| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rosebud" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2004 04:39:03 PM |
| Object: |
question for which I have no answer |
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being. In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
04 Mar 2004 09:59:27 PM |
|
|
"Rosebud" <buddha@gardener.com> wrote in message
news:8834daa9.0403041439.7c43f2fc@posting.google.com...
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
Good point.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
But most who believe in God define him as more
than that.
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
That is part of it. Stick around. Listen, ask questions,
answer questions and you will learn.
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Hmm. Candid and questioning. You show promise.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 10:22:26 AM |
|
|
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
Ron Baker:
Good point.
rosebud:
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Ron Baker:
But most who believe in God define him as more
than that.
rosebud:
Everyone has there own definition of God. For me God is a being and
in someway capable of having personal relationships. I am not capable
of proving or interested in trying to prove this notion.
rosebud:
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
Ron Baker:
That is part of it. Stick around. Listen, ask questions,
answer questions and you will learn.
rosebud:
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Ron Baker:
Hmm. Candid and questioning. You show promise.
rosebud:
No, not in the way you mean. I have tried to an atheist; in this I am
not capable. I am a theist; it is my nature to be so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 11:10:52 AM |
|
|
"Rosebud" <buddha@gardener.com> wrote in message
news:8834daa9.0403050822.27b4fa12@posting.google.com...
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
Ron Baker:
Good point.
rosebud:
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Ron Baker:
But most who believe in God define him as more
than that.
rosebud:
Everyone has there own definition of God. For me God is a being and
in someway capable of having personal relationships. I am not capable
of proving or interested in trying to prove this notion.
Fair enough. You seem like an honest person so
I won't press you on it.
I am curious about one question though, Does God
punish anybody (e.g. atheists) in an afterlife?
rosebud:
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Just as Christianity is different to different people, atheism
is different to different people.
Somehow, someway existence is.
Yup. Kinda hard to deny that and if it wasn't true then
it wouldn't matter much anyway.
I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
My view is that there are basic laws of nature.
They are eternal. (I think we know about 95%
of them by now but I could be wrong ;)
There is also matter/energy.
I don't know whether they are eternal or constant.
(So far they appear to be absolutely conserved.)
I don't see any will, intent, or consciousness in
any of that.
The only will, intent, or consciousness I see is
an aggregation of firing of neurons in living brains.
Ron Baker:
That is part of it. Stick around. Listen, ask questions,
answer questions and you will learn.
rosebud:
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Ron Baker:
Hmm. Candid and questioning. You show promise.
rosebud:
No, not in the way you mean. I have tried to an atheist; in this I am
not capable. I am a theist; it is my nature to be so.
I meant 'promise' more in the sense of a civil exchange of ideas rather
than the potiential to deconvert you.
Although we are offering a free toaster with
every deconversion this week only. ;)
--
Dr. Ron Baker, Ath.D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
04 Mar 2004 08:01:34 PM |
|
|
(Rosebud) honored us in alt.atheism with the following
discourse:
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
Considering that no one can see or hear or touch or otherwise directly
observe or sense any god, then any discussion of the existence of such a
god remains meaningless, however defined. Without verifiable real world
observation, we can only consider the subject of "god" as a verbal
abstraction, a model (theory, hypothesis, conjecture, guess...) that we
infer about the real world around us. As such, we can only consider it in
relation to other models and determine which more accurately corresponds to
reality and offers the most verifiable predictions about reality.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Why would anyone want to define a random fluctuation in the quantum vacumn
as "god"?
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
The lack of belief (based on the lack of evidence) that anything other than
natural processes contributed to the existence of the universe. And of
course, atheism remains a lack of belief in all the other gods that men
have created.
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
For the most part "is" contributes nothing to understanding and little to
good communication.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
That does form a big part of the reason behind a lack of belief in gods.
I am a theist anyway.
Sorry for ya, man.
Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest.
How does calling yourself a "theist" lead to not needing to be honest?
I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
So you have defined a "god" in a what that you can't understand. And you
expect us to take you seriously?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 10:51:37 AM |
|
|
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
Woden:
Considering that no one can see or hear or touch or otherwise directly
observe or sense any god, then any discussion of the existence of such a
god remains meaningless, however defined. Without verifiable real world
observation, we can only consider the subject of "god" as a verbal
abstraction, a model (theory, hypothesis, conjecture, guess...) that we
infer about the real world around us. As such, we can only consider it in
relation to other models and determine which more accurately corresponds to
reality and offers the most verifiable predictions about reality.
rosebud:
You are talking about language and logic. There is more to being than
these aspects. These aspects of being are simply tools. One can
recognise them as such and need not limit oneself to them.
rosebud:
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Woden:
Why would anyone want to define a random fluctuation in the quantum vacumn
as "god"?
rosebud:
I suppose one might have trouble seeing one's existence a solely
random.
rosebud:
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Woden
The lack of belief (based on the lack of evidence) that anything other than
natural processes contributed to the existence of the universe. And of
course, atheism remains a lack of belief in all the other gods that men
have created.
rosbud:
For me the evidence is solely internal. How can I possibly share that
with anyone. God is not concept to be proven or disproven for me. I
have never believed in God; I am not capable of that. But, somehow I
have always accepted God.
In that I have never believed in God I am an atheist. Yet, I somehow
recognise God in my being. In that sense I am a theist. Right now I
do not know how else to say this.
rosebud:
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
Woden:
For the most part "is" contributes nothing to understanding and little to
good communication.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
Woden"
That does form a big part of the reason behind a lack of belief in gods.
rosebud:
I am a theist anyway.
Woden:
Sorry for ya, man.
rosebud:
Thanks.
rosebud:
Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest.
Woden:
How does calling yourself a "theist" lead to not needing to be honest?
rosebud:
Are you completely honest? What is it to be completely honest? Being
a theist and my relative ablility to be honest do not correlate, just
as your atheism and your relative ablilty to be honest do not exactly
correlate.
rosebud:
I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Woden:
So you have defined a "god" in a what that you can't understand. And you
expect us to take you seriously?
rosbud:
How do you define your existence in a way that is more understandable?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 10:44:34 PM |
|
|
(Rosebud) honored us in alt.atheism with the
following discourse:
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God
one must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes
no sense.
Woden:
Considering that no one can see or hear or touch or otherwise
directly observe or sense any god, then any discussion of the
existence of such a god remains meaningless, however defined.
Without verifiable real world observation, we can only consider the
subject of "god" as a verbal abstraction, a model (theory,
hypothesis, conjecture, guess...) that we infer about the real world
around us. As such, we can only consider it in relation to other
models and determine which more accurately corresponds to reality and
offers the most verifiable predictions about reality.
rosebud:
You are talking about language and logic. There is more to being than
these aspects. These aspects of being are simply tools. One can
recognise them as such and need not limit oneself to them.
What exactly do you find outside the limitations of language and logic?
(Other than imagination?)
rosebud:
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Woden:
Why would anyone want to define a random fluctuation in the quantum
vacumn as "god"?
rosebud:
I suppose one might have trouble seeing one's existence a solely
random.
Sounds like a personal problem. Without some objective evidence to the
contrary, it must be considered a viable hypothesis. Why do you need
some supernatural being to make your existence less troublesome?
rosebud:
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is
atheism?
Woden
The lack of belief (based on the lack of evidence) that anything
other than natural processes contributed to the existence of the
universe. And of course, atheism remains a lack of belief in all the
other gods that men have created.
rosbud:
For me the evidence is solely internal. How can I possibly share that
with anyone. God is not concept to be proven or disproven for me. I
have never believed in God; I am not capable of that. But, somehow I
have always accepted God.
Such evidence can't be distinquished from imaginary. It offers nothing
of value to others. Can you be sure that you always "accepted" god and
weren't trained at an early age to believe in such things?
In that I have never believed in God I am an atheist. Yet, I somehow
recognise God in my being. In that sense I am a theist. Right now I
do not know how else to say this.
Again, not an reason to consider any god hypothesis as useful, accurate
or necessary.
rosebud:
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means
really.
Woden:
For the most part "is" contributes nothing to understanding and
little to good communication.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In
my mind it is an honest viewpoint.
Woden"
That does form a big part of the reason behind a lack of belief in
gods.
rosebud:
I am a theist anyway.
Woden:
Sorry for ya, man.
rosebud:
Thanks.
rosebud:
Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest.
Woden:
How does calling yourself a "theist" lead to not needing to be
honest?
rosebud:
Are you completely honest? What is it to be completely honest? Being
a theist and my relative ablility to be honest do not correlate, just
as your atheism and your relative ablilty to be honest do not exactly
correlate.
I just wondered since the two statements were written together as if you
intended them to mean something together.
rosebud:
I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Woden:
So you have defined a "god" in a what that you can't understand. And
you expect us to take you seriously?
rosbud:
How do you define your existence in a way that is more understandable?
I'm here. At least, to the best of my ability to be aware of myself and
my surroundings, I exist. What other definition of existence do you have
in mind.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
04 Mar 2004 05:03:23 PM |
|
|
(Rosebud) said:
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Does existence exist?
Here is a related puzzle. Everything that exists has a location. If a
location exists, does it have a location? If so, does the location's
location exist? Where?
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 12:16:03 AM |
|
|
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Jim07D4:
Does existence exist?
rosebud:
Sure.
Jim07D4:
Here is a related puzzle. Everything that exists has a location.
rosebud:
Not so.
Jim074d
If a location exists, does it have a location? If so, does the location's
location exist? Where?
rosbud:
location is a relative term, just as existence is a relative term.
These sorts of language games are just vaccum cleaners to me; vaccum
cleaners in a discussion are to loud and have too many attachments.
A god exists or a god doesn't. You exist or you do not exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 12:45:24 AM |
|
|
(Rosebud) said:
....
A god exists or a god doesn't. You exist or you do not exist.
I exist, except when I do not.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 09:56:00 AM |
|
|
A god exists or a god doesn't. You exist or you do not exist.
I exist, except when I do not.
Jim07D4
rosebud:
I think you have always existed. We have only recently notice your
being via via typed words in cyberspace.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Thorne" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
04 Mar 2004 05:32:20 PM |
|
|
in article fadf40patv6saucucvomurcf9rsgfi2csm@4ax.com, Jim07D4 at
Jim07D4@nospam.net wrote on 04 03 2004 15:03:
buddha@gardener.com (Rosebud) said:
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Does existence exist?
Here is a related puzzle. Everything that exists has a location. If a
location exists, does it have a location? If so, does the location's
location exist? Where?
Jim07D4
Think again. The square root of 2 exists, but it has no location. The null
set exists, but it has no location. Blue exists, but it has no location. The
sky exists, but you'd be hard pressed to assign coordinates to a corner of
it. Poetry exists. Where is it? Sounds exists. Where are they? On and on and
on and on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
04 Mar 2004 06:11:27 PM |
|
|
"Mr. Thorne" <lyricalreckoner@yahoo.com> said:
in article fadf40patv6saucucvomurcf9rsgfi2csm@4ax.com, Jim07D4 at
Jim07D4@nospam.net wrote on 04 03 2004 15:03:
buddha@gardener.com (Rosebud) said:
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Does existence exist?
Here is a related puzzle. Everything that exists has a location. If a
location exists, does it have a location? If so, does the location's
location exist? Where?
Jim07D4
Think again. The square root of 2 exists, but it has no location. The null
set exists, but it has no location. Blue exists, but it has no location. The
sky exists, but you'd be hard pressed to assign coordinates to a corner of
it. Poetry exists. Where is it? Sounds exists. Where are they? On and on and
on and on.
The point is, to say "X exists" says very little.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 10:24:36 AM |
|
|
The point is, to say "X exists" says very little.
Jim07D4
rosebud:
And trying to prove so says even less.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 01:50:54 AM |
|
|
(Rosebud) wrote in message news:<8834daa9.0403041439.7c43f2fc@posting.google.com>...
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
But what if that was just a fluctuation in the quantum background?
You see the vast majority of believers want some thing they can have a
relationship with; something they can prey to or perhaps will reward
the righteous and damn the wrongdoers.
A quantum fluctuation knows or cares nothing of right and wrong, won't
listen to prayers and has no spirit to be beneficient with. It would
be meaningless to worship such a thing and being a theist would be
indistinguishable from being an atheist.
No, I think to have meaning, the idea of God must have certain
characteristics and I think we can look to believers' expectations and
attutudes to say what they must be.
God would have to be conscious and have similar types of mental
faculties as we do. Otherwise there would be nothing to address you
hopes and prayers to, to reward you for doing good and punish
wrongdoing and to know what right and wrong are.
I'm sure few believe in the old man with the flowing white beard, but
theists generally believe in a god who is also a somebody.
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
I'm glad you feel this way, but I think you should add that we reject
the idea of God as a somebody.
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Given that you're polite, you're welcome.
As for not understanding being, well perhaps you just want it to be
more than it is.
For me, atheism is just a way to clear religious dogma and look at
this world honestly.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 10:12:51 AM |
|
|
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
ian:
But what if that was just a fluctuation in the quantum background?
rosebud:
In the case of human relationships we tend to require a cause to an
action. A fluctuation in a quantum background happens via cause.
What causes quatum these quantum fluctuations and where/why does this
quantum background arise. This is the billion dollar question.
ian:
You see the vast majority of believers want some thing they can have a
relationship with; something they can prey to or perhaps will reward
the righteous and damn the wrongdoers.
rosebud:
I too seem to require something personal in my existence. My
existence being only an accident of a quantum disturbance and then
ceasing to be is not a particularly attractive view of my being.
ian:
A quantum fluctuation knows or cares nothing of right and wrong, won't
listen to prayers and has no spirit to be beneficient with. It would
be meaningless to worship such a thing and being a theist would be
indistinguishable from being an atheist.
rosebud:
I agree with this assessment.
ian:
No, I think to have meaning, the idea of God must have certain
characteristics and I think we can look to believers' expectations and
attutudes to say what they must be.
God would have to be conscious and have similar types of mental
faculties as we do. Otherwise there would be nothing to address you
hopes and prayers to, to reward you for doing good and punish
wrongdoing and to know what right and wrong are.
I'm sure few believe in the old man with the flowing white beard, but
theists generally believe in a god who is also a somebody.
rosebud:
I agree with this as well
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
I'm glad you feel this way, but I think you should add that we reject
the idea of God as a somebody.
rosebud:
I guess this what makes me a theist.
rosebud:
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
ian:
Given that you're polite, you're welcome.
As for not understanding being, well perhaps you just want it to be
more than it is.
For me, atheism is just a way to clear religious dogma and look at
this world honestly.
Regards,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 04:44:20 PM |
|
|
(Rosebud) wrote in message news:<8834daa9.0403041439.7c43f2fc@posting.google.com>...
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being. In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
As I've stated previously, when one uses the term "God" to fill in
gaps in our knowledge, then the term becomes nothing more than a
synonym for our personal ignorance.
This is what you are, essentially, doing here. Sure, you can call
whatever "first brought existence into being" a god (assuming that
existence has a beginning, which is not at all certain), but that may
well leave you with a god that is, in fact, a quantum fluctuation or
some other prosaic phenomenon. Using the term, thus, invites all
sorts of conflation and confusion given that standard usage gives
things like gods a lot more properties than merely being an undefined
entity that is the catalyst for existence.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
A lot of atheists do take that stance, but that isn't what atheism,
strictly speaking, is. Atheism is the lack of the property of theism.
It's really as simple as that.
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Your candor is refreshing. So what does lead you to conclude that God
existence given that you don't find that the concept adds anything to
your sense of comprehension or understanding of this question?
--
Andrew Lias
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
04 Mar 2004 05:40:52 PM |
|
|
In article <8834daa9.0403041439.7c43f2fc@posting.google.com>,
(Rosebud) wrote:
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
True enough.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Common enough in the Western world...
In this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Lack of belief. Regardless of the "way of thinking," atheism is lack of
belief in god(s).
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
Nah, he never figured it out for himself.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
It is central to science that when one doesn't know the answer, it's
better to search for the answer, rather than say "God did it." We may
not find the answer we're after, but that doesn't mean that the answer
will never be found.
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
Thanks for your thoughts. They're a refreshing change of pace from what
we normally get from visiting theists. If you care to, stick around and
exchange thoughts with some folks. It's fun, if you're in the right
frame of mind and don't mind a few rude responses.
Cheers!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 12:05:11 AM |
|
|
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
nemo
True enough.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
nemo:
Common enough in the Western world...
rosebud:
I think this is common in most parts of the world. This idea is not
foreign to the hindu the have the creator being. Many buddhist have
room for a god being, though they do not differentiate to much between
a god and themselves. The Zen folk just decide not to be attached to
a god; whether there is a god is not worth thinking too much about.
rosebud:
In this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
nemo:
Lack of belief. Regardless of the "way of thinking," atheism is lack of
belief in god(s).
rosebud:
Not much different than what I would define agnostic. I suppose an
agnostic would lean more toward theism though.
rosebud:
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
nemo:
Nah, he never figured it out for himself.
rosebud:
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
nemo:
It is central to science that when one doesn't know the answer, it's
better to search for the answer, rather than say "God did it." We may
not find the answer we're after, but that doesn't mean that the answer
will never be found.
rosebud:
A Catholic priest once told me that if you keep searching for truth
that what you find in the end is God. All the dogma, all the
trappings of religion are superfluous.
What is "truth?" As an atheist do you look for a sort of ultimate
truth. I guess another way of saying it. Do you look for meaning in
your being?
rosebud:
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest. I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
nemo:
Thanks for your thoughts. They're a refreshing change of pace from what
we normally get from visiting theists. If you care to, stick around and
exchange thoughts with some folks. It's fun, if you're in the right
frame of mind and don't mind a few rude responses.
Cheers!
rosebud:
I will stay around a while. Until I get bored of the rude responses.
I hope you do mind my questions above about ultimate truth and
meaning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 07:11:09 AM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2004 22:05:11 -0800, (Rosebud) in news
message <8834daa9.0403042205.7347bdd0@posting.google.com> wrote:
[-----]
rosebud:
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
nemo:
It is central to science that when one doesn't know the answer, it's
better to search for the answer, rather than say "God did it." We may
not find the answer we're after, but that doesn't mean that the answer
will never be found.
rosebud:
A Catholic priest once told me that if you keep searching for truth
that what you find in the end is God.
This is metaphysical nonsense. Priests and ministers tend to speak in
platitudes because they have no definitive answers. At least, they
have no definitive answers that actually support the position that
gods exist independently of the minds of believers. Truth is that
which is in congruence with reality. Transcendent gods can not be
shown to have any reality, based upon the definitions of transcendent
and reality, let alone be in congruence with that which we can observe
and know. What really happens is sometimes a person finds the truth
and decides to call it GodŽ. GodŽ itself is never found.
All the dogma, all the
trappings of religion are superfluous.
That is true under any circumstances.
What is "truth?" As an atheist do you look for a sort of ultimate
truth. I guess another way of saying it. Do you look for meaning in
your being?
Not especially. I don't think there is any ultimate meaning to my
life. The meaning is derived from within my own mind and in the
actions I perform every day, the occurrences that happen to me, and my
reaction to them. Religionists seem to think that they need some
outside being to confer meaning upon them when in reality they have
the power to make their own lives meaningful. Interestingly enough,
they also have the power to make their own lives utterly meaningless.
I find it amazing that believers think they are merely actors in a
cosmic play, hitting their marks, and waiting for GodŽ to tell them
their next line. They pray for guidance when they are lost; they pray
for relief when they suffer; and the pray in thanksgiving when things
go well, excusing all responsibility for their own actions and their
consequences with their piety.
My favorite Shakespeare quote explains this mindset:
Macbeth Act V, Scene 5
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from
day to day, to the last syllable of recorded time; And all our
yesterdays have lighted foots the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief
candle!
Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his
hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more; it is a tale told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
If you want your life to have significance, you can't be an actor.
You must be the playwright.
[-----]
Liz #658 BAAWA
Faith is a method designed to keep a person willfully ignorant of the odds
by arbitrarily assigning certainty where certainty is not justified. - Denis Loubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 07:00:03 AM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2004 14:39:03 -0800, (Rosebud) wrote:
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
That's not the traditional theistic definition (they include
"intelligent"). Otherwise (using your definition) God could be a
quantum fluctuation that sparked the Universe.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
04 Mar 2004 09:42:45 PM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2004 14:39:03 -0800, (Rosebud) wrote:
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
Sure.
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
What if what brought us into existence is not a mind or spirit but an
impersonal force like gravity?
When I say I dont believe in God or gods - I am talking about spirit
beings - personalities with a mind and a will.
In
this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
In this case I am not an atheist - I am only an atheist when whatever
brought existence into being (if such an idea makes sense - I dont
know) is a spirit or mind with a will and an opinion about what kind
of sex people should engage in.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
I think atheism is perfectly *compatible* with saying "we just dont
know".
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest.
Nobody is sperfect.
Hmmm God is pefect.
Therefore God is nobody!
QED.
I cannot understand existence as just being. But,
neither can I understand a God as just being.
There are many things beyond our understanding.
I dont beleive in God anyway.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: question for which I have no answer |
05 Mar 2004 10:05:50 AM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2004 14:39:03 -0800, (Rosebud), Message ID:
<8834daa9.0403041439.7c43f2fc@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
rosebud:
In talking about the existence of a God or the non existence a God one
must define what a God is. Otherwise, talking about it makes no
sense.
That's the theists problem. And, you're right, "God" is senseless which
is why people don't accept the unsupported assertion, and why clergy is
so big on 'faith.'
We can define God as whatever first brought existence into being.
Broken logic and begging many questions.
In this way of thinking and without considering a dogma, what is atheism?
Nothing more than the lack of theism.
Somehow, someway existence is. I am not sure what "is" means really.
I suppose I could call Bill Clinton and ask him.
If we didn't exist, we wouldn't be asking questions about many things.
I think atheism really is the idea that "we just do not know." In my
mind it is an honest viewpoint.
What is there to *know?*
Unsupported assertions are overpriced at a pence per thousand billion.
Consider that you are atheist with regard to all deities other than
yours. I'm atheist with regards to yours as well.
I am a theist anyway. Never really needed to worry about being
perfectly honest.
Of course not. You depend on:
Matthew 12 (kjv)
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Which is a problem, as all else but saying something bad about 'Casper'
is covered. Such teaches/encourages amorality.
I cannot understand existence as just being.
Why not? Why would it not be 'just being?' Why would there have to be
a 'reason?'
But, neither can I understand a God as just being.
The (fortunately fictional) critter hasn't the slightest inkling of
being 'just.' Sadly, many Christians follow it's 'lead.'
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
