David Hume disillusioned us of that in the 17th Century.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is not a default position
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Science continued on with it.
Curious George
Veteran Member
But also said we must accept it.
Only conventionally.
marcosmasliaev
Member
What science says about chaos are derived from laws.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Which are derived from inductive reasoning, which as willa already alluded, begs the question.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
What discussion?
You show up, make bold empty claims, admit your talking nonsense, demand from other that which you yourself do not present, then run tail tucked firmly between your legs.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
thus the dilemma of your god.
Christians don't believe in gods with one exception. If we could get them to not believe in the Christian God too they would be 100% atheists.So theists are just non-converted atheists.
That would mean that everyone is essentially some form of atheist.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Ah!...so you DO see it!
Of course there is a mystery.
What would it be?......to BE the First.
and yes.....Someone had to be First.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
So, if atheism is just a term for everything, at a state on a continuous scale, then the term "atheism" is superfluous. It doesn't really add any meaning or purpose, has no function for labeling things. It's like saying "it has color". Great. It does. But which kind? To say someone is atheist has in itself not additive meaning. You always have to qualify it with some additional adjective or noun, or it doesn't say anything. If I meet a person and he tells me he's an atheist, then I can say, well, me too, and the neighbor too, and everyone else too, so you're not special. So then, nothing has been really said until he can explain what kind of atheist (or human) he is. All the meaning falls on the qualifiers, completely.
With that now out of the way, then it shouldn't be a problem for someone to call themselves atheistic atheistic even theistic atheist.
---edit
Ooops. I found a slight error. It was meant to say: "then it shouldn't be a problem for someone to call themselves pantheistic atheist, or even theistic atheist."
Last edited:
marcosmasliaev
Member
Look at a car, someone made it. Look at all in universe, came from nothing?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's a different discussion. There are other discussion threads where those arguments are debated.
marcosmasliaev
Member
This is exactly this discussion.
marcosmasliaev
Member
You're right, thanks.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I think what was trying to be said is that there exists a fundamental level of interaction in the universe for which there is no out-right cause. For instance, gravity. We know that accumulation of mass increases gravity, but what is the real cause? As far as I know, it is unknown. We know that protons within an atom's structure maintain one polarity of charge and that electrons maintain an opposing/attractive charge. Why is this? Again, the true cause is unknown. Existence simply could not BE without there being these fundamental, unalterable and immutable functions. And that base layer does not, in any way, imply an intelligence.
From your perspective, this immutable layer of function is your God, is it not? A thing which does not obey cause and effect. And (beating a dead horse here) I would say that if the relatively "simplistic" immutable/base/fundamental mechanisms that run the universe like gravity and polar-charge attractions necessitate an intelligence having been behind them in your eyes, then something as grand as your God must also have required an intelligence to have been set into motion - and so on, and so on... ad nauseum.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
you're dismissing cause and effect .....?
as it might lead to concession there is a God.....
Thief
Rogue Theologian
It seems you are attempting to erode a line drawn.....and at the same time draw one.
After all that has been said in this thread.....I still contend....
There is no god...is a declaration.
It is a declaration has the mere utterance comes from having thought about it.
even if those thoughts were shallow and emotionally driven.
'not something special'....indeed.
God and heaven would be interested in something special.
Why choose out of mediocrity, when the very best is at hand to choose from?
marcosmasliaev
Member
Just because cause of something is unknown doesn't mean the cause doesn't exists.