S
sevenswords
Guest
Just to edit, I recommended to watch this when you have time to give a bit of thought to it.
Last edited:
- Status
M
MarthaSo
Guest
I saw this some time ago. I find her sincere and intelligent. She has written a few books. I’m not fond of her media personality she’s not very humble and I’m aware that makes me sound judgemental. (I just compare everyone to St Therese) I’m glad she’s done talks and interviews and I’ve no doubt she has at least gotten some atheists to reconsider their stance because she’s been there and from what I recall answers some of the arguments she herself used against Christianity. I haven’t followed her lately, I think she has a radio show.
H
HeDa
Guest
Every human being asks questions like “Who am I and where am I going?”, “Why am I here on planet earth?”, “Is there a God?”, “What if there is something after death?” or “Am I just going to end up as worm food? Is that the meaning of life?” sometime during their time on earth. This is part of being a human being. Those who believe in God have been given “a set of tools” that is different than those who do not believe in God. The tools are there for us to use during our lifetime. There are lots of people now who have grown up and never asked themselves similar questions. Or even asked one and it got to scary and then never dared to find out the answer to the other questions. No wonder there are so many with mental health problems. The outlook on life will be very different if a person looks forward to spending eternity with Christ or if the person believes that he or she will end up as worm food and that’s it. The only one we can’t run away from is ourselves.
S
sevenswords
Guest
I agree, I am a convert well cradle Catholic and my experience was one of God never came into a conversation and that,s as much as I thought about him.I was going down hill by the age of 30 with just being lost and Jesus Christ our blessed Lord came to me one night and the next morning I woke up a believer, I never even asked for help! so I believe I was a recipient of prayer from someone who loved me enough to ask for my conversion.
D
Damian
Guest
As an atheist, couple of points just 5 minutes into it.
There is no -ism to being an atheist. There is no world view, leadership, philosophy, tenants, dogma, etc. to it. It just as single position to a single question. Have you been convinced that the supernatural exists yet as part of reality, not a cultural practice, but actually part of reality? If you say no, you are an atheist. That’s it. It’s the failure of other people’s arguments and the lack of any supernatural evidence presented to the person that keeps that person at the default position of not believing a claim about reality until they are convinced. Atheists are not saying there is no god, just there is not good reason to believe there is a god yet. Like how I say that I believe there are not gods in the same way I believe there are no fairies. Again, it’s the “there are no good reasons to believe god(s) exist yet.” I didn’t actually claim to know there is no god(s) did I?
If there is an -ism to being an atheist, then there is an -ism to the jury conclusion of “not-guilty” as well. Not being convinced of someone’s bad arguments and bad presentation does not mean you have a world view around that conclusion. What is the political view, world view, education level, etc. to any of the jury members that concluded guilty or not guilty? You can’t know that based on that feedback, it’s not possible.
There are many world views that tend to have atheists in them, like skepticism or philosophical naturalism, but you can still be spiritual and/or religious and be part of those world views as well.
Belief is not a choice you make. It’s the result of the equation. Some world views make it easier for people to accept certain claims and others do not. Such as mysticism makes it easier for people to accept that spells and curses and magic actually exist. Other world views, like skepticism make ideas like the supernatural and magic really hard to justify. So if someone presents the claim of A + B = C; the A and B are just observed truths of reality, the + and = are our applied logic and/or world view, C is just the result of that combination. You can’t help but land on C. So someone presenting the same thing of A and B, but using a different world view, will not land on C unless more information is presented. Easy example: Sitting + Chair = Sitting in a chair. Now choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t. It’s not possible. If your culture insists that you are not sitting in a chair, then you can lie to them till they believe you believe it, but you can not lie to yourself.
There is no -ism to being an atheist. There is no world view, leadership, philosophy, tenants, dogma, etc. to it. It just as single position to a single question. Have you been convinced that the supernatural exists yet as part of reality, not a cultural practice, but actually part of reality? If you say no, you are an atheist. That’s it. It’s the failure of other people’s arguments and the lack of any supernatural evidence presented to the person that keeps that person at the default position of not believing a claim about reality until they are convinced. Atheists are not saying there is no god, just there is not good reason to believe there is a god yet. Like how I say that I believe there are not gods in the same way I believe there are no fairies. Again, it’s the “there are no good reasons to believe god(s) exist yet.” I didn’t actually claim to know there is no god(s) did I?
If there is an -ism to being an atheist, then there is an -ism to the jury conclusion of “not-guilty” as well. Not being convinced of someone’s bad arguments and bad presentation does not mean you have a world view around that conclusion. What is the political view, world view, education level, etc. to any of the jury members that concluded guilty or not guilty? You can’t know that based on that feedback, it’s not possible.
There are many world views that tend to have atheists in them, like skepticism or philosophical naturalism, but you can still be spiritual and/or religious and be part of those world views as well.
Belief is not a choice you make. It’s the result of the equation. Some world views make it easier for people to accept certain claims and others do not. Such as mysticism makes it easier for people to accept that spells and curses and magic actually exist. Other world views, like skepticism make ideas like the supernatural and magic really hard to justify. So if someone presents the claim of A + B = C; the A and B are just observed truths of reality, the + and = are our applied logic and/or world view, C is just the result of that combination. You can’t help but land on C. So someone presenting the same thing of A and B, but using a different world view, will not land on C unless more information is presented. Easy example: Sitting + Chair = Sitting in a chair. Now choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t. It’s not possible. If your culture insists that you are not sitting in a chair, then you can lie to them till they believe you believe it, but you can not lie to yourself.
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
Most atheists are materialists since they are using philosophical naturalism to understand what is justified to believe. You can believe anything you want, just you may not be justified to hold that belief yet. All of what we can study is only this natural existence, so until you can demonstrate that the supernatural is there at all, it is not allowed to be a possible solution for anything at all. That is why the supernatural is removed from the lab as a solution to why the cancer went into remission, why someone’s personality changed for the better, why someone’s life improved for the better, etc.
You can imagine all you want for possible solutions to problems and have the logic be internally consistent, but that still doesn’t mean you are actually factually correct when tested against what reality gives you. Reality is the bar for the truth of what is actually possible, not your logical hypothesis. Every hypothesis was also logically correct, but how many are discovered to be factually wrong when you tested it against reality?
When ever religious people don’t know something they throw it in the bucket of “supernatural” as an explanation instead of the bucket of “I don’t know.” It’s the “I don’t know” that is actually the justified belief to conclude there since we can not demonstrate the supernatural bucket is there at all at this point.
You can imagine all you want for possible solutions to problems and have the logic be internally consistent, but that still doesn’t mean you are actually factually correct when tested against what reality gives you. Reality is the bar for the truth of what is actually possible, not your logical hypothesis. Every hypothesis was also logically correct, but how many are discovered to be factually wrong when you tested it against reality?
When ever religious people don’t know something they throw it in the bucket of “supernatural” as an explanation instead of the bucket of “I don’t know.” It’s the “I don’t know” that is actually the justified belief to conclude there since we can not demonstrate the supernatural bucket is there at all at this point.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Atheism.
A-theos-ism.
No-gods-believer. Or without-gods-believer.
Now, back to the thread’s point.
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
Gnostic and Agnostic are claims of knowledge.
Theist and Atheist are claims about belief.
Yes both are degrees of certainty.
First hand experience of an event would be about as certain as anyone can initially be. For example, I drive my car in to a tree. I know I did this.
Second hand experience is being convinced about something in reality that you didn’t actually directly experience. Such as my brother believes my story that I drove my car into a tree.
I have the burden of proof when I claim I know something to be true to reality.
My brother does not have a burden of proof when he claims to believe my story that I ran my car into the tree as that was what actually happened since he is not making a statement about that event, only a statement about my ability to convince him that happened. He still knows that he could be wrong there.
So you can be
1: an agnostic atheist - what we’re all born to. Since you neither know this to be true or have yet to be convinced that it is true. “weak atheist”
2: an agnostic theist - your basic jew. Culturally religious but don’t know if the supernatural is there or not.
3: a gnostic atheist - “strong atheist” they are making a positive claim about reality that no supernatural exists and they have a burden of proof to present here.
4: a gnostic theist - basic bible thumper. they are also making a positive claim about reality that the supernatural does exists and have a burden of proof to present here.
Example: Jar of gumballs that no one can investigate. It is logical to conclude that there is either an even or odd number of gumballs. Theist A is claiming there is an even number of gumballs. The atheist says, I don’t believe you are justified to conclude that and I am not convinced of your position. Theist B is claiming there is an odd number of gumballs. The atheist says the exact same thing to them. What is the atheist position on the gumballs? They didn’t make one. They only responded to an unjustified position that the theist is making. Who has the burden of proof for their positive claim about the reality of the jar of gumballs to defend?
Theist and Atheist are claims about belief.
Yes both are degrees of certainty.
First hand experience of an event would be about as certain as anyone can initially be. For example, I drive my car in to a tree. I know I did this.
Second hand experience is being convinced about something in reality that you didn’t actually directly experience. Such as my brother believes my story that I drove my car into a tree.
I have the burden of proof when I claim I know something to be true to reality.
My brother does not have a burden of proof when he claims to believe my story that I ran my car into the tree as that was what actually happened since he is not making a statement about that event, only a statement about my ability to convince him that happened. He still knows that he could be wrong there.
So you can be
1: an agnostic atheist - what we’re all born to. Since you neither know this to be true or have yet to be convinced that it is true. “weak atheist”
2: an agnostic theist - your basic jew. Culturally religious but don’t know if the supernatural is there or not.
3: a gnostic atheist - “strong atheist” they are making a positive claim about reality that no supernatural exists and they have a burden of proof to present here.
4: a gnostic theist - basic bible thumper. they are also making a positive claim about reality that the supernatural does exists and have a burden of proof to present here.
Example: Jar of gumballs that no one can investigate. It is logical to conclude that there is either an even or odd number of gumballs. Theist A is claiming there is an even number of gumballs. The atheist says, I don’t believe you are justified to conclude that and I am not convinced of your position. Theist B is claiming there is an odd number of gumballs. The atheist says the exact same thing to them. What is the atheist position on the gumballs? They didn’t make one. They only responded to an unjustified position that the theist is making. Who has the burden of proof for their positive claim about the reality of the jar of gumballs to defend?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Or perhaps you’re asking the wrong question.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Theist: There must be an even or odd number of gumballs in there, as (1) there are clearly gumballs and (2) all integers are either even or odd.
Atheist: But how can you make such a claim about reality? It’s irrational to believe that the number of gumballs must be even or odd without evidence!
D
Damian
Guest
To her point about her father saying, Don’t believe something just because your told that. For social unity you can teach kids the social accepted behaviors for society, like how they must wear clothes before they run out of the house; even though its an extreme example of women’s argument of, “My bare shoulders are not my problem that you can’t focus on your school work or an allowance for you to treat me as any thing less than polite or for you to put your hands on me.”
But teaching people how to think about why something is the social norm is important so that we can all understand where the root of the issue is for why our society segregates men and women, black and white, etc. and see if there is patriarchy, racism, power imbalance, etc. just for power instead of a truth to the issue. If you can’t be justified in your beliefs, then you need to acknowledge that it is a “non-optional cultural practice” and just be that. If you can have a justification for your beliefs, then you are closer to understanding universal norms of humanity regardless of your power position, race, gender, country of birth, etc.
But teaching people how to think about why something is the social norm is important so that we can all understand where the root of the issue is for why our society segregates men and women, black and white, etc. and see if there is patriarchy, racism, power imbalance, etc. just for power instead of a truth to the issue. If you can’t be justified in your beliefs, then you need to acknowledge that it is a “non-optional cultural practice” and just be that. If you can have a justification for your beliefs, then you are closer to understanding universal norms of humanity regardless of your power position, race, gender, country of birth, etc.
D
Damian
Guest
Jar of gumballs is already assumed to be available for everyone to observe. The unjustified position is to the even or odd part of the gumballs. That’s all the analogy is there to easily point out. When people have claims of truth that are actually unjustified.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Yes, and I rephrased your analogy to illustrate how atheists completely miss the point and the irrational levels of skepticism involved.
Though we’re both oversimplifying.
D
Damian
Guest
Relativism - this gets to areas of where we can have benign disagreements about the truth of specific questions. Like, in reference to nutrition. It’s benign to argue over eating apples is better than eating pears. So my truth of liking apples better is not your truth of liking pears better. However, no one, in the reference of nutrition, is arguing that you shouldn’t eat fruit.
So with morality, once you pick your subjective reference point. Religious people pick bob the deity, non religious people typically go with Human Well-being. Now you can have objective and subjective truths from that reference point. It is subjective to kiss your spouse in the morning or to hug them. But it is objectively true that you need to show them love in a way they understand they are being loved. This hits on the brokenness of the Golden Rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Okay, would you show love to your spouse the way you told them you like to feel loved or would you love them in ways they told you they like to feel loved? The better rule is, “Treat others the way THEY want to be treated.” You are not them. So listen to their needs. But as to objective and subjective good and bad, in reference to Human well-being it is objectively bad to have patriarchy and treat women and children as property. It is objectively good to ensure everyone is treated equally under the law. Same with the nutrition example, it is objectively good to eat fruit to promote nutrition, but objectively bad to drink battery acid.
So with morality, once you pick your subjective reference point. Religious people pick bob the deity, non religious people typically go with Human Well-being. Now you can have objective and subjective truths from that reference point. It is subjective to kiss your spouse in the morning or to hug them. But it is objectively true that you need to show them love in a way they understand they are being loved. This hits on the brokenness of the Golden Rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Okay, would you show love to your spouse the way you told them you like to feel loved or would you love them in ways they told you they like to feel loved? The better rule is, “Treat others the way THEY want to be treated.” You are not them. So listen to their needs. But as to objective and subjective good and bad, in reference to Human well-being it is objectively bad to have patriarchy and treat women and children as property. It is objectively good to ensure everyone is treated equally under the law. Same with the nutrition example, it is objectively good to eat fruit to promote nutrition, but objectively bad to drink battery acid.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Is human well-being in itself a mind-independent objective good?
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Has CAFMod been hacked?
P
Pattylt
Guest
Seem so 
. He’s spamming multiple threads.
. He’s spamming multiple threads.
D
Damian
Guest
I see what you’re pointing out there. The atheist would also agree there is a third option to land on, “Even or odd can not be determined yet, so the honest answer is, We don’t know.” The atheists understand the reality of the situation has an answer, but not enough information is given for you to make a determination of even or odd at all. Just like if you flip a coin but can not look at the result. It is either heads or tails, but until you actually look, what is the justified answer for the conclusion before you looked? It’s “I don’t know”. It’s not Heads or Tails as a response, right?
Yes something either exists or it doesn’t. But if you can’t actually determine either way, the honest answer is “I don’t know.” and based on the claim in reference to what reality has actually demonstrated as possible, you can have a justified answer of, “No it doesn’t exist since reality has not demonstrated that is even possible at all yet.” No the supernatural doesn’t exist in the same certainty and reasons for stating Fairies dont exist. Reality has yet to demonstrate that magic is even a possibility of this reality at all.
Yes something either exists or it doesn’t. But if you can’t actually determine either way, the honest answer is “I don’t know.” and based on the claim in reference to what reality has actually demonstrated as possible, you can have a justified answer of, “No it doesn’t exist since reality has not demonstrated that is even possible at all yet.” No the supernatural doesn’t exist in the same certainty and reasons for stating Fairies dont exist. Reality has yet to demonstrate that magic is even a possibility of this reality at all.
Last edited:
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
From what I have seen, when atheists begin to integrate their life experiences into a framework of deeper meaning, they often experience a process of conversion leading them to the conclusion that God exists and that life has purpose. It has also been my experience that these two realities, that God exists and that life has purpose, are what atheists resist the most. Indeed, simply stating this often evokes their harshest opposition and condemnation since it confronts them with exactly that which they are trying to avoid.
Many atheists live their lives failing to grasp the full point of that living. Because they perceive, think, act, and feel primarily in terms of dualities, compartmentalizing their experiences into two categories according to what may be proven or disproven. Because of this, much is overlooked. It seems to be their singular goal to remain in a darkness of sorts, in a place in which is missed in the purpose of existence. This protects them form any grasp of the oneness, the totality, the eternal which is interwoven throughout life and hints of their own place in eternity.
Atheists willfully seek to avoid such deeper meaning as they anticipate nothing at the end of life but an ultimate, cold, icy and entropic end. But life has a way of intruding upon this self-created womb of nothingness. For the interlopers of death, destruction, and chaos leaves one confused, angry, fearful, and frustrated, especially if devoid of meaning. Likewise, the joyful events of life and the reality of love can be equally challenging, calling one to explore their full meaning in the continuum of life and the afterlife. But for the devout atheist, the eyes must remain closed to such exploration of meaning. For such a quest for meaning carries with it the dangerous possibility of faith.
Many atheists live their lives failing to grasp the full point of that living. Because they perceive, think, act, and feel primarily in terms of dualities, compartmentalizing their experiences into two categories according to what may be proven or disproven. Because of this, much is overlooked. It seems to be their singular goal to remain in a darkness of sorts, in a place in which is missed in the purpose of existence. This protects them form any grasp of the oneness, the totality, the eternal which is interwoven throughout life and hints of their own place in eternity.
Atheists willfully seek to avoid such deeper meaning as they anticipate nothing at the end of life but an ultimate, cold, icy and entropic end. But life has a way of intruding upon this self-created womb of nothingness. For the interlopers of death, destruction, and chaos leaves one confused, angry, fearful, and frustrated, especially if devoid of meaning. Likewise, the joyful events of life and the reality of love can be equally challenging, calling one to explore their full meaning in the continuum of life and the afterlife. But for the devout atheist, the eyes must remain closed to such exploration of meaning. For such a quest for meaning carries with it the dangerous possibility of faith.
Last edited:
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Apparently, use of the term Atheism is well established in history. It’s rather shocking to find out that the great minds of history were all using the term in error. Thanks for setting us straight.
Last edited:
- Status