Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's no believe of mine, I take those facts from scripture and theists. Both say that god is omnipotent and omniwhatever.
Deities do or do not exist?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
It's no believe of mine, I take those facts from scripture and theists. Both say that god is omnipotent and omniwhatever.
Signal,
Which, when scrutinized is another way of saying I believe "God does not exist", but you didn't hear it from me, as it would be intellectual suicide to air it. Or, I believe "God does exist", but I do not want to make the acknowledgement (for whatever reason). This is my opinion.
I cannot see how it is possible to live life as an agnostic, one must fall into either camp, at various times.
Agnosticism seems only to be an intellectual position.
Even theists look for evidence, this is what folks like Enmos fail to understand. I believe in God, but would undoubtedly welcome the same
evidence as Enmos. Some atheists seem to think that theists are steadfast in the subjective knowledge of their beliefs, only coming to their theistic conclusion through culture, or blind-faith.
Theists also have the potential to change within their beliefs due to experience.
I suppose it could be said that western civilisation is based on agnosticism.
That is to say, it picks and chooses its theism to suit itself.
jan.
Which, when scrutinized is another way of saying I believe "God does not exist", but you didn't hear it from me, as it would be intellectual suicide to air it. Or, I believe "God does exist", but I do not want to make the acknowledgement (for whatever reason). This is my opinion.
I cannot see how it is possible to live life as an agnostic, one must fall into either camp, at various times.
Agnosticism seems only to be an intellectual position.
Even theists look for evidence, this is what folks like Enmos fail to understand. I believe in God, but would undoubtedly welcome the same
evidence as Enmos. Some atheists seem to think that theists are steadfast in the subjective knowledge of their beliefs, only coming to their theistic conclusion through culture, or blind-faith.
Theists also have the potential to change within their beliefs due to experience.
I suppose it could be said that western civilisation is based on agnosticism.
That is to say, it picks and chooses its theism to suit itself.
jan.
I don't know; I know religion is dying but for some reason it makes me sad, since there is alot of great architecture, celebration, art, etc, from that.
Jan: this is why it is a belief, not not a truth or fact. As long as you recognize that your belief is only a belief, then you're fine.
Religion isn't dying, religious institutes are changing according to the changing times, place, and circumstance. They always have.
Theism is the belief, religion is the practice, and God is the truth (aim).
Fine with whom?
jan.
Which is why I find it very interesting how many Americans are turning to belief in native American deities, Alien Overlords like Xenu The Intergalactic Warlord and many find Buddhism appealing.
SAM:
Yes, it does. Look, SAM, I know you are trying to imply that atheists assert the unreasonable position that the existence of gods is impossible. I have just explained to you that most atheists do not hold any such position. Instead of addressing the issue, you choose to discuss syntax. Isn't it about time you showed a little intellectual honesty?
Also, time to start thinking for yourself rather than spamming a collection of somebody else's ill-thought-out religious apologetics. You're smarter than this guy, surely:
This, of course, is nothing but a bullying ad hominem. What is clear is that the brain dead moron who wrote this has a lot to learn about the subtleties of the English language. Moreover, this brain dead moron also obviously prefers to ignore the actual issue in order to erect a straw-man version of atheist arguments that he can then more easily knock down.
These examples just serve to emphasise the writer's failure to get the point. Atheists do not claim to have no beliefs about god(s) existing; that is a straw man.
While an everyday, careless use of language may equate "I do not believe the mail has arrived" and "I believe the mail has not arrived", in a precise definitional argument it may be important to distinguish these two statements. The former may well mean "I haven't checked the mail, so I can't say for sure whether it has arrived or not", whereas the latter expresses the clear opinion "The postman hasn't delivered the mail yet."
You should get back to this writer, SAM, and correct his misconceptions about English.
SAM said:
Yes, it does. Look, SAM, I know you are trying to imply that atheists assert the unreasonable position that the existence of gods is impossible. I have just explained to you that most atheists do not hold any such position. Instead of addressing the issue, you choose to discuss syntax. Isn't it about time you showed a little intellectual honesty?
Also, time to start thinking for yourself rather than spamming a collection of somebody else's ill-thought-out religious apologetics. You're smarter than this guy, surely:
This, of course, is nothing but a bullying ad hominem. What is clear is that the brain dead moron who wrote this has a lot to learn about the subtleties of the English language. Moreover, this brain dead moron also obviously prefers to ignore the actual issue in order to erect a straw-man version of atheist arguments that he can then more easily knock down.
These examples just serve to emphasise the writer's failure to get the point. Atheists do not claim to have no beliefs about god(s) existing; that is a straw man.
While an everyday, careless use of language may equate "I do not believe the mail has arrived" and "I believe the mail has not arrived", in a precise definitional argument it may be important to distinguish these two statements. The former may well mean "I haven't checked the mail, so I can't say for sure whether it has arrived or not", whereas the latter expresses the clear opinion "The postman hasn't delivered the mail yet."
You should get back to this writer, SAM, and correct his misconceptions about English.
Perhaps you should contact the grammarians and inform them that transferred negation is now defunct. Meanwhile the only definitional arguments here are from atheists who are not even willing to be honest enough to say that they believe deities do not exist, while accusing others of dishonesty.
Other:
I am an atheist and I know all human claims of deities are false, but I don't know whether or not there are undiscovered life forms that would appear to be deities to us; however, given my knowledge about reality I'll speculate that such a life form is not likely to exist.
I am an atheist and I know all human claims of deities are false, but I don't know whether or not there are undiscovered life forms that would appear to be deities to us; however, given my knowledge about reality I'll speculate that such a life form is not likely to exist.
The options on the poll are a contradiction. It is impossible for an atheist to believe that deities may exist. Atheism is the belief that dieties do not exist.
You wouldn't believe what atheism covers these days. There are some religious atheists on this forum.
You have now had this matter clearly and explicitly explained, with examples. It is not a grammarian's problem. It is a failure of the stubborn to avail themselves of instruction in basic logic. Existential implication changes under transferred negation. Existential implication is the central issue of this discussion.SAM said:
Stop trying to tell people what they believe, OK? Obviously it is possible that anyone may be in error, and that the unknown future may yield the unforeseen and unimagined. If these unavoidables exclude atheism, then there are no atheistic people. Then you need to invent a word to cover what "atheist" used to cover. That seems a waste of time - I'll call you theist, even though you have doubts occasionally, and you call me atheist, even though I acknowledge the obvious realities of human judgment, 'K?lixluke said:
"Atheistic" has covered all of this for a very long time. That you are encountering that fact for the first time does not make it novel. It's never too late to get a good liberal arts education.SAM said:
Don't you guys ever get tired for this same argument? It's the 21st century.
On the one hand, for the theists, doesn't it just seem a little silly, with all we know of science, and history, that personified "entities" exist, watching over us, looking out for us, that have our interests, and plans and destinies drawn up for our lives in advance, with rules and codes of conduct and "holy messengers," prophets, and holy books that have let us know how we must live? Doesn't this all seem just a little far fetched?
And on the other hand, for the atheists, haven't you lived enough, and studied enough, and seen enough in your life to understand that not everthing is explanable by an unconscious universe? A few courses in college statistics, and a couple decades of life should be able to tell you that much. If you are able to calculate the odds of some of that crazy shit that will happen in your own life, "coincedences" happen far too often, and are way too against the odds, to be meere chance occurances of random happenstance. Has no one here ever experienced deja vue? Had premonitions of bad or good things that have been or were going to be? Why is the topic even being debated ask yourself? Why do religions, psychics, ghosts, astrology, and all of this related stuff exist throughout the centuries? If you think there are "scientific" explanations for these things that are beyond the bounds of a united conscious universe that we are all a part of, you just haven't lived long enough.
It is time to get past the "man or woman in the sky" paradigm people.
It's also time to get past the, "if I can't measure it, if I can't register it, if I can't quantify it and reproduce it, it doesn't exist" paradigm. YOU are it, and one with it all. Every molecule and particle in your body, and every bit that you eat drink and breath, and every piece of matter and energy around you is also conscious. Thoughts ARE things, and the sooner you get used to the idea there is no deity, AND there is more then just cold hard physical laws that govern our reality, the sooner we can create a new paradigm of existence that respects ALL life and humanity.
On the one hand, for the theists, doesn't it just seem a little silly, with all we know of science, and history, that personified "entities" exist, watching over us, looking out for us, that have our interests, and plans and destinies drawn up for our lives in advance, with rules and codes of conduct and "holy messengers," prophets, and holy books that have let us know how we must live? Doesn't this all seem just a little far fetched?
And on the other hand, for the atheists, haven't you lived enough, and studied enough, and seen enough in your life to understand that not everthing is explanable by an unconscious universe? A few courses in college statistics, and a couple decades of life should be able to tell you that much. If you are able to calculate the odds of some of that crazy shit that will happen in your own life, "coincedences" happen far too often, and are way too against the odds, to be meere chance occurances of random happenstance. Has no one here ever experienced deja vue? Had premonitions of bad or good things that have been or were going to be? Why is the topic even being debated ask yourself? Why do religions, psychics, ghosts, astrology, and all of this related stuff exist throughout the centuries? If you think there are "scientific" explanations for these things that are beyond the bounds of a united conscious universe that we are all a part of, you just haven't lived long enough.
It is time to get past the "man or woman in the sky" paradigm people.
It's also time to get past the, "if I can't measure it, if I can't register it, if I can't quantify it and reproduce it, it doesn't exist" paradigm. YOU are it, and one with it all. Every molecule and particle in your body, and every bit that you eat drink and breath, and every piece of matter and energy around you is also conscious. Thoughts ARE things, and the sooner you get used to the idea there is no deity, AND there is more then just cold hard physical laws that govern our reality, the sooner we can create a new paradigm of existence that respects ALL life and humanity.
What aspect of the universe requires consciousness? Doesn't consciousness exist in the universe as us and other life forms? Why does this particular quality of life need to be a quality shared by the vastness of space and matter we call the universe?
Are you missing the fact that I don't believe in god ?
You're conscious self says you don't believe in anything. . . and yet, you have vast wells of sympathy for the beauty of nature and all it's living things.
This indicates to me, you are a conscious part, and very aware of creation. If it was all meaningless, and with out a conscious wholeness, and you weren't connected to it all, it wouldn't bother you. So no, we may not call the universal consciousness "god" b/c it engenders anthropomorphic ideas and characteristics. But failing that, what is the point of caring for the rest of creation with out a living consciousness that connects us all to creation? Otherwise, isn't it all just so much "meat?"
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Question: why does it matter whether atheists believe there are no gods or if happen not to believe in any gods. Just say whether you believe they don't exist, or you don't believe in any that exist. The word doesnt doesn't matter. What you believe matters.
Shun creations of hype that try to pigeonhole an entire group of people based on a single expression that is used, as this poll does.
Shun creations of hype that try to pigeonhole an entire group of people based on a single expression that is used, as this poll does.
Thought thinking. Thought aware of itself. Thought creating more thought.
It's a threat detection and response system.