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.
No, that's still not an excuse for plagiarism. Sources should be named where used.
If you don't want one of your respected researche....ok, I can't finish that with a straight face - if you don't want one of your heroes slandered, too bad.
Is not the fact that we are cognizant of the concept of meaning, an evidence that the universe is meaningful?
Meaningful in what sense? If we define our own meaning, and we exist in the universe, then yes, surely it is. Not in the transcendent defined-from-above sense of meaning that Christians like to assert while presenting zero evidence whatsoever, but meaning nonetheless.Is not the fact that we actually maintain that our thoughts, words, and actions are meaningful, an evidence that the universe is meaningful?
As pointed out earlier, we can conceive of a lot of things that aren't so, and they aren't so simply because we can conceive of them.Think about this question for a minute. Is this not the most frequently asked, most fundamental question of mankind? The question of why something exists rather than nothing? The question of meaning in our lives. Is the concept of meaning illusory or real. If it is illusory, how did we come to have this illusion?
Aaaaaaaand total non-sequitur. Words have meaning because we humans agree on their intended meaning, it does not have anything necessarily to do with the nature of the universe (or at least, only inasmuch that things exist in it and have consistent properties that allow them to be defined and be made reference to). This again makes the same category error of falsely assuming that because we attribute meaning that means there is a meaning to the universe.Lets start from the bottom. Im sure you would maintain that your statements in this forum are meaningful. If they were'nt, i doubt you would waste your time by making them. I agree that they are meaningful. Now if your statements are meaningful, then that means they are significant or that they signify something. In other words they have a purpose. Now, what is it that you are signifying? What purpose are you using these words for? You are using these words for the purpose of conveying your thoughts on the nature of the universe. Now, if the nature of the universe is one that is without purpose, you are arguing up to nothing!
Again, there is meaning and purpose in the sense that we attribute, sure.You are making meaningful purposeful claims about something that is meaningless, and purposeless. This amounts to nothing more than a linguistical excercise in futility.
Why should God need anything, including to create us?In light of this, it is not possible that God would need an externally given meaning to make Him meaningful. He is the paradigm or source of meaning. He is meaning in the purest, truest since of the word.
Yes, yes, when you nitpick it enough and selectively use "hermeneutics", of course a contorted enough interpretation can be found to explain why an omnipotent deity could think of no way round murdering entire civilisations.It cannot be shown that God is immoral from the arguments given by those who seek to prove that He is for the following:
In every instance where verses are taken from scripture to prove that God is immoral, correct exegesis of said scripture within it's immediate context, and the context of the Bible as whole, show that God is not immoral but moral in His judgments and decisions. Of course volumes and volumes of material have been written on these matters by biblical scholars and this is best approached from the theological discipline of hermeneutics. This is a matter that is dealt with in theological academia, and to treat it properly here would require a separate thread. I shall start one if I think it is necessary and if anyone wants me to.
*gasp!* Then that means they would be wrong, regardless of what they maintain!Showing that the Judeo-Christian God is immoral is to show that He is not the Judeo-Christian God at all. For all Christians maintain that God is omnibenevolent.
Again, maintain away. What Christians maintain has nothing to do with validity.All Christians whether theologians or biblical scholars, or your everyday person like me, will maintain that the Christian God is omnibenevolent, or that He is all-good. Therefore He is in no way immoral. This is the Christian view of God.
Is not the fact we are cognisant of the concept of a flat earth an evidence that the universe is flat?
Is not the fact we are cognisant of the concept of a flying spaghetti monster an evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists?
I could go on.
Meaningful in what sense? If we define our own meaning, and we exist in the universe, then yes, surely it is. Not in the transcendent defined-from-above sense of meaning that Christians like to assert while presenting zero evidence whatsoever, but meaning nonetheless.
As pointed out earlier, we can conceive of a lot of things that aren't so, and they aren't so simply because we can conceive of them.
Theism has a remarkable propensity for jury-rigging whatever is observed into evidence for itself, but I will say this propensity for turning the mere asking of questions into evidence for itself is barrel-scraping so epic one is now scraping the air molecules underneath said barrel.
Aaaaaaaand total non-sequitur. Words have meaning because we humans agree on their intended meaning, it does not have anything necessarily to do with the nature of the universe (or at least, only inasmuch that things exist in it and have consistent properties that allow them to be defined and be made reference to). This again makes the same category error of falsely assuming that because we attribute meaning that means there is a meaning to the universe.
Again, there is meaning and purpose in the sense that we attribute, sure.
But Christians have a hard time processing that this is all the meaning and purpose there can ever be said to truly be.
Why should God need anything, including to create us?
Especially since he's going to toss the bulk of us into hell anyway because he couldn't care enough to give proper evidence?
Yes, yes, when you nitpick it enough to and selectively used "hermeneutics", of course a contorted enough interpretation can be found to explain why an omnipotent deity could think of no way round murdering entire civilisations.
*gasp!* Then that means they would be wrong, regardless of what they maintain!
Again, maintain away. What Christians maintain has nothing to do with validity.
And instead of responding to each of your points, I could say that everything you just wrote is your opinion and you are entitled to it! But do we learn anything by doing this?
I define atheism as anyone who is not a theist. As an atheist I do recognize that which you might call God may indeed exist! But because I wouldn't call it God I am an atheist. If you ask me if I believe in God I would ask you to define God because as a theist, you can call anything God! Some may worship nature, the bible speaks of people worshipping a golden calf, I heard one guy say he worshipped his money! Now it would be foolish to say these things dont exist! I just dont call them God; I call nature our environment, the gold a statute, and money is currency. Since there is nothing that exist that I would call God I am referred to as an atheist.Now Ken-1122, I have two questions.
You say that just because a person does not believe in God....
Is this your definition of atheism?
Even though I didnt read your entire OP I did scan over it a bit and some of my objections were as follows:Secondly, would you mind elaborating for us what you mean when you say "stuff"? Can you specifically state what it is that atheists do not believe with regards to what I have written.
Thank you for your time in considering this reply!
So basically atheists lack a belief in gods or God because they want to? Is this more correct?
Alright, I'll explain it to you. I'll try to make it as clear as possible because it seems you aren't comprehending certain elementary principles regarding atheism. That's fine. Sometimes they aren't clear.If you dont mind, and if you have time, please explain to us how an atheist can adopt non-material entities into their ontology and still be an atheist. Im sure we can all learn from what you have to say.
My point, and this is what half of my post was about, was that when one maintains this position, they do so at the expense of internal coherence and consistency. They appeal to a moral standard to say that something is immoral or moral. But this moral standard which they appeal to must be objective. It cannot be subjective which simply means subject to the person.
I believe the opposite is true. How many of your Gods laws are actually obeyed by the majority of mankind? (assuming your God exists) Your God can spit out as many moral laws as he wants; if nobody is listening he isnt having any effect is he? I would say the only laws of your God that has any effect on mankind are the ones which also come from the fleeting ideas and motives of mankind.However, for morality to be of any effect, it must come from outside of ourselves, not from among ourselves. It must transcend the fleeting ideas and motives of men and rise above them in order to make a statement about all men.
Like it or not, that is how the world works!If not, then morals become like the waves of the ocean, always changing, always moving, never stable, never solid, but rolling and shifting to the dictates of the billions of diverse ideas and thoughts and motives and intentions of men.
There have also been some things that used to be held up as universally wrong, wicked and evil that no longer are, and some things are currently seen as universally wrong wicked and evil that previously did notBut throughout the world, through all ages of human history, there have been some things that have been held as universally wrong, wicked and evil, and things that have been universally held to be right, virtuous, and good. These things are held regardless of location, race, religious influence, or the lack of religious influence.
Your signature incorrectly states that atheists do not believe in God because of a refusal to admit they need God. It is untrue of most atheists, I'd wager and a misrepresentation.You are the one that claims my signatures are speaking of or somehow incorrectly "representing" atheists.
This work is actually my own.
The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.
And how exactly does this make my hypothetical fail? You have just reworded my very point: there is no necessary congruence link between an externally given meaning/purpose and the meaning we ascribe to the universe.Your hypothetical falls at the beginning. You as a human in this world (which is not hypothetical but actual) are created in such away that destruction is not desirable to you, but undesirable. No human, if asked, would honestly tell you that they would desire to be destroyed if an alternative to destruction were available. Its how we are and who we are. People go to great lengths just to be free of what little pain and displeasure they experience at the present.
Therefore when you (an actual human being who abhors destruction) attempt to place yourself in a hypothetical world of a god bent on destruction, you are obviously not going to desire to accept this hypothetical god's meaning and purpose! I would'nt either!
See if you can get yourself to believe in Zeus or Thor.
For that matter, the inverse of the question would be: Do theists hold a belief in God because they want to?
Actually, if they were surrounded by friends and family who believed in Zeus or Thor, religious folks would believe.
Absolutely! Not believing would place them at a social disadvantage and confront them with unpleasant truths. The more absurd your belief, the more useful it is in reconciling cognitive dissonances. Our ancestors may have come out of Africa, but most humans are still deep in that African river.
Sounds pretty condescending to me. "I've learned how you monkeys like to eat bananas and it is so hilarious. Thank you for teaching me monkey. Now I need to return my human world."Thank you for Gadarene for all that you help me with in these threads. I have learned a lot about your position, and how people think. It is quite rewarding and once again I thank you.
<snip>
And this is Achilles and his heel being once more vulnerable. For in the very act of trying to support their nontheistic position that all is matter and matter is all, they are forced to assume that at least one part of reality is meaningul and more than matter, namely this idea of justice! For if the whole universe has ultimately no meaning, no rhyme, no reason, then we should never have found out that it has no meaning; kind of like the cave-dwelling fish that have no functional eyes to see or pigment in their skin. They live in total darkness. The word dark, for them, has no meaning.....
So basically atheists lack a belief in gods or God because they want to? Is this more correct?
Several atheists here, I will not name them, have stated that atheism is: not believing in God.
Are they portraying atheism in an incorrect light?
Would you like to contribute to this thread in a more thorough manner? Like giving us your definition of atheism?
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?