It’s grad students all the way down.
We need a way for our universe to begin - but maybe not the meta-universe.
It was a joke, son. I say, I say, a joke!
And, actually, none of them offend me.
You can believe whatever you’d like. I use it because it feels the most natural. The least effort goes into it. “She” seems like the writer is going out of his way to make an additional point. “It” feels stilted". Both of the latter seem to distract the discussion more than “He”. That said, my personal feeling is that God is much closer to an “It” than a “He” or “She”.
I’ve stated numerous times on these boards that I believe that there is no religion that gets it right and am happy to dispense with all the mythology, even that that is closer to actual history. I’m talking about the concept of a Creator, not any God of any religion. I think they all get it wrong. But it is immaterial to the point I’m discussing. In these discussion I always stipulate, “Let’s assume that every religion known to man is wrong”.
But, as I said, feel free to believe I’m being honest or not. But out of curiosity, why would I be lying about what I’ve been writing? For all the years I’ve been arguing the same point on these boards? If I practiced a religion and attended temple or church or mosque or whatever else, why wouldn’t I just say so? It’s not like I’m opposed to putting forth unpopular views on these boards.
It is not at all surprising that you can not find a group of people you agree with, but that does not mean that you don’t ascribe religious attributes on to your God. Even above, when trying to distance yourself from the term God you chose to capitalize Creator. The fact that “it” feels stilted to you when talking about God is also a giveaway.
You must get something from anthropomorphizing the first cause: comfort, purpose, meaning, …?
ETA: by saying I don’t believe you I don’t mean that you are lying, just that you are unaware of the particular baggage that you are carrying with regard to your view of God and the beginning of the universe.
it’s a boring song with out of date concepts.
You probably don’t know the UK well enough to interpret census questions.
It is quite possible (I know because I know a lot of people who’ve done it…me included) for someone to answer “C of E” to that question and yet still be an atheist.
OK, substitute “clever people with theological arguments”. It makes no difference.
no, no there isn’t.
they all exists of course and the default is to consider each one has a natural cause unless shown otherwise.
For those we now understand, yes. As I’m sure you’d agree. Even those phenomena we don’t understand yet I’ll expect to uncover a natural rather than supernatural cause.
It is more than that, the uneducated can educate themselves to the point where all of the above can be tested and proved by their own hand and eyes.
Theism is the opposite of this. “don’t think, don’t explore, god did it”
Then please do it
yes they are and yes they were. (if you consider what I actually wrote, i.e. in relation to the abrahamic faiths)
I believe that if if I jump off the roof of my house and land on my feet, I will break my ankles and possibly worse. Although I’ve never done it and I know nobody who has, I have a lot of faith in it because this belief is extrapolated from known facts about physics and human anatomy. By contrast, the claims of theism ultimately trace back to intuition, opinion, myth. One belief is based on logic and observation, the other is based on essentially on fiction. That is the difference.
Perhaps you are saying they are both faiths… if so, it’s a valid point that it is a point of faith to believe that all real things in this universe are ultimately traceable to known physical laws. But even so, this is a superior faith, because believing in the supernatural opens the door to countless propositions that conflict with all observation and logic.
I don’t think you read what I wrote. I know exactly what the author said; I think the author is misconstruing what theists are asking about.
Why is that the default position? It seems to me that the default position is that a God did it, if we look at the history of human thought: in countless cases, it’s taken evidence, experimentation, and careful, methodical observation to change this default position to one of naturalistic explanation.
It really perplexes me that some atheists don’t see their beliefs in natural explanations as beliefs. Unless they think that only faith-based beliefs are beliefs, it’s just weird.
Because it makes the fewest assumptions. Assuming something to be natural doesn’t bring in gods, the powers of gods, the background histories of gods, and everything else that comes with them.
No, humans jumped to irrational conclusions because they are poor reasoners, not because “a god did it” is the rational default choice.
I was about to reply but saw that Der Trihs captured it perfectly.
It isn’t a belief in natural explanations, it is an observation. And those things that are harder to perceive first-hand can be extrapolated from those things that we can. No leap of faith involved, no unnecessary assumptions.
Atheist:
- Anti-theist: “There is no god”
- Non-theist: “No belief in a god”
I do not have a belief in a god. It is no more a belief than not experiencing or having information about something before. I just have a total absence. It is not a disbelief. I do not claim that there is no god. How can I have any belief or disbelief in something of which I am not aware?
If an alien threw a device of which I had never seen before at my head, could I have any sort of belief in it until it hit my across the head?
Wait. No one ever in your life or any literature you’ve ever approached has ever given you any awareness of God whatsoever? Even in this thread, you should have picked up the God hypothesis to some degree.
If that is really true, then I’ll buy your “total absence”.
For most of us, we have some awareness. Someone, or something has explained God to us. Then we run that hypothesis by our internal background/knowledge filters.
Some of us then reject this explanation since it has absolutely no evidence and actively contradicts what we know about reality. We end up with disbelieving.
Other things like Odin or Thor, or Narnia, or Hogwarts we run through the same internal analysis and say, yeah, fiction, we don’t believe they exist either.
Others have some internal process that ends up with belief. (Usually, but not always, this starts with indoctrination at a very young age before the filters are fully developed.)
Some are perhaps still trying to understand the whole thing.
But “total absence”? You must be living on a deserted island or something to have never even heard of God.
Since we seem to be in nitpick mode in this thread, “anti-theist” means “someone who actively opposes belief in gods.”
If they would leave me alone, I’d be fine with live and let live.
I am anti-theist in that I oppose the efforts of the theists to impose their beliefs on me and mine through active intervention in our shared government.
Person A: “I just sky-dived for the first time! Do you have any experience with sky-diving?”
Person 2: “No-I have never experienced skydiving.”
Person A: “Aha! You do have experience in not sky-diving then, right? Therefore, when it comes to skydiving, you have experience!”
A desert island called Earth. I once new a guy who claimed he was Jesus while going into great detail about his virtuous masturbation routines. I don’t really count him as evidence or evidence against a deity. If someone writes a cool book, I do not consider it evidence or evidence against a god. I certainly have a belief that people can be chemically unbalanced; however, from my understanding I’m in a total absence of evidence to build a belief in a god. From my understanding, I am able to disbelieve propositions that people make to me without building a disbelief in something.
If something is incomprehensible and unknown, how does one go about believing or disbelieving in what ever it is?
And why is the belief requiring the fewest assumptions the default position?
Interesting. You dismiss research because it conflicts with your personal experience. Interesting.
And when and how did this become the default?
Therefore, there are no theists who think and explore. Is that what you’re saying?
Hmmm … two positive claims. Did anyone in this thread say anything about positive claims? Ah, yes, there was this:
You’ve made several positive claims. Please prove them.
Thank you.
You are right, they are positive claims and unless the evidence I present is strong enough you’d be right to dismiss them.
So Just to help with the context for my claims
So my evidence for this is, a new born baby is without religion, they have no belief in any god and are atheist.
My second claim? Homo Sapiens were around for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years before any of the abrahamic faiths were even dreamt of. Therefore they were atheists in relation to those. Go even further back and there would be a point at which a homonid became what we know as self-aware. I suspect that the “human” came before the concept of god and therefore atheism predates theism.
Really? Babies seem to exhibit fairly magical thinking, in my experience. It seems entirely possible that, inasmuch as babies have any beliefs at all, these beliefs revolve around all-powerful beings that control the universe.
I’m wondering: folks who argue that atheists have no beliefs about god, do you consider a box of tangerines to be atheist? If not, what keeps it from being atheist? After all, it doesn’t believe in god.