*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Reflex]

... its outright laughable to claim that atheists somehow need or want an excuse to avoid debate when they are constantly debating.

That's kinda the point: not even the most ardent non-stamp collector is going to take an action that involves his hobby of not collecting stamps. The insanity of it is that they don't see the absurdity of their debating the issue. It's more like thy are trying to convince themselves than anything else.

 

[Reflex]

I don't think so. Meaning is determined by the individual. When I read the Bible I realize that people may or may not come to the same conclusions that I do.

True enough, but that doesn't mean their self-created meaning isn't absurd.

Like I said elsewhere: Whether talking about the Big Bang as a singular event, an infinite number of universes, something from “nothing,” “branes” or whatever, there is always and inevitably the premise of a self-existing and indeterminate quantum field. There is no way of getting around it. There is an aversion to calling this field a “first cause” because of its obvious theistic connotation, but semantics aside, that's exactly what it is. And this presumed "first cause" of science and the God of religion are one and the same. Whether we call it "God" or the "quantum field," it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

The word "divine," like the words "God" and "reality," is an indicator to facilitate communication. It designates an experience without defining or describing that to which it points. Anything said about it is just that person's conceptual interpretation--the reality itself is indefinite. Of course, there is no empirical or objective evidence that the sense of connectedness is indeed genuine, but it is not inconsistent with science (especially in view of modern science) and no one seriously denies that it is real, though more often not, it is known unconsciously or secondhand rather than something experienced firsthand. William James understood this quite well.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's kinda the point: not even the most ardent non-stamp collector is going to take an action that involves his hobby of not collecting stamps. The insanity of it is that they don't see the absurdity of their debating the issue. It's more like thy are trying to convince themselves than anything else.

As an avid non-stamp collector, I can state with authority that most of us don't even debate it.
It just comes naturally to not collect them.
We've just no reason to.
But stamp collectors make it an issue for us, so we talk to them about it.
And then too....there's the "In Stamps We Trust" motto they imposed upon us a century & a half ago.

 

[RedDragon94]

True enough, but that doesn't mean their self-created meaning isn't absurd.

Like I said elsewhere: Whether talking about the Big Bang as a singular event, an infinite number of universes, something from “nothing,” “branes” or whatever, there is always and inevitably the premise of a self-existing and indeterminate quantum field. There is no way of getting around it. There is an aversion to calling this field a “first cause” because of its obvious theistic connotation, but semantics aside, that's exactly what it is. And this presumed "first cause" of science and the God of religion are one and the same. Whether we call it "God" or the "quantum field," it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

The word "divine," like the words "God" and "reality," is an indicator to facilitate communication. It designates an experience without defining or describing that to which it points. Anything said about it is just that person's conceptual interpretation--the reality itself is indefinite. Of course, there is no empirical or objective evidence that the sense of connectedness is indeed genuine, but it is not inconsistent with science (especially in view of modern science) and no one seriously denies that it is real, though more often not, it is known unconsciously or secondhand rather than something experienced firsthand. William James understood this quite well.

Okay, but the quantum field is an impersonal force. Isn't it? You can't call something without personhood a creator.

I didn't say there was no such thing as reality, I said that we're all biased about reality in some way.

I know that everything is connected, it just may or may not be because of a divine being. It could be just natural for everything to be connected.

 

[Desert Snake]

Okay, but the quantum field is an impersonal force. Isn't it? You can't call something without personhood a creator.

I didn't say there was no such thing as reality, I said that we're all biased about reality in some way.

I know that everything is connected, it just may or may not be because of a divine being. It could be just natural for everything to be connected.

Therefore? Are you leaning towards atheism?

 

[outhouse]

, something from “nothing,”

which is a fallacy

an infinite number of universes,

A guess.

Whether talking about the Big Bang as a singular event

Pretty much understood as the way our universe formed without credible refutation against.

 

[outhouse]

Someone who argues that atheism is not a belief or a worldview is someone who would have an up without a down. It's obfuscation, totally ridiculous and epistemically empty --

Your leading off with a fallacy and then proceed to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

It is a fact one can be an implicit atheist and not have ever made a conscious rejection of theism. Even if one rejects theism does not mean a belief is required to substantiate the claim of not choosing theism.


Many claim It's obfuscation, totally ridiculous and epistemically empty to believe primitive mythology has a place in reality.

 

[outhouse]

True enough, but that doesn't mean their self-created meaning isn't absurd.

How can not believing in mythology as reality be viewed as absurd?


Would it not be absurd to think men who cannot define any god similarly, from a time period when men made gods out of mortal men, combined with not possessing a single shred of evidence in support of your particular god concept?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's kinda the point: not even the most ardent non-stamp collector is going to take an action that involves his hobby of not collecting stamps. The insanity of it is that they don't see the absurdity of their debating the issue. It's more like thy are trying to convince themselves than anything else.

Do you realise we live in a world where the majority of the world is theist? Do you realise we live in a world where there are still places where NOT being a theist is enough to render you a social outcast? A world where billions of people, and even powerful political groups, derive their worldviews and their moral, ethical and philosophical positions from religious texts and teachings?

The only thing that's absurd is your comparison. If non-stamp collectors lived in a world where the majority of people were stamp collectors, and many people determined their ethical and political positions entirely by who had the best stamp collection, and entire societies shunned non-stamp collectors as morally corrupt heathens; maybe then your comparison might be more applicable, and maybe you'd understand why some of those non-stamp collectors may consider the merits of stamp collecting being worth speaking out against.

 

[Reflex]

Okay, but the quantum field is an impersonal force. Isn't it? You can't call something without personhood a creator.

I didn't say there was no such thing as reality, I said that we're all biased about reality in some way.

I know that everything is connected, it just may or may not be because of a divine being. It could be just natural for everything to be connected.

"Anything said about it is just that person's conceptual interpretation--the reality itself is indefinite." It follows, then, that calling the quantum field an "impersonal force" is a philosophical assumption. Depending one's personal experience, the First Source alluded to in my previous post can be prepersonal, personal, impersonal or transpersonal in ways we cannot begin to imagine. Or, as Thomas Aquinas said, "In the end, we know God as unknown." But the reality of a First Cause cannot be denied by a rational mind.

The debate, then, isn't whether God exists, but what the individual makes of It. "I dunno" (an escape often used by atheists) has no epistemic value, and to be satisfied with that shows all the intellectual dept of a dehydrated sponge.

 

[dgirl1986]

How can not believing in mythology as reality be viewed as absurd?

Would it not be absurd to think men who cannot define any god similarly, from a time period when men made gods out of mortal men, combined with not possessing a single shred of evidence in support of your particular god concept?

Spot on bruh

 

[RedDragon94]

Depending one's personal experience, the First Source alluded to in my previous post can be prepersonal, personal, impersonal or transpersonal in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

No no no, either God is personal or he isn't.

"In the end, we know God as unknown."

Then what's the point of believing in God?

But the reality of a First Cause cannot be denied by a rational mind.

Unless you're an Evolutionist.

but what the individual makes of It.

If God is simply an idea then there isn't one. It's just as Anton LaVey said, man creates his gods instead of his gods creating him.

"I dunno" (an escape often used by atheists) has no epistemic value

Well no, but then again that would be me trying to disprove something like Santa Claus.

 

[outhouse]

But the reality of a First Cause cannot be denied by a rational mind.

Factually false.

Rational thought would be to investigate all reasonable possibilities without bias. First cause as we can tell is that a singularity expanded. Singularities are quite common in nature, and NO ancient primitive mythology describes any aspect of such an event.

Most creation mythology describes obvious fiction in any credible scientific sense of the word.

, "In the end, we know God as unknown."

Which I find absurd.

How can you take an unknown and then claim to know? Imagination is all I can see being used by said methodology used by Thomas Aquinas

 

[Reflex]

Do you realise we live in a world where the majority of the world is theist? Do you realise we live in a world where there are still places where NOT being a theist is enough to render you a social outcast? A world where billions of people, and even powerful political groups, derive their worldviews and their moral, ethical and philosophical positions from religious texts and teachings?

Sounds to me like your worldview includes a lot of self-pity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sounds to me like your worldview includes a lot of self-pity.

Sounds to me like you entirely missed the point I was making in lieu of making intellectually vapid, snarky remarks. If you can't debate reasonably, then don't debate at all, especially when you're clearly incredibly ignorant of the subject you are debating.

 

[outhouse]

"I dunno" (an escape often used by atheists) has no epistemic value, and to be satisfied with that shows all the intellectual dept of a dehydrated sponge.

Yes I agree, unfortunately here the atheist have not used any such escape, and your creating a fallacy so that you don't have to deal with the topic head on.

So the real question is how the minority of atheist using this so called "escape" is worse then the majority of theist using faith as a methodology for a conclusion of certainties ??????????

 

[outhouse]

Sounds to me like your worldview includes a lot of self-pity.

It is always a sign of severe desperation when one has to attack the messenger, after failing to address the message.

 

[RedDragon94]

Sounds to me like your worldview includes a lot of self-pity.

Sounds like you don't have a lot of empathy.

 

[Reflex]

No no no, either God is personal or he isn't.

A philosophical assumption.

Then what's the point of believing in God?

It's not about "belief."

Unless you're an Evolutionist.

Based on what was said, this is simply incoherent.

If God is simply an idea then there isn't one. It's just as Anton LaVey said, man creates his gods instead of his gods creating him.

The God conceived is not God (a common theistic premise).

Well no, but then again that would be me trying to disprove something like Santa Claus.

Non sequitur.

 

[Reflex]

Sounds like you don't have a lot of empathy.

I don't. There have always been minorities and there always will be. How well it's handled is a matter of character.