True atheists?

[Jig]

How is it that a viewpoint that has absolutely no supporting evidence is rational?

Evidence is neutral it does not speak for itself. It must be interpreted. I've said this before. You and I have the same "evidence" in front of us. We both interpret it differently based on our personal philosophies.

You comment makes no sense. Of course your personally interpreted evidence doesn't support the idea God.

 

[Gracchus]

I see no evidence to support this premise.

I was responding to a request for a non-contradictory definition of God.

That is the nub. If the idea of god that is presented is contradictory, then that idea can be rejected.

And even if the universe did have some collective consciousness or the universe was self aware, I still see no reason why that consciousness/awareness should be called God.

The universe is self-aware. That is self-evident, because I, "Tiberius", am in it. I am not a separate thing, so the universe is self aware, and I am aware of the rest of the universe, just as I am aware of my hair and fingernails.

Let "God" be the collective consciousness/self-awareness of the universe.
If all the universe is a figment of my imagination (solipsism) then I am God. Not Gracchus, but ME, the person reading this. Interestingly enough, when Moses asks the burning bush, "Who shall I say has sent me?", the incinerating shrubbery replies, "Tell them I AM has sent you!"
So until there is another claimant, I AM!
As the Hindus say, "Tat tvam asi." ("That thou art!")

(See for instance, "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are", by Alan Watts.)

The premise is not contradictory, which makes it preferable to premises that are contradictory in themselves. It may not fit your "idea" of God, but you need only show that your "idea" is consistent with observed reality, to achieve parity. The univers does not have to be omniscient, any more than a baby has to understand physiology or psychology in order to be a human being. But because I am in it, the universe has the capacity to learn.
To put it in religious terms, you have to give up your idol, your false idea of God, before you can find the real God.

 

[Chaplain David]

How is it that a viewpoint that has absolutely no supporting evidence is rational?



First of all, quoting the Bible will have little influence on me. I don't see the Bible as a reliable source. Quoting the Bible in an effort to prove any theological conclusion will have as much effect on me as if I quoted Harry Potter to prove wizards are real to you.

Secondly, you can stop with the thinly veiled name calling. Calling me blind and deaf just because I happen to disagree with you is not warranted. let's discuss this like adults, not children, okay?

My friend, quoting the Bible is part of my job. You may think it does not have any affect on you but as scripture says in Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Believing this, how can I not quote scripture. As far as namecalling, if you believe the Bible is calling you names you have a right to believe that. Personally, I think it is trying to get your attention. Certainly I have not called you any names. Let me finish with some more scripture from 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

[Gracchus]

My friend, quoting the Bible is part of my job. You may think it does not have any affect on you but as scripture says in Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

The word of God is not found in a book. The word of God is reality. "The word was God." God is what is real and the only complete inerrant description of reality is reality itself. The book may describe reality, and the book may be real, but it is only a description, less than what it describes and possibly even mistaken.

Believing this, how can I not quote scripture. As far as namecalling, if you believe the Bible is calling you names you have a right to believe that. Personally, I think it is trying to get your attention. Certainly I have not called you any names. Let me finish with some more scripture from 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

I quote scripture too, but only to make a point about its accuracy or inconsistency. Certainly, the Bible can be useful, but it is not inerrant, it is not complete, is is not perfect. It is what one of the blind men wrote about the elephant.

 

[Greg1234]

Let me finish with some more scripture from 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The belief in atheism is that religion spawned from ignorant early men transitioning from beasts (or beastmen). There's this Darwinism thingy going on and this facilitates and helps justify the debasing of the competence of bible writers.

A full sized camel will pass through the eye of a needle before a materialist understands the application of spiritual law. There is the will for material constructs. As it was in the beginning. Here you have the exemplification and remnant of a historical event.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The belief in atheism is that religion spawned from ignorant early men transitioning from beasts (or beastmen).

Say what?

Atheism contains no such belief, and I've never heard of a single atheist saying this.

I recommend that you ask us what we believe, instead of trying to put words in our mouths.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chaplain David]

The word of God is not found in a book. The word of God is reality. "The word was God." God is what is real and the only complete inerrant description of reality is reality itself. The book may describe reality, and the book may be real, but it is only a description, less than what it describes and possibly even mistaken.

What you are explaining is plainly stated in the book of John. However, taking into account that scripture is inspired by God then don't you think there is a little bit of Jesus in it? We are after all dealing with a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I quote scripture too, but only to make a point about its accuracy or inconsistency. Certainly, the Bible can be useful, but it is not inerrant, it is not complete, is is not perfect. It is what one of the blind men wrote about the elephant.

Many believe that scripture is as you believe or should I say, flawed? I do not believe that scripture is flawed. I think there is much that we do not understand. Let me close with this.

For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

 

[Greg1234]

Say what?

Atheism contains no such belief, and I've never heard of a single atheist saying this.

I recommend that you ask us what we believe, instead of trying to put words in our mouths.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Get out a little more then. Mingle during peak season.

 

[Gracchus]

What you are explaining is plainly stated in the book of John. However, taking into account that scripture is inspired by God then don't you think there is a little bit of Jesus in it?

My discription of a circle is not a circle. A narrative about Jesus, is not Jesus.

We are after all dealing with a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Or Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva! Or maiden, nymph, and mother! Or Larry, Moe, and Curly! Appearance is multiple, reality is one.

Many believe that scripture is as you believe or should I say, flawed? I do not believe that scripture is flawed. I think there is much that we do not understand. Let me close with this.

For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

Yes indeed, and one thing we can learn from any scripture is critical thinking, how to sift the truth from the falsehood.

 

[Chaplain David]

My discription of a circle is not a circle. A narrative about Jesus, is not Jesus.

As long as you deny the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture then I guess you have to believe the above about the Bible.

Or Bramah, Vishnu, and Shiva! Or maiden, nymph, and mother! Appearance is multiple, reality is one.

Not quite following this one.

Yes indeed, and one thing we can learn from any scripture is critical thinking, how to sift the truth from the falsehood.

If this is not said 'tongue in cheek' I'd like to hear how you use scripture to sift the truth from the falsehood. After all, the above quote did contain "we."



[/quote]

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Get out a little more then. Mingle during peak season.

He's right. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god. Different atheists have different opinions about the origins of religion.

 

[3sigma]

I believe my belief is rational, just as you believe you belief is rational.

Could the religious believers here please tell us which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?

1. Atheism – lack of belief in something for which there is no sound evidence.
2. Theism – unshakeable belief in something without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.

 

[Jig]

Could the religious believers here please tell us which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?

1. Atheism – lack of belief in something for which there is no sound evidence.
2. Theism – unshakeable belief in something without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.

I don't agree with these definitions.

 

[Chaplain David]

Could the religious believers here please tell us which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?

1. Atheism – lack of belief in something for which there is no sound evidence.
2. Theism – unshakeable belief in something without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.

Christianity. If you know there no God then you must have all knowledge which would make you God. If you doubt there is a God then you are like most of the rest of us were before we became Christian. I have plenty of proofs in my life that the Triune God exists and is the "real" truth. I pray that you find Him. He is your Father and is right in front of you.

 

[3sigma]

I don't agree with these definitions.

Are they incorrect or do you just disagree with them for no sound reason? If you think my definitions are incorrect then show us exactly how and where they are incorrect.

If you can’t show us that my definitions are incorrect then please answer the question. Which position is the more rational, reasonable and sensible?

 

[3sigma]

I have plenty of proofs in my life that the Triune God exists and is the "real" truth.

Tell us what sound evidence and sound reasoning you used to reach your conclusion that your God is real.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Christianity. If you know there no God then you must have all knowledge which would make you God.

That's not what atheists claim. Most atheists anyway. Atheists have but one thing in common - lack of belief in gods.

If you doubt there is a God then you are like most of the rest of us were before we became Christian.

Based on your posting, I am NOTHING like you at all. I understand what evidence is, for example.

I have plenty of proofs in my life that the Triune God exists and is the "real" truth. I pray that you find Him. He is your Father and is right in front of you.

Your personal opinion, unsupported by evidence, is duly noted.

But I've no reason at all to take anything you say seriously, do I? Why should I accept your opinion over that of the Muslim or Taoist down the street?

 

[Jig]

Are they incorrect or do you just disagree with them for no sound reason? If you think my definitions are incorrect then show us exactly how and where they are incorrect.

If you can’t show us that my definitions are incorrect then please answer the question. Which position is the more rational, reasonable and sensible?

I already told you. To "lack a belief" implies ignorance to such a belief. Once you have knowledge of its existence, you internalize beliefs about it based on your foundational philosophical worldview.

You are not ignorant to the Christian belief. You have formed a belief about whether or not it is correct. You choose to believe it is false. This is not a lack of anything.

Now, if you were on an island all your life and never heard about Jesus, only then would you "lack a belief" in Him.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I already told you. To "lack a belief" implies ignorance to such a belief.

No, to lack belief implies that I do not believe that thing. Whatever it is. I lack belief in faeries at the bottom of the garden.

Once you have knowledge of its existence, you internalize beliefs about it based on your foundational philosophical worldview.

Not at all. You really don't know how atheists think, do you?

You are not ignorant to the Christian belief. You have formed a belief about whether or not it is correct.

No, I have formed an opinion based on evidence (or in this case, lack thereof). But whether or not I accepted Christian doctrine, I lack any belief in god. Period.

You choose to believe it is false. This is not a lack of anything.

No choice involved. I don't think you can really choose your beliefs.

Now, if you were on an island all your life and never heard about Jesus, only then would you "lack a belief" in Him.

Nope. I've heard about the carpenter-turned-rabbi-turned-political dissident all my life.

But I am an atheist - I lack belief in gods.

 

[Gishin]

My position is different than yours. It does not require me to claim virtual omniscience.

Example:
Let say you claim that there are no dogs in existence. It would be impossible for you to search the entire earth (not to mention the universe) to know this.

Let's say I claim that dogs do exist. All I have to do is find one dog to prove my claim. I might not even have to leave my neighborhood.

Bertrand Russel, teapots, yadda yadda. All been addressed by smarter people decades ago.