A Question for Atheists

[leibowde84]

I lean to science.....and then consider...
Spirit first.

Can you explain what you mean here? This is incoherent.

 

[philbo]

It gives much more support to the statement 'be very careful before believing what journalists report, especially about anything deemed scientific' though.

Ain't that always the case?

 

[LuisDantas]

That my posts mean nothing to you.....is not a reflection of me.

Your posts are very much a reflection of your ideas and your efforts at communication.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've got one question for you.
Would you be as adamant about doubting and systematically disproving faith if Christianity wasn't the supposed dominant religion in America? Or is Christianity special?

I don't see Christianity as any different than Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Scientology in terms of legitimacy. I think that in America atheists tend to focus more on Christianity because it is the dominant religion. The only special quality is that it just so happens to be the most popular religion in our region. I've yet to meet an atheist that disliked specifically Christianity and no others.

 

[Kirran]

I don't see Christianity as any different than Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Scientology in terms of legitimacy. I think that in America atheists tend to focus more on Christianity because it is the dominant religion. The only special quality is that it just so happens to be the most popular religion in our region. I've yet to meet an atheist that disliked specifically Christianity and no others.

I don't think my 'brand' of Hinduism contradicts materialistic atheism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't think my 'brand' of Hinduism contradicts materialistic atheism.

Would you consider your brand to be a general accepted concept of Hinduism? And what about the brand you follows in line with Atheistic materialism?

 

[Pudding]

Spirit first.
The Cause for the effect.
The universe is the effect....and God is the Cause.
The creation is not the Creator.

How strong is the arguments of "Cause and effect" to prove the validity of a God's existence?

This "Cause and effect" can be equally be apply to any religion's God to prove the validity of those Gods' existence.

How is the arguments of "Cause and effect" be any credible at all?

 

[Marisa]

How strong is the arguments of "Cause and effect" to prove the validity of a God's existence?

This "Cause and effect" can be equally be apply to any religion's God to prove the validity of those Gods' existence.

How is the arguments of "Cause and effect" be any credible at all?

It's an excellent argument for unicorn farts as the first cause, as well.

 

[Pudding]

It's an excellent argument for unicorn farts as the first cause, as well.

I understand that is a satire.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Pudding - that is probably the point. It is simply way too arbitrary to elect cause and effect as argument for the existence of any hypothetical creator god over any other creator god or any number of alternatives.

It is not even really an argument at all, but just an appeal for esthetical preference.

 

[Marisa]

I understand that is a satire.

Yup. But you got the point, right? Good satire makes a point.

 

[Pudding]

I'm not sure about it.

 

[Thief]

How strong is the arguments of "Cause and effect" to prove the validity of a God's existence?

This "Cause and effect" can be equally be apply to any religion's God to prove the validity of those Gods' existence.

How is the arguments of "Cause and effect" be any credible at all?

all of science depends on the association.
If the experiment fails to make the association stick......it failed as an experiment.

so if you take away the relationship of cause and effect....
you can't be sure of anything.
You can't prove anything.
Nothing can be sure....no matter how many times you repeat the action.

I've heard a definition for insanity.....
repeating an action and hoping for a different result.

Science would have you believe the entire universe once held one location.
the singularity.
The numbers used indicate a condition 'outside' what we call natural.

I say....Spirit first.

there was a Cause for it.

 

[Thief]

It's an excellent argument for unicorn farts as the first cause, as well.

you shouldn't be allowed to post.....

 

[Pudding]

all of science depends on the association.
If the experiment fails to make the association stick......it failed as an experiment.

so if you take away the relationship of cause and effect....
you can't be sure of anything.
You can't prove anything.
Nothing can be sure....no matter how many times you repeat the action.

I've heard a definition for insanity.....
repeating an action and hoping for a different result.

Science would have you believe the entire universe once held one location.
the singularity.
The numbers used indicate a condition 'outside' what we call natural.

I say....Spirit first.

there was a Cause for it.

I can't see how your post relevant/answer to my post.

 

[Thief]

I can't see how your post relevant/answer to my post.

so post relevant to mine....

 

[Pudding]

so post relevant to mine....

My previous post #107 say that the Cause and effect argument which is an element in your post #76, is not credible as it can equally be apply to any religion.

I understand that what i say may not be the point you want to convey in your post, it's okay if you're uninterested to discuss about that.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

I am not an atheist or a Christian and both camps annoy me. Many Christians on the one hand seem to be incessantly trying to sell their faith to everyone. I suppose because they're trying to save people. Many of the Atheists I run into are equally sure about their belief system, and many of them that I meet feel that what they believe is based on science, but science is open inquiry and anyone who claims to know the answers to existential questions is anything but scientific. Because the truth is that no one knows what this is all about. Not the Pope, the Dali Lama, the Baal Shem Tov, the faculty at Princeton, the board of TED, the producers of CNN, the Congress, the Senate, the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch, Rene Descartes, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins. None one knows jack about what all of this is. The world could be anything at this point in our development of understanding, so why not just live it as best we can?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Marisa]

you shouldn't be allowed to post.....

Feel free to place me on your ignore list.

Isn't this thread titled "A Question for Atheists"? I am an atheist.

 

[Kirran]

Would you consider your brand to be a general accepted concept of Hinduism? And what about the brand you follows in line with Atheistic materialism?

There is no generally accepted type of Hinduism.

I didn't say it follows in line, I said it doesn't contradict.

I posit nothing as existing at this level of experiential reality that a materialistic atheist need reject.