Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9215 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Candle3
Post Volume: Total: 920,112 Year: 434/6,935 Month: 434/275 Week: 151/159 Day: 14/15 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Delusions of Grandeur?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 68 of 82 (699674)
05-23-2013 2:54 AM 		Reply to: Message 66 by mrnobody42
05-22-2013 12:11 AM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
mrnobody42 writes:
​
I would like to respond to the posters original intent. OP says that
​
"I simply offer that there are other alternatives besides Atheism based on gradual evolution ...based on natural selection or ID based on Theism and a divine plan. "
​
I would like to know if there are any posters that disagree with OP?
​
You're unlikely to get any disagreement on that quote, because we can all think of alternatives.
​
mrnobody writes:
​
It seems to me that to claim atheism as opposed to non-theism is to claim some transcendental knowledge that needs to be proven just as the theist needs to prove his theology.
​
What definitions of atheism and non-theism are you using here? Atheists aren't theists, so surely they are all non-theists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mrnobody42, posted 05-22-2013 12:11 AM mrnobody42 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 4:04 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 80 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-31-2013 12:09 AM bluegenes has not replied
  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 70 of 82 (699680)
05-23-2013 4:23 AM 		Reply to: Message 67 by mrnobody42
05-23-2013 1:07 AM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
mrnobody42 writes:
​
OK, so since nobody disagrees that " there are other alternatives besides Atheism based on gradual evolution ...based on natural selection or ID based on Theism and a divine plan. ", I will add to that point. The word 'God' does not necessarily infer a personal or even an individual being. God simply refers to the Supreme Source of Reality.
​
Do you mean that "God" is not a part of reality, and therefore necessarily unreal?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 1:07 AM mrnobody42 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mrnobody42, posted 05-29-2013 11:41 PM bluegenes has replied
  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 71 of 82 (699681)
05-23-2013 4:34 AM 		Reply to: Message 69 by mrnobody42
05-23-2013 4:04 AM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
mrnobody writes:
​
The difference between an atheist and a nontheist is that atheism is an assertion that there is no God while a nontheistic path such as buddhism makes no such assertions because it deals with reality only.
​
Again, you seem to be using the word "God" to denote something necessarily unreal.
​
And "non-theist" encompasses anyone who isn't a theist, just as "non-communist" encompasses all those who aren't communists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 4:04 AM mrnobody42 has not replied
  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 78 of 82 (700083)
05-30-2013 4:17 AM 		Reply to: Message 77 by mrnobody42
05-29-2013 11:41 PM

Re: Dawkins God Delusion
mrnobody42 writes:
​
bluegenes writes:
​
"Do you mean that "God" is not a part of reality, and therefore necessarily unreal?
​
When lights is bent and appears as a rainbow, is the light not part of the rainbow and therefore unecessarily unreal?
​
No.
​
mrnobody writes:
​
well, same deal with the supreme source (light) and its manifestations (rainbow)
​
Its rather simple actually...
​
Is it? What I was questioning was your concept of a source of reality. Reality can't have a real source that is not part of it. Therefore, there cannot be an actual source of reality.
​
"Source of reality" is a nonsensical phrase, like "source of everything", because the "source" would be a thing.
​
It's rather simple actually...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by mrnobody42, posted 05-29-2013 11:41 PM mrnobody42 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mrnobody42, posted 05-30-2013 9:54 PM bluegenes has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025