You seem to create a definition of Atheism that only exists in your head, then you proceed to tell us what's wrong with Atheism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You seem to create a definition of Atheism that only exists in your head, then you proceed to tell us what's wrong with Atheism.I'm not talking about the flimsy opinions of people that believe they're atheists. I'm talking about the worldview of atheism. And atheism doesn't believe in absolutes which pretty much refutes the atheistic belief that there are no absolutes. I'm not trying to play word games here, atheism is simply an irrational and illogical worldview when one dissects its reasonings if atheism were true.
I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.I also assume there is no god, because I haven't seen any evidence of one.
Mass and distance (r)Cite? I always thought the only contribution to an object's gravitational effect was its mass.
Yeah. Gravity is due to mass. Distance determines how much you feel it.Mass and distance (r)
Diameter has no bearing.
Since gravity is the force between all things, you have to have the distance.Yeah. Gravity is due to mass. Distance determines how much you feel it.
I'll beat this dead horse!I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.
OK.Since gravity is the force between all things, you have to have the distance.
Gravity is "due" to mass and distance, which determines how much you "feel it".
Cite? I always thought the only contribution to an object's gravitational effect was its mass.
I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.
The surface gravity can be different, on the 2 planets with the same mass and different diameters, but they would have the same gravitational force (to each other).
How do you make the "leap" that the wonders of nature is evidence of God?I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.
These are the terms I was thinking in, however fuzzily.The surface gravity can be different, on the 2 planets with the same mass and different diameters, but they would have the same gravitational force (to each other).
I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.
That's not evidence.I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.
Actually the gravity of two planets with the same mass can be different, depending on their diameters.
I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.
Aristotle stipulated that causes can be understood and explained in four ways. The material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. The "efficient cause," interestingly is what modern science focuses on almost exclusively, and it is the primary source of a change. For example, if someone asks us, "Why is this building here?" We would say "the builder, the architect and/or the planner put it there." "Why did the domino fall? Because someone pushed the first domino. Point is, there is an argument for the Prime Mover that is consistent within the Law of Cause and Effect. Rationally, this cannot be denied - except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview (ie. atheism).That is misrepresenting Aristotle. The Aristotelian "God" was not something transcendent to the Universe, for instance, something that had created the matter of the Universe. He wasn't a "Creator God", if that is what you mean by "God". So, it is NOT another way of saying "God".
The Aristotelian prime mover almost seems like a primitive theory of gravity or inertia, causing motion in material things. Yes, he seemed to think it had some sort of intelligence. I suppose that is "godlike", but hardly "God" in the sense used on these boards.
I hope that you are aware that Aristotelian physics has been soundly refuted. There is no need for the motion of one thing to cause the motion in another, which makes Aristotle's argument for a Prime Mover scientifically pointless.
Nietzsche believed it was permissible to go "beyond good and evil" because without God, there really is no such thing as good and evil as these concepts are merely human inventions. What makes something good or evil is determined solely by whether or not it serves our own personal, practical purposes. That's why Nietzsche urged his followers to become Übermensch - or Supermen - individuals who could understand that good and evil are simply artificial restrictions imposed by religion in order to prevent the strong from dominating the weak.Can Nietzsche be mistaken on some issue? Or was he correct about everything? What is the point of name dropping?
It should be a matter of importance to people that call themselves atheists, for if the worldview of atheism is true, then it would not require to leech off theism, and be a prominent force in how we make sense of reality. However, atheism is not so obvious with our interaction with reality, and because of that it carries many problematic situations when one delves into the worldview of atheism if it were true.Yes, so what? No one cares about this. It isn't an important point.
I agree in that atheism is merely a footnote to my worldview, and hardly important in its own right. I don't require it to be important. It's just a matter of being honest.
There is no question that atheists can't be good people, or that they can't act in a morally responsible way, or that they can't act to protect the weak. Of course they can. A person doesn't have to accept the existence of God in order to be against killing or lying or cheating.Not so. The atheist does not shoulder the burden of presenting a positive argument, but certainly may be called out on their critiques of that positive argument.
That is not the reality.
I'm not a materialist if you really mean a reductive materialist. I'm not an ethical relativist. I'm not a social Darwinist. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "culture of secularism", but I'm actually pretty okay with religious cultures as long as they support individualism and free societies.
I'm an emergentist. Meta-ethically, I'm an ethical naturalist (NOT a relativist or a subjectivist). Ethically, I favor virtue ethics. I'm in favor of the scientific fact and theory of evolution, but that doesn't make me a social darwinist, and I am certainly not one.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Atheism is philosophical position pertaining to one particular belief - the existence of God While it may or may not be encompassed within one's worldview, it is definitionally insufficient in and of itself to be called a worldview.It should be a matter of importance to people that call themselves atheists, for if the worldview of atheism is true, then it would not require to leech off theism, and be a prominent force in how we make sense of reality.
How are things different for the theist? The only difference I see is as an Atheist, I am my moral dictator, and as a Theist, your God is your moral dictator. Granted not a lot of people are going to do everything I say, but then not a lot of people are going to do everything your God says either; so what’s the difference?There is no question that atheists can't be good people, or that they can't act in a morally responsible way, or that they can't act to protect the weak. Of course they can. A person doesn't have to accept the existence of God in order to be against killing or lying or cheating.
But that's not the point. An atheist who says it's wrong to kill is voicing there own personal convictions, and nothing more. He may find killing repugnant and may firmly empathise with the suffering of others. He may think that for society to survive, killing must not be permitted. There are probably a hundred different reasons for believing that killing is harmful or counterproductive to society, but none of these reasons are morally binding. None of them are the logical result of any existential or objective standard of morality. None show that killing is wrong in and of itself. Therefore, none can serve as a permanent basis for obligating people to obey laws against killing.
I merely explore the rationale of atheism if it were true through reason, as did others including atheists of the past. Though atheism may appear to be just a footnote to the modern atheist, the consequential logic behind it is really quite remarkably illogical and irrational and unreasonable. It may make one question why modern atheists pride themselves in facts and logic and reason when they are antithetical to it. Nineteenth century atheists were serious about their atheism, and were well aware of the things I have pointed out, yet they didn't coddle and baby their followers by lying to them about the logical implications of their own beliefs.Atheism is philosophical position pertaining to one particular belief - the existence of God While it may or may not be encompassed within one's worldview, it is definitionally insufficient in and of itself to be called a worldview.
As a point of comparison, a person can be a communist in the question of economics, but 'communism isn't their 'worldview', just their position on a specific topic. It is an aspect of their worldview
The problem with you guys is, for you your religion IS often your world view; it’s the center of your culture, the structure you build your life and beliefs around; the most important thing in your life. And no matter how much we tell you otherwise, you guys seem to want to believe atheism is as important to us as theism is to you. For me, atheism is about as big of a deal to me as my birth date meaning I am a Scorpio. Ya see; for most atheists, our lack of belief is no more than a side note. Until you can understand this, you will never understand atheism.
There are no differences when we recognise that there are good and evil. How we interpret good and evil are also no different. For example we both agree that child abuse and racial discrimination is wrong, or, in the case of ISIS and it's structure of morality where women are counted as less than human, it's wrong. These are fundamentally, objectively, and inherently prevalent in us. However, without God (atheistic perspective), every person is the sole arbiter of what's right, meaning no one can actually be wrong, even ISIS.How are things different for the theist? The only difference I see is as an Atheist, I am my moral dictator, and as a Theist, your God is your moral dictator. Granted not a lot of people are going to do everything I say, but then not a lot of people are going to do everything your God says either; so what’s the difference?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?