Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
69 online now:
AZPaul3, glowby, nwr (3 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,105 Year: 4,853/23,288 Month: 1,758/1,286 Week: 72/353 Day: 19/53 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mrnobody42, posted 05-23-2013 4:04 AM bluegenes has responded
 Message 80 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-31-2013 12:09 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mrnobody42, posted 05-29-2013 11:41 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


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 yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mrnobody42, posted 05-30-2013 9:54 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020