A
AnAtheist
Guest
I do neither. I think there is an objective truth, aka reality.
The scientific method is a tool to establish truth, not the truth itself.
- Status
The scientific method is a tool to establish truth, not the truth itself.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
You think, assuming a vastly powerful mind with a master plan containing some very weird actions is a simpler explanation than a mindless universe based on some symmetry principles?
Or assuming a powerful mind with a different master plan containing other weird actions, like requiring to worship that mind in Arabic?
Or assuming a plethora of differently powerful minds with their own agendas?
Or assuming no mind at all but a principle that incarnates itself in a bazillion of minds of all sorts?
J
john_doran
Guest
i’ll tell you the simplest explanation of all: you’re the only mind, and everything else only exists in it.
M
Maranatha
Guest
The idea that random chance happened to organize out of chaos in to self conscious intelligence is a rather far fetched proposition. Once we agree that an intelligence is behind the creation of the universe, we can discuss whether the creator interacts with his universe at all. You seem to want to get hung up on particular revelations before concluding Theism.
M
Maranatha
Guest
john doran:
Solipsism is much more popular among Atheist university philosophy professors then scientism because it’s easier to defend (apologize for) logically. It does not need to deny the existence of the entire universe which is a self defeating proposition since most people can understand that they exist. It’s a partial denial of the universe and can e defened logically but is it reasonable?
L
Loser
Guest
Sheer nonsense. If “atheism” is a religion, then “bald” is a hair style.
J
john_doran
Guest
well, i was being facetious in an attempt to demonstrate the inherent difficulty in applying principles like ockham’s razor (which is at any rate a prosciption against the unnecessary multiplication of entities, and not about explanatory parsimony.)
i do not believe solipsism is reasonable. but i also don’t think it’s self-defeating.
J
john_doran
Guest
technically, “religious” beliefs are beliefs about the supernatural, particularly the divine, or transcendent (not necessarily personal) supernatural.
and, of course, a belief that there just is no such thing as a divine cause of the universe, personal or otherwise, is a belief about the transcendent supernatural. which makes it a religious belief.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
Bingo!
B
bones_IV
Guest
Looks to me like we have the people who believe in God vs those who think that the belief in God is an opinion and utter nonsense. One thing that cracks me up is when they use Sigmund Freud as a basis to prove the non-existance of God, since modern phsychological thought regards Freud as being mistaken on just about every level of psychology. I’ve seen the atheist claim that they can often be more moral than religious person. Funny how some of them say this and believe that willfully taking another human life is okay(abortion). They might say that the absense of Justice is justified through rational thinking. Just imagine what would happen if this were so; every crime and deed would justified by through rational thinking.
T
Terrian
Guest
Maybe who we see God as needs to be clarified. I’ve heard from an Ppologest?? forget his name, but basically when he questioned “atheists” about “which God” he said it was so silly that he didn’t believe in that God either. I think the different conceptions of God are called Classical Theism (God is separate as creater, omniscient, omnipotent,and ominbenevelont) Pantheism ( God and nature aren’t separate), and New-Age Conception ( God is a spiritual personal guide and draw distinction between religion ans spirituality) with varying views in them. So disbelief in which view of God?
I would say " HOW We Believe" by Michael Shermer seems to be one of the most HONEST books I’ve read about God so far in conciliatory approach between those who believe and don’t but I never got to finish it before I left it on a plane never to see it again!
I wouldn’t have known what his personal views were unless I had just peeked at the end if that tells you anything on his apparent “fairness” to both sides. He claims to be agnostic like he hasn’t made up his mind, though he has is what I mean. If anything I remember looking at the graphs at why others think they believe and why they “Really do” If only I had gotten past the intro I could see how good the book really was! Oh well, back to my philosophy book!
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/071673561X/qid=1124946297/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-8462599-3848012?v=glance&s=books
I would say " HOW We Believe" by Michael Shermer seems to be one of the most HONEST books I’ve read about God so far in conciliatory approach between those who believe and don’t but I never got to finish it before I left it on a plane never to see it again!
I wouldn’t have known what his personal views were unless I had just peeked at the end if that tells you anything on his apparent “fairness” to both sides. He claims to be agnostic like he hasn’t made up his mind, though he has is what I mean. If anything I remember looking at the graphs at why others think they believe and why they “Really do” If only I had gotten past the intro I could see how good the book really was! Oh well, back to my philosophy book!
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/071673561X/qid=1124946297/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-8462599-3848012?v=glance&s=books
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
Reading through these posts it seems to me that most who call themselves atheists are really agnostic.
They wouldn’t be here on a Catholic board if they were really atheists. It would be an irrelevancy.
However, I am glad that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics, while capable of arguing quite rationally against theism of any sort, and leaving the impression that their foundation in life is applied reason, in actual everyday living act just as irrationally as the rest of us. If they were truly living rationally they would be dangerous.
They wouldn’t be here on a Catholic board if they were really atheists. It would be an irrelevancy.
However, I am glad that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics, while capable of arguing quite rationally against theism of any sort, and leaving the impression that their foundation in life is applied reason, in actual everyday living act just as irrationally as the rest of us. If they were truly living rationally they would be dangerous.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
john doran:
So technically “I believe, there is no god” would be a religous belief, but what about “I do not believe, there is a god”?
entering nitpicking-mode…
So technically “I believe, there is no god” would be a religous belief, but what about “I do not believe, there is a god”?
A
AnAtheist
Guest
john doran:
Solipsism is self-defeating by a priori stating everything including any arguments for or against it are just illusions. You simply can’t find anything to discuss about. That should be called a religion.
If anything, it is one step away from nihilism.
Solipsism is self-defeating by a priori stating everything including any arguments for or against it are just illusions. You simply can’t find anything to discuss about. That should be called a religion.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
That might very well be, but noone really holds that idea. It is a common misconception of creationists about the evolution (assuming you are referring to evolution). Evolution is not blind, pure, random chance. Who claims that, has not understood evolution or wants to set up a strawman.
Ok, critique accepted.
J
john_doran
Guest
agnosticism wouldn’t be a religious belief, since it’s not a belief at all - it’s an absence of belief (or a withholding, if you prefer).
i’m assuming that was your point. right? that one can believe, one can disbelieve, and one can neither believe nor disbelieve…
J
john_doran
Guest
that’s not self-defeating. it just means that solipsists like to talk to themselves.
there is nothing self-defeating about the proposition “nothing exists but me”.
nihilism, strictly so-called, is an axiological belief. that is, it is a belief that nothing has value.
J
john_doran
Guest
well, that’s interesting.
how is variation introduced, then, if not randomly?
M
Maranatha
Guest
No, I wasn’t alluding to evolution. I was listing the possibilities. Either the universe was created by an intelligence or it was not.
As for your comment, if the universe is setup in such a way as to be biased toward the emergence of intelligent beings, my question is, how did it get to be that way?
E
elwedriddsche
Guest
Just to throw this in, has anybody actually bothered to read the Court’s opinion, the actual source instead of dumbed-down opinion pieces?
Direct links don’t seem to work, but here’s a download recipe for the PDF:
Navigate to ca7.uscourts.gov
Follow the link to Opinions (under Case Information)
Enter case number 04-1914 into the search form and execute the search
This should yield a temporary download link to Kaufman v. McCaughtry. It’s an interesting read, not the least the grounds on which the inmate prevailed in his appeal.
Direct links don’t seem to work, but here’s a download recipe for the PDF:
Navigate to ca7.uscourts.gov
Follow the link to Opinions (under Case Information)
Enter case number 04-1914 into the search form and execute the search
This should yield a temporary download link to Kaufman v. McCaughtry. It’s an interesting read, not the least the grounds on which the inmate prevailed in his appeal.
- Status