Is Atheism Positive?

[tonyrey]

I’m agreeing with you, Charles. For the purpose of this discussion we both agree that the natural laws that God has put into place are miraculous. They have done everything. Formed suns and planets, galaxies, black holes, literally and unequivocally everything.

But you want life to be something other than that? Something that isn’t natural as God ordained? Why, for heaven’s sake? Why do you accept literally everything except life as being entirely natural (that is, obeying laws that God instigated and sustains)?

Why the need for this Kazam! moment? Why the need for something extra? You are arguing that God’s natural laws weren’t enough to produce life. We can still all agree that God did it (or not, as befits one’s particular belief). Is it that agreement with people who don’t have your beliefs is something to be avoided.

There’s no ‘Gotcha’ moment coming up. Charles. You are not being hoodwinked. All we atheists aren’t furiously PM-ing each other and suggesting ways to catch you out. It was nature, Charles. You believe it was and is controlled by God. I don’t. That’s all…

Incidentally, if you are posting reams and reams of quotes over and over again from Einstein and Sagan for my benefit, then here’s a heads-up. I stopped reading them a long time ago

Bloody hot. Just heading off to walk along the beach and follow the coastal path to a nearby beer garden. I think I prefer two coats of sunscreen rather than two layers of thermal underwear. Snow is only any use when it’s on the side of a hill that also has a ski lift.

It seems necessary to explain why natural laws exist instead of chaos. There seems no obvious reason why they exist - unless one believes in physical Necessity for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The real question is why anything exists, let alone nature…

 

[tonyrey]

When I was a staunch atheist I used to go around claiming it was better because it was closer to the truth since I didn’t think there was enough evidence for God. I probably would have argued that the pursuit of truth is a positive better than any personal gain, or something like that. You’d probably get a similar argument from most New Atheist types, which is what most atheists seem to be nowadays.

What is truth and how did it originate?

 

[Bradski]

Can you justify your faith in time alone as the supreme cause of all development…

I don’t have faith in it. I have, being a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated, reasonably normal human being, an understanding of the power of unimaginable time. That it can do the most astonishing things. Turn dust into stars into galaxies. Turn microbes into man. Turn Man into…God literally only knows.

But it’s all as we describe as NATURAL. And if you want to believe that God controls nature, then I have no problem with that. It doesn’t change anything.

Which appears to be a problem for such as yourself and Charles. How DARE we agree with you on HOW we are here yet disagree on the why…

 

[tonyrey]

You cannot define something to your liking. Or… you can but don’t be surprised if no one takes you or your “definitions” seriously.

On what criteria do you base your definitions?

 

[tonyrey]

So who says it includes being able to control what happens after they are created? You don’t.

Omnipotence implies the power to share power!

 

[Bradski]

It seems necessary to explain why natural laws exist instead of chaos. There seems no obvious reason why they exist - unless one believes in physical Necessity for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The real question is why anything exists, let alone nature…

God created it. For the purpose of this discussion…God created it. But we still call them natural laws. As you just did.

But when life came into being…well, that’s not natural! That’s something we don’t yet understand, so it must be…supernatural!

You seem to desperately need the Kazam! moment.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t have faith in it. I have, being a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated, reasonably normal human being, an understanding of the power of unimaginable time. That it can do the most astonishing things. Turn dust into stars into galaxies. Turn microbes into man. Turn Man into…God literally only knows.

But it’s all as we describe as NATURAL. And if you want to believe that God controls nature, then I have no problem with that. It doesn’t change anything…

Are there any limits to the power of time? If not why not?

 

[Bradski]

Omnipotence implies the power to share power!

Omnipotence IMPLIES something?

What exactly is your definition of the word. And I can’t believe I have to ask that of a Christian.

 

[Bradski]

Are there any limits to the power of time? If not why not?

Bloody hell, Tony. Make a point. Construct an argument. Specify a point of view. Stop asking everyone else to answer non sequiturs. Can you do that? If not, why not?

 

[tonyrey]

It seems necessary to explain why natural laws exist instead of chaos. There seems no obvious reason why they exist - unless one believes in physical Necessity for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The real question is why anything exists, let alone nature…

Labels are unhelpful - and what I need is irrelevant anyway

For the purpose of this discussion “Is Atheism Positive?” God didn’t create life or anything else. The real question remains intact: why does anything exist? Or if you prefer, how does everything - or anything - exist?

 

[tonyrey]

Are there any limits to the power of time? If not why not?

What you regard as “non sequiturs” are fundamental questions. If you prefer not to answer them you are obviously entitled not to do so - calmly… The issue is whether atheism is positive - which takes us back to basics.

 

[Bradski]

Labels are unhelpful - and what I need is irrelevant anyway

For the purpose of this discussion “Is Atheism Positive?” God didn’t create life or anything else. The real question remains intact: why does anything exist? Or if you prefer, how does everything - or anything - exist?

I’ll accept that God created it all. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s go with that. Maybe He did.

Which makes everything Natural or Supernatural. Or do you think we can divide existence into those two separate ideas?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll accept that God created it all. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s go with that. Maybe He did.

In which case atheism is not positive because it is false - although it has redeeming features like purifying primitive notions of God.

Which makes everything Natural or Supernatural. Or do you think we can divide existence into those two separate ideas?

I believe we can and should for at least three reasons:

1. Nature doesn’t seem capable of explaining itself.
2. Our power over nature seems supernatural.
3. Evil often seems diabolical and has no natural explanation.

BTW I lived in the tropics for many years and remember how at first the heat sometimes made me more intemperate! The Africans looked at me in amazement when I “lost my cool” in both senses of the term…

 

[tonyrey]

This is just my lowly mortal opinion, but if I knew my creations would need one pathway in their bodies to be clear at all times, I would probably make sure that they’d never need to force anything down it, especially not several times a day.

Most Christians don’t believe Creation was a direct, once-for-all affair but a process of development in which there are bound to be anomalies. The Catechism puts it neatly:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What is truth and how did it originate?

I’m not sure. I don’t believe that anymore, and I don’t think about it much now.

 

[Bradski]

1. Nature doesn’t seem capable of explaining itself.

Ye gods. Ok. We’ll go with God. God created nature. God created Natural Laws.

But that means we can still call it natural. Melting ice, mountains, evolution, life…it’s all natural.

 

[zyzz]

On what criteria do you base your definitions?

Why do you call them “MY” definitions? I don’t “own” them, I did not create them. Words in and of themselves have no “intrinsic” meaning. They are just a collection of vowels and consonants, nothing more. If you think otherwise, tell me what is the “intrinsic” meaning of the word “losadhfowuon”?

Words gain meaning according to mutual agreement. If we ALL would agree that from now on the word “right” will be associated with the concept of “left” and vice-versa, then the “meaning” of “right” would change. Definitions do not exist apart from us. We have concepts and assign them “names”.

Charlie tries to create “personal” definitions, and is surprised when others will not go along with them. Specifically “omnipotence”, which has no precise meaning.

Labels are unhelpful - and what I need is irrelevant anyway

You gotta be kidding. Labels unhelpful??? Labels are the way we communicate with each other.

For the purpose of this discussion “Is Atheism Positive?” God didn’t create life or anything else. The real question remains intact: why does anything exist? Or if you prefer, how does everything - or anything - exist?

On the very contrary, according to Bradski’s generous concession, things exist because God created them.

The funny thing is that you (not personally) keep of vacillating between “natural” and “supernatural”. But when you say that God “created” something, it makes the word “natural” meaningless. If something is “created”, it is artificial, and not natural. And before anyone jumps in and asks, these are the “mutually agreed upon meanings of these words”.

But this assertion is so ridiculous that not even believers would dare to say it. So they play fast and loose with the meaning of “natural” and “supernatural”.

I believe we can and should for at least three reasons:

1. Nature doesn’t seem capable of explaining itself.
2. Our power over nature seems supernatural.
3. Evil often seems diabolical and has no natural explanation.

I took the liberty to highlight the operating word: “seems”. Not much of an argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

Most Christians don’t believe Creation was a direct, once-for-all affair but a process of development in which there are bound to be anomalies. The Catechism puts it neatly:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

But I have addressed this point already. As I said to Charlemagne, I know the typical Christian response is that our flaws exist as “moral obstacles” in this test of life God has given us. But in what way does making breathing more difficult challenge me morally? In what way does making my memory poor assess my morality? If anything these are factors that diminish the quality of the test, much like having students take a test next to a noisy construction site would make it difficult to gauge their understanding.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure. I don’t believe that anymore, and I don’t think about it much now.

At least you’re honest! I’m sorry to say that if you don’t believe in truth there’s no point in discussing anything - but the way we live is the best test of what we believe. If you believe in love, for example, the rest can take care of itself.

So be of good cheer for the NewYear!

 

[tonyrey]

1. Nature doesn’t seem capable of explaining itself.

I agree - with the proviso that we also have supernatural power. As Pascal pointed out, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know anything about anything, let alone us! We also have the power of self-control - when we choose to use it - can resist temptation (usually), we are capable of hindsight, insight and foresight, we can distinguish between good and evil, understand and accept the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - and choose to die for people we have never met if , for example, we believe they will be the victims of a terrorist attack. We tend to underestimate the goodness in most people because we have never met them and evil is so much more striking, spectacular and newsworthy…

On that happy note I wish you and all our forum members throughout the world, active and passive, a very happy and peaceful New Year…