Yeah, the whole thread seems to be an exercise in theistic wishful thinking. The conclusion makes them feel icky, therefore it can't be right and they'll make up a bunch of stuff to convince themselves it has to be wrong.
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.
The Achilles Heel of my conviction that my fridge is empty and I have no money left: I am going to stay hungry.
Evidence that my fridge is full and there´s plenty of money in my pocket.
Some sort, yes, but atheism only indicates a disbelief in deities. Naturalism indicates a disbelief in all supernatural forces and entities. They have separate terms for a reason.the discussion has been on why philosophical naturalism ultimately leads to the conclusion that life as we know it is ultimately meaningless.
In fact this thread was entitled: "The Achilles Heel of ATHEISM".
Barring some atheistic spiritualistic interpretation of reality i.e. buddhist interpretation of reality, ATHEISM ENTAILS SOME SORT OF PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM.
I'll agree with you about ghosts, since those would technically be deities, but I chortle deep inside at the idea that belief in the possibility of aliens somehow contradicts atheism. The chance that life developed on only one planet in the entire universe is impossibly slim. I don't see what that has to do with whether or not someone believes in any deities, unless you for some reason think that any extraterrestrial form of life would be supernatural.
We have one instance of life evolving on a planet.
We have no instances of gods.
Notable difference.
This says nothing of alien life. We have no instances of known alien life.
Well there's pretty much nothing to it other than a lack of belief in gods
True dat!
I look at it like this. Atheist deny the existence of god
and only have the natural world. Theist accept the existence of god but must deny thing in accordance to their religion.
Deist on the other hand must accept the existence of god and accept science and reasoning. The Deist has more liberty essentially.
My argument is that Atheism is is just more boring. You may view God as a negative being but I view religion as such. God just makes things fun.....darn'it I sound simple minded
"Alien" is an arbitrary label. We know life exists on one planet. That much is obvious. That prior at least exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume there may be life elsewhere out there.
The same cannot be said for any deity.
I don't think people are necessarily daft for believing in a deity, but when they make this sort of argument, well....
You only say its daft because of the side of the argument on which you stand.
To theists it's quite sensible to conclude that since there is no proof for alien life it would seem silly for atheists to believe in them because they deny God for the very same set of criteria.
No, not necessarily.
You have fewer awkward claims to justify. The origin of the universe is a head scratcher all round. I wouldn't say you have it easier, you just have a slightly more defensible stance than theists in that it isn't shackled to a load of additional claims that are entirely baseless.
I'm sure it does, but reality has little to do with how fun I want it to be.
(at least not until "the device" is ready)
Your comparison would be valid if you knew of a parallel universe in which God exists and therefore concluded that he exists in this one.You only say its daft because of the side of the argument on which you stand. To theists it's quite sensible to conclude that since there is no proof for alien life it would seem silly for atheists to believe in them because they deny God for the very same set of criteria.
My argument is that Atheism is is just more boring.
That's why I call myself an agnostic atheist. Agnostic people are like the Scooby-Doo gang.I look at it like this. Atheist deny the existence of god and only have the natural world. Theist accept the existence of god but must deny thing in accordance to their religion.
Deist on the other hand must accept the existence of god and accept science and reasoning. The Deist has more liberty essentially.
My argument is that Atheism is is just more boring. You may view God as a negative being but I view religion as such. God just makes things fun.....darn'it I sound simple minded
That's why I call myself an agnostic atheist. Agnostic people are like the Scooby-Doo gang.Much more exciting.
That's why I call myself an agnostic atheist. Agnostic people are like the Scooby-Doo gang.Much more exciting.
I wouldn't say that this applies to all agnostics. I mean, if there is a higher being, I think it's probably relevant.Took me years to realize that an agnostic is actually a person who does not care if there is or is not a god, they just find it irrelevant.
For you, perhaps. I personally find being an atheist far more fun and interesting than when I was a Christian. Your mileage may vary.
But perhaps you aren't talking about "being an atheist", but are simply talking about the stance of atheism itself, which is just a negating position on one issue. Yes, I will agree that atheism seen in that light is boring. It's like being against the EU, or against warrantless spying by the NSA.
However, atheism isn't a complete worldview, but just a fragment of one. This is why I always say that atheism is "just a footnote" to my worldview.
eudaimonia,
Mark
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?