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.
Well I agree that we share the experience of the material realm, I am just claiming that there is more to it than the material realm.
I wasn't patronizing you, but you clearly have a bit of a snarky attitude. And yes there is a ton of things we can do in the material realm. It is useful. But it is only appreciated through a mind.. a consciousness. Now to many atheists the mind is simply the firing of neurons, but wow how interesting it is to think about why consciousness exists.
I can't give you any 100 percent scientific proof that God exists, I can only give you my personal testimony.
Going back on topic, Do you disagree that atheism is strongly rooted in naturalism?
Going back on topic, Do you disagree that atheism is strongly rooted in naturalism?
I don´t take offense from it - but when people make inaccurate statements about me, my opinions, my motives etc. I have an interest in clarifying their misconceptions.I don't know why people would take offense because of that assertion.
Many atheists, including myself, have done this. I'm not sure why you're assuming we haven't. Many of us did actually think that we had a relationship with a higher being.I can't give you any 100 percent scientific proof that God exists, I can only give you my personal testimony. There is only one experiment I know to prove God exists. It is a spiritual one. Call out to him, ask to have a relationship with him. Ask for a relationship with Jesus. God can tell if your heart is genuine when you do this. He knows if you will give up 5 minutes later or 5 months later. Read His Holy WORD.
The term Atheist was originated by theists. It was a pejorative term used to label those who rejected the Gods worshipped by the larger society. It was used to label all such people; not just those with a particular point of view.Hi there,
So this is something of a curiosity to me: atheism adopts the opinion that "there is no god" but basically stops there. Now granted people take all sorts of tangents, pastafarianism for example, and there are many gods to which they object, but fundamentally atheism is not a multivalent approach to belief at all. By multivalent, I mean that it doesn't attempt to construct a belief system that accounts for multiple points of view, people don't say "I believe in the atheist way of life" they just say "I am an atheist". I understand that the latter is simpler, but the fact that the former is not present at all is rather spurious I think.
Atheists could easily adopt the attitude that "there is no God, the Universe cannot be interacted with from the outside, the future is at no point going to revolve around God, the Name of God itself will meet the same fate of entropy as everything else". These are atheist ideas that flesh out the nature of the atheism and give structure to the expectations and understandings of atheism, such that should they get in a debate, for example, they would have such beliefs to negotiate with and through and around. Otherwise you end up just revolving around the one concept that there is no god, which is not healthy.
The fallout from this is that atheists frequently obsess over religion and religious stupidity. In debates they frequently call religious people out for their unthinkingness and their lack of critical perspective, when this is completely unwarranted and unconstructive. If atheists actually had beliefs themselves, then it would be clear when they were thinking about the future, for example and not merely dwelling on the past failings of the human race to live a religion that is pure and unspotted. This actually leads to the idea that atheists are not merely unregenerate, but are objectionable and unkind and therefore ultimately lacking in knowledge, be it of themselves.
Call me crazy, but if atheists actually believed in atheism systematically, it could actually do some benefit. Intellectual rigour doesn't have to revolve around praising a God you can't see, so that your problems are projected onto a future you can deal with; instead, you can have ideas about the future and reasoned arguments about what your attitude will be once you reach that future. To my mind, there is nothing easier than talking about the hope I have in the future, but for atheists it seems as if they are scared of the work that will mean.
To be fair, multivalency opens up the possibility of disagreement. Not everyone will want to dwell on the entropy of the Universe, but that is rather the point. Ultimately, atheists think they "agree" on there being "no God" but if they can't even sustain a handful of beliefs that they agree on as well, how much could their agreement possibly be worth. I'm not saying it would be worth that much more if they did have multivalency, but at least you would know that it was worth something.
Life is too short, not to have believed something that made it possible to be aware of it ending.
Well I agree that we share the experience of the material realm, I am just claiming that there is more to it than the material realm. I wasn't patronizing you, but you clearly have a bit of a snarky attitude. And yes there is a ton of things we can do in the material realm. It is useful. But it is only appreciated through a mind.. a consciousness. Now to many atheists the mind is simply the firing of neurons, but wow how interesting it is to think about why consciousness exists.
I can't give you any 100 percent scientific proof that God exists, I can only give you my personal testimony. There is only one experiment I know to prove God exists. It is a spiritual one. Call out to him, ask to have a relationship with him. Ask for a relationship with Jesus. God can tell if your heart is genuine when you do this. He knows if you will give up 5 minutes later or 5 months later. Read His Holy WORD.
Going back on topic, Do you disagree that atheism is strongly rooted in naturalism? I don't know why people would take offense because of that assertion.
Hi there,
So this is something of a curiosity to me: atheism adopts the opinion that "there is no god" but basically stops there. Now granted people take all sorts of tangents, pastafarianism for example, and there are many gods to which they object, but fundamentally atheism is not a multivalent approach to belief at all. By multivalent, I mean that it doesn't attempt to construct a belief system that accounts for multiple points of view, people don't say "I believe in the atheist way of life" they just say "I am an atheist". I understand that the latter is simpler, but the fact that the former is not present at all is rather spurious I think.
Atheists could easily adopt the attitude that "there is no God, the Universe cannot be interacted with from the outside, the future is at no point going to revolve around God, the Name of God itself will meet the same fate of entropy as everything else". These are atheist ideas that flesh out the nature of the atheism and give structure to the expectations and understandings of atheism, such that should they get in a debate, for example, they would have such beliefs to negotiate with and through and around. Otherwise you end up just revolving around the one concept that there is no god, which is not healthy.
The fallout from this is that atheists frequently obsess over religion and religious stupidity. In debates they frequently call religious people out for their unthinkingness and their lack of critical perspective, when this is completely unwarranted and unconstructive. If atheists actually had beliefs themselves, then it would be clear when they were thinking about the future, for example and not merely dwelling on the past failings of the human race to live a religion that is pure and unspotted. This actually leads to the idea that atheists are not merely unregenerate, but are objectionable and unkind and therefore ultimately lacking in knowledge, be it of themselves.
Call me crazy, but if atheists actually believed in atheism systematically, it could actually do some benefit. Intellectual rigour doesn't have to revolve around praising a God you can't see, so that your problems are projected onto a future you can deal with; instead, you can have ideas about the future and reasoned arguments about what your attitude will be once you reach that future. To my mind, there is nothing easier than talking about the hope I have in the future, but for atheists it seems as if they are scared of the work that will mean.
To be fair, multivalency opens up the possibility of disagreement. Not everyone will want to dwell on the entropy of the Universe, but that is rather the point. Ultimately, atheists think they "agree" on there being "no God" but if they can't even sustain a handful of beliefs that they agree on as well, how much could their agreement possibly be worth. I'm not saying it would be worth that much more if they did have multivalency, but at least you would know that it was worth something.
Life is too short, not to have believed something that made it possible to be aware of it ending.
There is only one experiment I know to prove God exists. It is a spiritual one. Call out to him, ask to have a relationship with him. Ask for a relationship with Jesus. God can tell if your heart is genuine when you do this. He knows if you will give up 5 minutes later or 5 months later.
Hi there,
So this is something of a curiosity to me: atheism adopts the opinion that "there is no god" but basically stops there.
Now granted people take all sorts of tangents, pastafarianism for example, and there are many gods to which they object, but fundamentally atheism is not a multivalent approach to belief at all. By multivalent, I mean that it doesn't attempt to construct a belief system that accounts for multiple points of view, people don't say "I believe in the atheist way of life" they just say "I am an atheist". I understand that the latter is simpler, but the fact that the former is not present at all is rather spurious I think.
Atheists could easily adopt the attitude that "there is no God, the Universe cannot be interacted with from the outside, the future is at no point going to revolve around God, the Name of God itself will meet the same fate of entropy as everything else".
These are atheist ideas that flesh out the nature of the atheism and give structure to the expectations and understandings of atheism, such that should they get in a debate, for example, they would have such beliefs to negotiate with and through and around. Otherwise you end up just revolving around the one concept that there is no god, which is not healthy.
The fallout from this is that atheists frequently obsess over religion and religious stupidity.
In debates they frequently call religious people out for their unthinkingness and their lack of critical perspective, when this is completely unwarranted and unconstructive.
If atheists actually had beliefs themselves
then it would be clear when they were thinking about the future, for example and not merely dwelling on the past failings of the human race to live a religion that is pure and unspotted. This actually leads to the idea that atheists are not merely unregenerate, but are objectionable and unkind and therefore ultimately lacking in knowledge, be it of themselves.
Call me crazy, but if atheists actually believed in atheism systematically, it could actually do some benefit.
Intellectual rigour doesn't have to revolve around praising a God you can't see, so that your problems are projected onto a future you can deal with; instead, you can have ideas about the future and reasoned arguments about what your attitude will be once you reach that future. To my mind, there is nothing easier than talking about the hope I have in the future, but for atheists it seems as if they are scared of the work that will mean.
To be fair, multivalency opens up the possibility of disagreement. Not everyone will want to dwell on the entropy of the Universe, but that is rather the point. Ultimately, atheists think they "agree" on there being "no God" but if they can't even sustain a handful of beliefs that they agree on as well, how much could their agreement possibly be worth. I'm not saying it would be worth that much more if they did have multivalency, but at least you would know that it was worth something.
Life is too short, not to have believed something that made it possible to be aware of it ending.
Sorry, I cannot take this approach serious. I just cannot. What kind of an experiment is that. What kind of proof? You already have a build-in explanation for all kinds of failure!
How can such an experiment prove anything? Spiritually or materialistically?
Yes, and taking the trash out would be better if it were intellectually fulfilling, creative and inspiring.Wouldn't atheism be better, if it was multivalent?
When an atheist goes about life they have all sorts of beliefs about everything. When they get in the car, they believe it needs gas, that to accelerate they need to press the pedal, that when they come to a stop sign they believe they need to brake. When they go to the grocery store, they believe they need a basket, they believe they need to pay, they believe they need to look for items that are important. When they get to work, they believe they need to listen to their boss, they believe they need to complete their work, they believe they need to agree with their coworkers...
...but when they come to belief in God: nope, He doesn't exist. Period.
You can't see that as some kind of big mistake?
Do you honestly think that because you stop short of using your mind that people will believe that time has run out of for God? You don't think if there is a God, that He is relying on you using your beliefs about life to form an opinion of what He was? You don't see that saying no to this, is actually a kind of willful ignorance that could have dangerous consequences?
I'm not saying you have to have beliefs about God, that's the point, you could have beliefs about anything, only don't let your brain die, because you don't want to join in the fun, that is just crazy.
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?