|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of an atheist. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
And to be a Christian theist you must believe that the universe and life evolved naturally from whatever God made at t='7 days'.
Or failing a literal interpretation, you believe that it proceeded naturally from t='whenever God did it' (naturally meaning "if you ignore the whole thing about Jesus' miracles stuff"). See, there's no difference at all in that department. So, our beliefs must be based on something external to that, and it is the conclusion we reach on that externality which makes us shoehorn our opinion on origins. And no, the situation is not the same for the atheist, because atheism is the default position.The case has to be made for somebody to believe in something. If you don't make a case for Christianity, they won't be a Christian; if you don't argue the side for Islam, they won't be a Muslim; and so on, all the way through. If you are not taught anything, you won't become anything - if you aren't taught to believe, you won't believe, and you become an atheist. That is, all things being equal. Some crazy personal experience might drive you to thinking there's a higher power, but as far as I'm aware that's a minority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Nij writes: And no, the situation is not the same for the atheist, because atheism is the default position.The case has to be made for somebody to believe in something. If you don't make a case for Christianity, they won't be a Christian; if you don't argue the side for Islam, they won't be a Muslim; and so on, all the way through. If you are not taught anything, you won't become anything - if you aren't taught to believe, you won't believe, and you become an atheist. Not at all. If a person grows up without experiencing a case made for anything that would just leave them as agnostic. If one is to choose atheism they have to come to the conclusion that no god or gods exist. To make that choice they have had to either reject the message that a god exists or accept the case for atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Minnemooseus writes: As I see it, atheism is "the lack of a belief in God" (a-theism = without theism). A logical (or is it?) extension to this is "the belief there is no God". That isn't a logical extension at all, and it is clear when you consider any other circumstance. For instance: Suppose someone claims that a particular lottery ticket will win the lottery, for certain. I would be inclined to disbelieve their claim citing their inability to make such a conclusion with any accuracy. They don't know that, in other words. Yet, I am similarly unable to conclude that the ticket won't win with certainty. Even if I am ignorant of the exact odds, my conclusion to reject their claim of *knowing* the ticket will win does not imply that I *know* the ticket will lose. This even holds true if the odds were 50/50. Rejecting someone's claim of knowledge does not necessarily imply knowledge of your own. This stems from the usual method of rejecting a claim, which is to have contradictory knowledge of your own. However, other methods exist such as the claim having insufficient supporting evidence of its own or lacking a plausible avenue of obtaining supporting evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: I can say that I can't accept that so I must be a theist. I can't help but notice that you are not talking about knowledge of reality, but rather your acceptance of a concept. In other words you don't reject a naturalistic origin of the universe and life because it doesn't jibe with the evidenced reality of things, but rather because you "can't accept it". Are you sure you are comfortable with summarizing your religious faith as an inability to accept reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
So you believe what your church teaches. Do you believe what other Christian churches teach? What about the catholics? Do you think they are just doctrinally incorrect? If I look across the scope at what various Christian churches teach then I'm struck by the lack of a unifying theme. We go from the Gnostic end - Jesus was a good man, but not Divine, and the philosophy is the real message; to the ultra-literalist end - the bible is the literal word of God and must be interpreted literally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Phage0070 writes: I can't help but notice that you are not talking about knowledge of reality, but rather your acceptance of a concept. In other words you don't reject a naturalistic origin of the universe and life because it doesn't jibe with the evidenced reality of things, but rather because you "can't accept it". Are you sure you are comfortable with summarizing your religious faith as an inability to accept reality?
I think that you missed the intent of the post. Bikerman made the point that one could become an atheist by rejecting the case for theism and I was just attempring to point out that it works both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Bikerman writes: So you believe what your church teaches. Do you believe what other Christian churches teach? What about the catholics? Do you think they are just doctrinally incorrect? If I look across the scope at what various Christian churches teach then I'm struck by the lack of a unifying theme. We go from the Gnostic end - Jesus was a good man, but not Divine, and the philosophy is the real message; to the ultra-literalist end - the bible is the literal word of God and must be interpreted literally It's a problem isn't it? However, when we look at human nature in some ways it makes sense. There are always going to be those who want things spelled out specifically so there aren't a lot of loose ends. These would be the literalists. There are those who aren't going to believe what they can't understand, and those would be the ultra-liberals. Next there are those of us who sit somewhere in the middle, just trying to sort things out as best we can. There is one truth but none of us will sort it all out in this life. Sure I have my beliefs but I have no doubt whatsoever that some of things that I believe are wrong. In the end it boils down to this. Do I believe in God's message of love, truth, mercy, forgiveness, justice etc, while living it out in my life for its own sake, or is my life based out looking out for number one. The thing about being a Christian is that it helps me understand the basis for that choice and I also believe that through prayer and faithfulness we can, in ways that are beyond my understanding, connect with God to help us lead a life style that continues to move us closer bit by bit to that ideal best expressed by "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: Bikerman made the point that one could become an atheist by rejecting the case for theism and I was just attempring to point out that it works both ways. Rejecting a deistic assertion that doesn't jibe with reality can make you an atheist, but how is rejecting reality that doesn't jibe with deistic assertions on the same level? I have to disagree, it doesn't work both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:A completely bogus suggestion. False dichotomy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Indeed it isn't distributive (ie a=NOT b does not mean b=NOT a).
You cannot reject solid fact and still be rational. You can reject personal testimony and assertion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Phage0070 writes: Rejecting a deistic assertion that doesn't jibe with reality can make you an atheist, but how is rejecting reality that doesn't jibe with deistic assertions on the same level? I have to disagree, it doesn't work both ways. There either is an intelligence that accounts for our existence or there isn't. We can say that we can't know but that doesn't address the issue. There is a case to be made for the existence of that intelligence and there is a case to be made against it. We can evaluate either case and agree to it's veracity or we can evaluate either case and reject it and embrace the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Bikerman writes: A completely bogus suggestion. False dichotomy. Why? I agree that nobody in this life is going to completely committed to the the love of others and nobody is going to be completely committed to the love of self. (We are no doubt all closer to the latter.) However the choice is there to be made. I think the choice as I see it is best explained allegorically in CS Lewis' book "The Great Divorce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Minnemooseus writes: As I see it, atheism is "the lack of a belief in God" (a-theism = without theism). A logical (or is it?) extension to this is "the belief there is no God". That isn't a logical extension at all, and it is clear when you consider any other circumstance. First of all, I think we may be agreeing far more than we're disagreeing. Second, in the above quoted, it perhaps would have been better for me to have used the phrase "the related/connected concept is" rather than that "a logical (or is it?) extension to this is". Your lottery analogy may have some validity, but it is flawed (but does a better analogy exist?). The worldly existence of lotteries is certain while the concept of "God" is nebulous - It is hard to even define the possibilities of what "God" is. Removing most of the extraneous baggage of worldly religions, I would state that the bare-bones definition of "God" would be "some extremely (if not omni) powerful entity who may choose to do (hopefully good) things for you". Perhaps the worldly analogy would be the bare-bone version of "Hank", as opposed to the extraneous baggage version found at Kissing Hank's Ass (earlier discussed here). The bare-bones version of "Kissing Hank's Ass": Someone comes to you and tells you that there is this billionaire named Hank who will give you a million dollars if you kiss his ass (in the literal sense). Now there may well be Hankians ("theists") who would be enthused about this. But I, as a Hank atheist, would not believe such good would happen for me. I would also believe that no such "Hank" exists. This is the non-belief/belief analogy. But while I would feel highly confident that no million from Hank is coming my way, I am considerably less confident that such a Hank does not exist. Indeed, in this world, such an eccentric billionaire may well exist. Bottom line though: The worldly possibilities and probabilities for "Hank" sure seem to be a lot better than for "God". Or something like that. Moose
Edit note: Red-bolded above, I replaced "might actually" with "does not". Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above. Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
But it isn't a 2-way choice, and it has bugger-all to do with religion. You seem to be implying religion is the meaning and therefore atheism = no meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: We can say that we can't know but that doesn't address the issue. If we actually don't know, then it not only addresses the issue but is the only honest approach.
GDR writes: There is a case to be made for the existence of that intelligence and there is a case to be made against it. We can evaluate either case and agree to it's veracity or we can evaluate either case and reject it and embrace the other. Or we can limit our claims of knowledge to those things we actually *know*, and thus neither accept the existence of a deity or proclaim that we know one does not exist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024