atheism

[Charles_Darwin]

Except when it comes to God. Then you don’t believe in cause and effect, do you?

Exactly, if funny how people come to the conclusion there must be a god based on a set of rules. However without exception god breaks these rules.

 

[shoewindow3000]

I’m just pointing out that you cannot substantiate your position. Philosophical answers however interesting don’t really mean much. When it comes to understanding our universe philosophy is pretty much redundant compared to science. I don’t mean that as a dig, and philosophy has it uses, but furthering the knowledge of mankind and discerning truth is the job for science.

I don’t need two give you a “philosophical” answer. You are basing your belief on unfounded assumptions. We don’t know anything about before the big bang. Therefore your assumptions are meaningless, your speculation is meaningless, your **philosophy **is meaningless.

It seem you openly admit you cannot substantiate your claim. I take it you are aware of the fact that god is then just a personal belief, not knowledge. All we are asking for is a little intellectual honesty.

Then what about the philosophy of science? Look it up on Wikipedia if you want!​

Here is a testimony to the grace of God:

NEW YORK (AP) _ A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God – more or less – based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

(I guess you could say he had a “Damascus road conversion”!:yeah_me

What is sad though is how his former “friends” and colleagues are now criticizing him, saying he is in a “state of mental decline.” Too bad.

Also, Einstein came to the conclusion of an intelligent designer(although he didn’t believe in a “personal” one.)

 

[gearhead]

I guess the atheists here don’t understand philosophy.

Speak for yourself. I understand philosophy enough to recognize that a conclusion (e.g. “there exists an uncaused cause”) that violates its premises (e.g. “nothing exists uncaused”) is invalid.

Not once did I use God as a “default” answer or as a cop out.

It seems to me that you did. I got the distinct impression that you leapt straight to God as your “first cause” without any justification whatsoever.

Philosophy isn’t science!!! You don’t say, “I don’t know.” You try to come to a conclusion through reasoning.

You’re sort of correct, but you’re off a bit in some important ways. You draw conclusions based on premises that you accept as given, and then you work from those premises to a conclusion. However, even once you demonstrate that your argument is sound (which, IMO, you haven’t done yet), you still need to demonstrate that the premises are actually correct in the real world (which, IMO, you haven’t done yet either) before you can assert that your conclusion has been shown to be true.

Don’t accuse me of petitio principii! I assumed nothing in my reasoning (other than the fact that time and eternity are separate, which doesn’t matter in this discussion. That’s it!)

Seeing how “eternity” is defined in terms of time, what does “time and eternity are separate” even mean?

And yes, you did beg the question. It’s not necessarily your fault, because question-begging is built into the First Cause argument and I realize you may not have recognized it. The argument basically says “nothing can exist uncaused, therefore the universe does not exist uncaused.”

In run-of-the-mill situations within human experience and at our scale of space and time, sure, this works: it’s common sense. Things happen because they’re caused to happen, and those causes are caused to happen, etc., etc. However, common sense is a poor indicator of what happens at the space scale of the very large or very small, or at the time scale of the very short or very, very long. Common sense tells us that solid objects are, well, solid, but particles pass right through them. All matter also vibrates at high frequency, even when common sense tells us that it’s sitting motionless.

Now - common sense fails often enough in the here-and-now, but you’re going one step further: you’re invoking common sense to describe events before Planck time, when the fundamental laws of physics as we know them break down. How can you assert with certainty that your logic is valid?

If you can’t give a philosophical argument to my philosophical reasoning, then don’t criticize it.

Your objection is only valid if you keep your argument completely within the philosophical realm. If you want to constrain your argument to hypotheticals, sure: let’s stick to the philosophical objections. However, once you start making claims about physicalities (e.g. “God exists”), then objections based on the physical also become relevant.

 

[Convert66]

This is one of the mistakes Dawkins makes in his book “The God Delusion” when he critiques Aquinas’ 5 proofs. Dawkins, and “shoewindow3000” mistake the premise, but Aquinas doesn’t argue that all things have a cause. He argues that some things are caused, and anything that is caused must have a first cause.

It’s a not-so-subtle difference but it is easy to fall into, as Dawkins demonstrates in his critique.

All my best . . .

 

[gearhead]

This is one of the mistakes Dawkins makes in his book “The God Delusion” when he critiques Aquinas’ 5 proofs. Dawkins, and “shoewindow3000” mistake the premise, but Aquinas doesn’t argue that all things have a cause. He argues that some things are caused, and anything that is caused must have a first cause.

It’s a not-so-subtle difference but it is easy to fall into, as Dawkins demonstrates in his critique.

It’s a difference that makes all the difference. In that formulation, the First Cause argument ceases to be an argument for a single first cause and just becomes a tautology: “things that were caused were caused, and things that were uncaused were uncaused.” It gives no meaningful conclusion that wasn’t already present in the premises.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Then what about the philosophy of science? Look it up on Wikipedia if you want!​

Here is a testimony to the grace of God:

NEW YORK (AP) _ A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God – more or less – based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

(I guess you could say he had a “Damascus road conversion”!:yeah_me

What is sad though is how his former “friends” and colleagues are now criticizing him, saying he is in a “state of mental decline.” Too bad.

Also, Einstein came to the conclusion of an intelligent designer(although he didn’t believe in a “personal” one.)

Appeals to authority means nothing.

 

[j1akey]

Over the weekend I was watching a debate online that was recorded a couple years ago about atheism and science and religion. Good debate all around and I still have several hours to go through it but I came across an interesting point about atheism which is this.

I’d like to offer the following to the debate in regards to the original post in this thread;

It was argued that everyone is atheistic and that really hit me square on the forehead because when I actually thought about it, it’s completely true. Even theists are atheistic toward other religions, as in they reject those other religions that they don’t believe to be true. Non-believers just take it one step further and reject 100% of all religions, not just 99.999999% of them.

 

[gearhead]

I’d like to offer the following to the debate in regards to the original post in this thread;

It was argued that everyone is atheistic and that really hit me square on the forehead because when I actually thought about it, it’s completely true. Even theists are atheistic toward other religions, as in they reject those other religions that they don’t believe to be true. Non-believers just take it one step further and reject 100% of all religions, not just 99.999999% of them.

Hmmm… yes and no.

Personally, I think there’s a difference between disbelieving in something on its merits (or lack thereof) and disbelieving in something because it and something that you do believe are mutually exclusive. For example, when a Christian rejects Islam, I think it usually has more to do with their certainty in the truth of Christianity than any sort of evaluation of Islam itself.

However, when it comes to certain religious beliefs, I think religious people and atheists reject it with similar mindsets. Take Greek mythology: I think the majority of Christians would reject Zeus and friends because they find Greek mythology to be silly and unlikely by itself, regardless of what their chosen religion has to say on the matter.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I can’t believe you just said this to me, I did not say the mere presence of homosexuals will destroy our way of life, I said that they have no right to redefine marriage. I’m not stopping them from having a loving relationship, I’m saying simply give them the rights they wish to have that married people do but within civil unions. And furthermore, I have given a real reason which you do not accept, I can’t help that you see things differently. I’m sorry but did I hurt your feelings? I did not mean to.

actually I’m not gay (so no I’m not personally hurt by your words … but bigotry, whether masked by religiosity or not, is always offensive to me).

I never said it was my business, and I’m not bigoted, please do not call me that.

good … if you agree the personal private choices of other consenting adults is none of your business, then you should also agree if they want to call their union a marriage it’s not for us to deny them that choice?

 

[josie_L]

actually I’m not gay (so no I’m not personally hurt by your words … but bigotry, whether masked by religiosity or not, is always offensive to me).

good … if you agree the personal private choices of other consenting adults is none of your business, then you should also agree if they want to call their union a marriage it’s not for us to deny them that choice?

But it’s not personal anymore once they decide tp change the meaning of marriage even though taditionally, historicallly, religiously speaking marriage was/is a contract/covenant between man and woman for the purpose of creating a loving and protective enviroment for children brought about by their sexual union.

 

[josie_L]

Over the weekend I was watching a debate online that was recorded a couple years ago about atheism and science and religion. Good debate all around and I still have several hours to go through it but I came across an interesting point about atheism which is this.

I’d like to offer the following to the debate in regards to the original post in this thread;

It was argued that everyone is atheistic and that really hit me square on the forehead because when I actually thought about it, it’s completely true. Even theists are atheistic toward other religions, as in they reject those other religions that they don’t believe to be true. Non-believers just take it one step further and reject 100% of all religions, not just 99.999999% of them.

Well. let’s say for example I only ate chicken but refused to eat any other meats and/or fish, does that make me a vegetarian, I would think not.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Well. let’s say for example I only ate chicken but refused to eat any other meats and/or fish, does that make me a vegetarian, I would think not.

That is why he did not say atheist but atheistic.

 

[j1akey]

"Josie L:

Well. let’s say for example I only ate chicken but refused to eat any other meats and/or fish, does that make me a vegetarian, I would think not.

As CharlesDarwin already said that’s why I said atheistic towards other religions. If it’s so easy to reject every religion except for one then why is it so unbelievable that people just take it that one extra step?

 

[josie_L]

As CharlesDarwin already said that’s why I said atheistic towards other religions. If it’s so easy to reject every religion except for one then why is it so unbelievable that people just take it that one extra step?

Ok, so I’m “vegetarianistic” towards other meats except chicken. That all makes sense now.

 

[gearhead]

Ok, so I’m “vegetarianistic” towards other meats except chicken. That all makes sense now.

Yeah… that’s where it breaks down. There’s a big difference between not eating beef or fish out of respect for the animals and not eating beef or fish because all you want to eat is chicken for every meal.

 

[josie_L]

Yeah… that’s where it breaks down. There’s a big difference between not eating beef or fish out of respect for the animals and not eating beef or fish because all you want to eat is chicken for every meal.

 

[yankee_doodle]

But it’s not personal anymore once they decide tp change the meaning of marriage even though taditionally, historicallly, religiously speaking marriage was/is a contract/covenant between man and woman for the purpose of creating a loving and protective enviroment for children brought about by their sexual union.

actually the history is a little more sketchy than you think. The ancient Chinese & ancient Romans both had same sex marriages (even holding elaborate ceremonies for these events).

In ancient Roman society (as in ancient Greek society) marriage and divorce required no special ceremony and no special government or religious approval. During this period same sex marriages did happen (until 342 AD, when the practice was banned under Codex Theodosianus, a compilation of laws by Christian emperors who ruled between 312 and 342).

Therefore, you have no historical argument (moreover, the Romans were quite successful during their first six or seven centuries of history when they paid no special notice to whether or not gay people wanted to marry each other … yet soon after becoming Christianized the greatest empire the world has ever seen fell to a bunch of impoverished barbarians).

 

[yankee_doodle]

This country was founded by men who were far from zealous Christians. To the contrary most of them were deists (notably Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, and perhaps most famously Thomas Paine, who authored “The Age of Reason” which popularized deism in the colonies).

Take a read of Jefferson’s “Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” (where he exhibits the strong deist tendency of stripping away all the supernatural and dogmatic references from Jesus’ story).

The Age of Enlightenment (the precursor for our Declaration of Independence) is where concepts like individual freedom, democracy, self-governance, the application of reason, the revolutionary departure from monarchy, theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and the divine right of kings were formed. Yet you guys act as if western history is a product of Christianity.

Immanuel Kant was the quintessential enlightenment thinker … an absolute atheist. Francis Bacon, Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Leibniz, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Spinoza, Voltaire, etc. Pascal accused Descartes (who was born Roman Catholic) of harboring secret atheist or deist beliefs (and doing “his best to dispense with god” in his philosophy). David Hume is known to have been an atheist (who held back on making a public announcement of his views during his lifetime, in light of the likelihood he would be hanged or worse). Hobbes is also thought to have been atheist, Voltaire … atheist, Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism (called a writ of cherem), Locke IMO was a Christian (although a very soft-theist); and yes even Adam Smith was a religious skeptic (who was greatly influenced by Hume).

Oh yeah, all the founding fathers I mentioned above are considered enlightenment era heavy weights as well.

Gee wiz … even George Washington (although he was a regularly attending member of his Anglican church) held a very secular outlook and seemed to find kinship with deists (and there is considerable questions surrounding his religious perspectives). I’m struggling to find any of these so called fundamental Christians you guys keep saying founded our country; but guess what … there were virtually none.

Indeed it seems our founders would have viewed the growing influence and political power of the very dogmatic brand of fundamental protestantism found in the US these days & Catholicism a threat rather than a welcomed diversion from our so called wickedness.

 

[shoewindow3000]

As a former atheist, I know that one of the fundamental problems with atheism is that it views God as simply being “one of many.” Atheists see the Christian faith as being “equal to” any other faith on earth. Their argument falls along along the lines of, “why is your God any different than so-and-so’s god/gods?”

Well, here are just a few of the top of my head:​

(Note: They don’t necessarily intend to prove Christianity; rather, they attempt to give some examples of its uniqueness when compared against other religions of the world).​

1. It is based in history, whereas most religions make little or no historical claims.

2. Only Jesus ever claimed to be God. (or a god)

**3. **The places and events in the Bible are (unlike other faiths) always being confirmed by secular archaeology and history.

4. Jesus did not write one book in the Bible, even though he is the central figure of our faith.

5. Christianity is completely certain in its faith, and does not leave anything to be “vague,” or “uncertain” in terms of how to achieve its purpose(salvation).

6. Salvation is by faith; other religions teach it is by “good works or deeds.” (In other words, they say you save yourself.)

7. Grace. What this means is that, unlike other religions, our God’s love is “free of charge, no catch.” Only our Christian faith teaches that our God’s love is unconditional.

This is by no means a complete list or even a complex list. They were just the first things off the top of my head. (I am sure a real theologian or apologist can come up with much better unique attributes of Christianity.)​

Also, another problem that atheists have when criticizing Christianity is that they seem to not understand God as we do. In their criticisms they show a very minimal(if any) understanding of our theology and our scripture/tradition, creating a god in “their image and likeness.” They set up a “false” god, claim it as the God of Christianity, then knock it down. Hmm…

Now I know that the common response would be to nitpick at it with vague criticisms, so bring it on babe!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

As a former atheist, I know that one of the fundamental problems with atheism is that it views God as simply being “one of many.” Atheists see the Christian faith as being “equal to” any other faith on earth. Their argument falls along along the lines of, “why is your God any different than so-and-so’s god/gods?”

Well, here are just a few of the top of my head:​

(Note: They don’t necessarily intend to prove Christianity; rather, they attempt to give some examples of its uniqueness when compared against other religions of the world).​

1. It is based in history, whereas most religions make little or no historical claims.

2. Only Jesus ever claimed to be God. (or a god)

**3. **The places and events in the Bible are (unlike other faiths) always being confirmed by secular archaeology and history.

4. Jesus did not write one book in the Bible, even though he is the central figure of our faith.

5. Christianity is completely certain in its faith, and does not leave anything to be “vague,” or “uncertain” in terms of how to achieve its purpose(salvation).

6. Salvation is by faith; other religions teach it is by “good works or deeds.” (In other words, they say you save yourself.)

7. Grace. What this means is that, unlike other religions, our God’s love is “free of charge, no catch.” Only our Christian faith teaches that our God’s love is unconditional.

This is by no means a complete list or even a complex list. They were just the first things off the top of my head. (I am sure a real theologian or apologist can come up with much better unique attributes of Christianity.)​

Also, another problem that atheists have when criticizing Christianity is that they seem to not understand God as we do. In their criticisms they show a very minimal(if any) understanding of our theology and our scripture/tradition, creating a god in “their image and likeness.” They set up a “false” god, claim it as the God of Christianity, then knock it down. Hmm…

Now I know that the common response would be to nitpick at it with vague criticisms, so bring it on babe!

I don’t want to pick at anything, i would just like to say that non of the above constitutes any form of evidence.