The Atheist Thread (Long Time Coming)
October 19th, 2019 at 3:19:24 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
I don't know how people who believe in a god balance that with the world we live in. There is obviously no god here, anywhere. The more we clarify things with science, the more debunked the supernatural gets. We can not possibly imagine how much the supernatural was credited with almost everything hundreds of years ago. It would drive us crazy to go back there. What were seeing today is the final dying dregs of it in organized religion. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
October 19th, 2019 at 3:44:21 PM permalink | |
Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019 Threads: 27 Posts: 4256 |
I agree. But, that was not my point. I was merely responding about Athiesm being binary. It is, you either actively beleive in a God or you don't. |
October 19th, 2019 at 4:05:32 PM permalink | |
Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | a great deal was attributed to the supernatural because it was convenient to do so. a teenage girl who came home without her panties could claim she was enticed by the incubus, nowadays stuff like that is considered nonsense. it doesn't mean anyone believed n the incubus, just that the priest and church were there and would say that they believed in the incubus. Actual belief was not binary but the options were binary. . |
October 19th, 2019 at 8:56:43 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
I thought that was a given in the definition of atheism. Atheism is not believing in a god or gods. Isn't further calling it binary unneeded? If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
October 20th, 2019 at 3:29:15 AM permalink | |
odiousgambit Member since: Oct 28, 2012 Threads: 154 Posts: 5112 | This is an *acceptable* version of a binary choice for this, in other words, one either is, or is not, an atheist. However, in my view an unacceptable way to make this binary is to say you can't be an agnostic because you are 'just someone who is not an atheist'. I mean, come on! In politics a person either is a Republican, or is not a Republican, that's binary and true. An unacceptable binary formulation though would be: a person is either a Republican, or a Democrat. I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me] |
October 21st, 2019 at 1:11:29 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 | In the history of religion, all people were atheists before gods were invented. Gods were necessary for us to deal with all the confusion in the world. We had nothing but questions and few answers, so putting it all on some unseen supernatural force made logical sense. Depending on gods today makes no sense. Look at countries like Japan and places like N Europe. 100 years ago Japan was 100% religious. Today less than 4% claim a religious affiliation. In N EUR it's under 20%. God has outlived his usefulness, and just like kids grow up and kick Santa to the curb, so has society grown up and doesn't need a god anymore. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
October 22nd, 2019 at 6:42:59 AM permalink | |
terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014 Threads: 73 Posts: 11803 | Linda Evans Shepard just proved that god (the g is always lower case for atheists) exists God actually gave her the winning lottery numbers Of course she did not play the numbers https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/10/21/christian-writer-god-gave-me-the-winning-lottery-numbers-but-i-didnt-play-them/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
October 23rd, 2019 at 7:25:11 AM permalink | |
odiousgambit Member since: Oct 28, 2012 Threads: 154 Posts: 5112 | So here is something that is supposed to be an argument that Atheists find hard to dispute [prepare yourself for the guffaws]. The merit I see in it is that it addresses the notion that the universe "just is", that it 'always was and always will be' while coming from nothing. This of course is not superior to the notion that God always existed, and will always exist, while Theism does allow a Higher Being to be responsible for Creation, a superior notion in that matter itself dopily and slavishly follows a set of rules, showing no ability to deviate . That God might have been created Himself, which I mentioned earlier, is not important to me, it just means there are gods instead of just God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me] |
October 23rd, 2019 at 10:58:02 AM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
1. Something can be produced. 2. It is produced by itself, something or another. What's hard to dispute about it. Two unproven assumptions to build an argument on? Are you kidding me? Prove either of those statements. People think they see a creation, so they invent a creator. It's maddening. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
October 23rd, 2019 at 12:05:54 PM permalink | |
odiousgambit Member since: Oct 28, 2012 Threads: 154 Posts: 5112 | indeed you are reacting by providing "unanswerable questions", here by questioning banal truth, whether [1] something can be produced. It's avoiding the question 'can something come from nothing?' If you want to say that the Universe was not 'produced' or created but 'just always is and was and will be' is to echo what is said about God. Therefore, I'd say it is not a better scenario than imagining a Creator, you're just positing something similar, but less satisfactory to logic and sense, since there are hard and fast rules by which the Universe works [like gravity] to which these inanimate objects constituting the Universe slavishly adhere. Who made these rules? You're finding where I stand, which as something close to a Deist or some other form of Agnostic, does still not line up well as an Atheist, finding Scotus* type arguments appealing. For me, the question of the nature of this Creator is what is not revealed, save what can be accepted by Faith. *of course that this stands for supreme court of the united states in other contexts is ironic I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me] |