Or how and why does your unnamed person arrive there? And what’s the point…?
So are dogmatic people who do not respect other peoples’ beliefs. Rally against the people who are trying to teach creationism at schools, or the fundys who rip millions of dollars of gullible grandmas but beware of who you piss off. Us liberal Christians/Muslims/Jews are on your side! We hate to see what we believe ruined by men seeking power.
I am an anti-literalist as much as you are.
Why do you feel a desire to give this a human form?
This is where you slip up mate.
If you’re going to prevaricate, please double-check before posting (or at least make an effort to make more sense). The “person” FF is referring to is not some personification or anthropomorphizing or avatar-form of God or gods or whatever, but in reference to the human that magellan describes as pondering the nature of God.
And sure, it would be nice to be able to count on the support of politically moderate liberal religious types… if we could. It wouldn’t be necessary to rally against fundamentalist types if we could expect the moderate majority to stop them dead each and every time they make one of their ridiculous demands, but the moderate majority is fully capable of letting nonsense pass through inertia or ignorance or even tacit approval.
And by the way, what truths have been discovered through religion, for the third time?
I beg your pardon? We are humans. Belief is a human affliction. Please elaborate on how or why asking how a person arrives at the position of belief in the existence of Creator God, as he termed it, with no other attributes than existing and having created the universe, and what the point of such a bland belief could possibly be, is a slip up, mate.
Because it seems to me that such a stripped down belief is the last thin strand believers hang themselves from. And I don’t understand why they cling so desperately to something so insubstantial when there is a whole world of wonders around them, and a universe surrounding that world.
Thanks, Bryan.
Anytime, mate.
Atheism is indeed a belief. But as your intentions in asking this question are transparent, Ill ask you exactly what point are you trying to make? Frankly the whole OP reads like lines cut from the script of a matrix sequel. Its what i was taught to call “talking in circles”. Its a very simple technique that con men have used to confuse and manipulate people for ages. A tell tale sign of “talking in circles” is repeating the same word many, many times, often within the same sentence.
If it wasn’t an obvious attempt to trick people, I’d swear you had some sort of neurological disorder. I don’t mean to offend here, The last thing i need is more people wanting to flame me, but what you’re writing here, it simply makes no sense. I just wanted to address that as i think the posters on this thread have largely ignored this and let the topic degenerate into another lengthy and ultimately useless theist vs. atheist debate.
Well, I can’t find a good individual link right now but certainly Answers in Genesis regularly describes atheism as necessarily incorporating philosophies like moral relativism and materialism.
Not quite what was asked for but this link about how the theory of evolution requires presuppositions, I like because of the illustrations.
Let’s compare this analogy.
It’s difficult to enjoy NASCAR if you’re not a car fan. In a practical sense, liking cars is a necessary condition of liking NASCAR.
And a person might have a long-standing appreciation of automobiles that causes them to go watch a NASCAR race and get into the sport.
OTOH there is no incompatibility between being atheist and not being a naturalist, say. And it is unlikely that someone would begin as a naturalist and then become an atheist as a result of that.
Mijin, are you suggesting that atheists don’t have any presuppositions that are linked to the idea of atheism?
Well, first please provide an example of a “truth” that has been discovered through any ideology.
Also, I’m wondering about this:
Does using a conditional and a synonym for “lie” allow you to get around this: Liars, lying, and lies in Great Debates?
If so, then it seems that I now have a legitimate way of calling someone a liar in GD.
Because everything we are aware of is the result of a cause. Stuff had to come from somewhere. Things had to be set in motion.
It’s two different steps. 1) Is there a God who created the cosmos? 2) Hmmm, what is that God like?
I think Step 1 is a rational, philosophical exploration. In Step 2 it becomes a personal one. Whatever makes sense or a person is comfortable with. That’s the realm of religions.
To me, it means two different worlds. A Creator world means that there is an entity much, much more powerful than us. A non-Creator world means that we (individually) may be the most powerful things in the universe. Two very different baselines for different outlooks.
The point is to ponder a question that man has asked himself for eons: where did we, all, this come from? Every theist and atheist do this. The only persons who have not taken that step or not atheists, but the a-curious.
Well, I’d refer to what I’m talking about as not a belief, but a position. And I see it in no way closing people off to the immense richness of wonders around them. Why do you think that to be the case? I find that exceedingly odd.
Even though there’s a counterargument to what you’ve stated, your explanation seems to make sense, and, if it does make sense, and it forms the basis for a belief in God, then “not believing in God” requires the counterargument, at least for atheism to be logically consistent.
If, though, the atheist says “What? Logically consistent?? That sounds like philosophy, and that’s just mental masturbation. I know what I know and there’s no way that God exists. It makes no sense at all. And anyway, there’s this thing called “evidence” which I don’t really understand but I’m sure that the lack of it supports my belief.”
Cute. 
That’s kind of my point, too.
I’ve noticed there’s a lot of discussion about defending a “non-belief”, on this board and in various atheist organizations. If atheism is simply a non-belief (equivalent to “not collecting stamps”) then the discussion should start and end with: I don’t believe in God.
Obviously, there are other issues, and other beliefs.
Cite to anyone on this board who has given anything close to that as a reply.
Better yet, cite to any atheist on the internet that has said that.
Uh, that’s kind of my point: That’s not the way atheists argue.
So, we’re left with the more reasonable option of arguing against theism, rather than just saying “I have no belief.”
Considering the scarcity of evidence when it comes to deities combined with the multiple illogical and contradictory claims made by religionists, “I have no belief” is the most reasonable option out there.
If religionists have such a hard time understanding such a simple concept even they use that very same concept themselves when it comes other less ridiculous ideas, then there is not much I can do.