In other words, our feelings. Feelings will never win a argument. We believe despite the lack of proof or evidence, it's what faith is all about. Our faith is the evidence of unseen things. This may be a fantastic revelation for us, but don't expect atheists to be as impressed.

So, I bring this up because we are discussing atheism and we are the guests here so we should be respectful.

Peace!

Thank you for this post. There is wisdom here.

Peace to you as well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[someguy14]

That will get a lot of Amens in Church, but won't get you very far with people who don't believe in god

Gods word is always fruitful. Patience plays a big role.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Please re-read that.

A tautology? What kind of error has man made now to invent such an atrocious word as "tautology". Haha. Attempting to confuse others with fake words doesn't make one intelligent.

A. Tautology isn't a fake word.
B. Since we're in the Philosophy section, I assume that people know what the word tautology means. I don't use the word to try and confuse people.
C. You have Google. If you don't know what a word means, look it up.
D. At this point, you must realize that you're not doing Christianity any favors. You're not going to reach anyone with what you're saying, because frankly you're coming across as uneducated.

 

[3rdHeaven]

This might be a false dichotomy.

The word "beginning" might be meaningless in this context. Or the universe in one sense began and in another sense didn't. Or...

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I'm comfortable with. That has nothing to do with what is true.

As I said none of us really know what the truth is do we?

We believe we do, or we feel we sort of have an idea we do, but in reality, none of us really know. Therefore what is True is very subjective and open to perception.

Here is a truth, there is a correct answer. Do you agree? Even if we do not know what it is or can not agree, there is a correct answer.

So even if every one was wrong, there would still be a correct answer.

The problem here is basically origins. Even now we can observe the beginning and end of life cycles. We know certain thresh holds must be met to get life, we know that eventually that life will die. We can observe this.

We also know with some certainty that there was a big event 14 billion years ago and that even now we can still measure it's impact and observe it. The universe is still expanding.

What we don't know, you or me, is what caused that event, aka the big bang. Nor do we know what existed if any thing before that.

We have two possibilities. Either there was no beginning or there was a beginning.

When you start examining this you realize that no matter which model you feel more comfortable with, each are equally extraordinary and mind boggling.

God or no god.

Absence of any additional proofs or evidence, both sides are on equal ground and nether can claim an advantage.

That one does not believe in a God is fine by me, but you should understand that even taking god out of the equation you are left with an equally big problem to solve.

 

[Gadarene]

Absence of any additional proofs or evidence, both sides are on equal ground and nether can claim an advantage.

That one does not believe in a God is fine by me, but you should understand that even taking god out of the equation you are left with an equally big problem to solve.

Not at all.

There may be no proof yet either which way, but I would say that the God-team is still in the weaker position for the simple fact that the God-concept has not been necessary for us to explain any observable phenomenon at all.

It may well end up being necessary for explaining origins, one never knows, but it doesn't have either a strong track record or sound argument behind it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There may be no proof yet either which way, but I would say that the God-team is still in the weaker position for the simple fact that the God-concept has not been necessary for us to explain any observable phenomenon at all.

True, the principle of parsimony is on the side of the atheistic naturalists.


eudaimonia,

Mark