///
I will never descend to the stupid position of believing in a god until some god gets up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself.
What idiotic or nasty behaviors did you adopt when you sunk to being a theist?
<>
Conservation of souls?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
I will never descend to the stupid position of believing in a god until some god gets up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself.
What idiotic or nasty behaviors did you adopt when you sunk to being a theist?
<>
The church builds god as a holy loving father in heaven
My nick name for god, aa artificial wrapper if you will, is Sky Daddy
And I invoke Shakespeare's rose in my defence
Last edited:
If everything is treasure, how can anything be special? Your view seems to diminish the quality of life rather than enhancing it.
The whole experience is special, Bob. That's why we have hospitals, to extend life.
That would make you a child of God, wouldn't it?
Then I guess we have to hope that your expecting God to humble Himself before your regality is not a stupid position.
As I said, if everything is special then nothing is really special. It's like giving every kid in the class a A+. There's no incentive to look for something extra special.
We have hospitals to extend life so we can look for the extra specials, not just so we can have more of the same old same old.
There's nothing wrong with enriching life's experiences. There's nothing wrong with enjoying everyday experiences. Opportunities for both are always with us. I'm exploring possibilities where I find myself recently, downtown...
https://thesquarepdx.org/
And there's no reason to attribute either to something "other".
That's the mistake, you view God as an "other." Nonetheless, attribution isn't a requirement, simply live.
Actually, no, you're the one who does that. You see people walking by and you call that evidence of God. That is something other. I see people waking by and they're people walking by. No need to tack on any "God".
External to nature; supernatural.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Taken at face-value, this sentence seems to contradict the notion of God.
Nooooo
That is a fantasy reserved for those who believe god is real
Atheists like myself see the Universe as being a result of physics
I would put it more as I am a product of the Universe (which not being any sort of entity has no idea of anything it produces). Expression for me has connotations of an intelligence behind the production
DaveC426913 said:
Jan, do you think that empiricism necessarily implies atheism? Or perhaps that theism implies a rejection of empiricism? Or both? How is it for you?
At the risk of jumping in, it is atheists who bring empiricism as a foundation for their critiques/beliefs.
IOW you are asking the wrong persons. You need to ask atheists whether empiricism necessarily implies atheism, etc, since they are the one's introducing it as the highest ontological platform, the means for defining key terms in the discussion, etc.
Asking "Why are you bringing empiricism to this discussion?" is not a rejection of empiricism (except perhaps in the minds of people who hold certain beliefs about it).
Last edited:
Sure, it's worth asking atheists, but I'm also interested in clarifying what Jan thinks.
And you? Would I be right in saying that you believe that empiricism won't get anybody to knowledge of God (specifically, his existence)? That is, that God can only be discerned via non-empirical methods of investigation?
What else is there, by the way? A priori assumption, perhaps? A magical (non-empirical) means of direct perception of the reality of God? Or some kind of philosophical argument, such as the Ontological Argument, perhaps?
What gets you to God, seeing as empiricism can't do the job?
And you? Would I be right in saying that you believe that empiricism won't get anybody to knowledge of God (specifically, his existence)? That is, that God can only be discerned via non-empirical methods of investigation?
What else is there, by the way? A priori assumption, perhaps? A magical (non-empirical) means of direct perception of the reality of God? Or some kind of philosophical argument, such as the Ontological Argument, perhaps?
What gets you to God, seeing as empiricism can't do the job?
Its more that there are a host of things that empiricism cannot deliver. God is but one of them.
We went over this before, discussing briefly the pros and cons specific of different epistemologies.
That discussion culminated in the example of the scope the Andaman Islanders have for recognizing the technological, cultural and political superiority of the Indian sovereignty they are currently existing under.
You concluded they would have no scope beyond a sort of primitive ruminating equivalent to "magic" which is necessarily inaccurate.
I concluded that they could potentially come to proper and full knowledge by appropriate reciprocation with Indian officials on the grounds established, 100%, by the said Indian officials.
Last edited:
How so? If there is a purpose to life, might it simply be to just live. Does there need to be any grandiose meaning to it? Think of all the things in life that have no meaning, yet they exist anyways, and they are quite beautiful just being what they are.
Physics being the result of what?
So your intelligence, emotions, and consciousness is the product of a stupid universe? Okay.I would put it more as I am a product of the Universe (which not being any sort of entity has no idea of anything it produces). Expression for me has connotations of an intelligence behind the production