*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[OutOfTheDarkness]

External to what?

External to you.

If you cannot physically have access to your book, you cannot connect with your god. There is nothing spiritual about it.

No book. No god.

 

[mindlight]

Non-atheistic things? Do you mean these are theist things?

The bible talks about the visit of the Magi in terms of the study of the stars but so also condemns astrology. But no you are probably right that astrology and belief in aliens are not intrinsically Theistic beliefs. The point was more to do with the fact that a lot of atheists are not as pure in their application of extreme scepticism , unbelief and doubt as they may believe about themselves. We all have crutches - its just that as a Christian mine is bigger and better than yours.

Well, actually the Biblical God can't logically exist. He is said to be omnipotent but can't defeat iron chariots,

He is Almighty - there is no force in the universe that is stronger. However and understanding of his power needs to be balanced with the limits he himself has set for himself and enforces.

the Bible says He can't be seen and claims nobody has seen Him but then records testimonies of people who have seen Him.

Christians have a solution to this in the Incarnation of course. But there are dimensions of God which would blow a persons mind and dimensions which do not. Look at the natural universe to see the same thing. Most of the universe we can see is observable because it carries an electro magnetic signature of some sort. However scientists speculate that given the apparent mass of the universe it is likely that most of what is out there is unseen dark matter or energy. Indeed 95% is hidden. The % with God is probably similar. So no one has seen God - who could without blowing up. Yet God has revealed Himself to many and they have seen God. This is not actually a contradiction if you think about it.

The Biblical God can't exist any more than married bachelors can exist.

Married Bachelors definitely do not exist.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Free will would imply a nonphysical teleological cause. So, the atheist would have to account for that in a Godless world. Good luck with that endeavor.

An atheist would account for that by doing more study... instead of subscribing to a theory created too long ago to be relevant.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Great copy paste.

Look up the word "connotation". Even your Merriam Webster Bible also allows for words to have meaning beyond the literal sense.

There is more to intellect than rigidly defining something without allowing for expansion of the original definition as more knowledge is acquired.

Such is religion. Define the rest of the world to fit one rigid construction that cannot evolve.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I said "free will" IMPLIES that a nonphysical, teleological cause. It implies this (a) because it is not determined by a prior cause (actually I have already cited other sources that explicitly state that it is non material) and (b) because it is not random. (Something that is strictly random is purposeless.)

Whether or not free will is an illusion and we are at the mercy of cause and effect physics, or we somehow have the ability to effect change by willful thought...

... it is not proof of a God, nor that he wants us to wear a Turban, make the sign of the Holy Cross, or pray on a mat 5 times a day.

Before you can even get to the philosophical, you need to prove that God likes any of this stuff, and how you know it's not a total and complete fraud, carried on by generation after generation of unsuspecting, brainwashed child.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Well, divine intervention would obviously negate your freedom. (I personally don't believe in this type of divine intervention.)

How did you get your book then?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Obviously cognitive function can only function with information. But lets say I'm in a maze and I reach a fork in the road. There is nothing that would make me prefer one to the other in this instance. Lets say I keep reaching forks on the road. Each time I have the ability to choose left or right. I can choose what to do.

Lets take a different approach. If I am in an abusive relationship I have the ability to choose if I leave that relationship or stay in it. I still have plenty of things that go into that but I ultimately have the choice to do what I want because nothing in physics say the future is set. In fact everything in physics states that the future is never fixed.

To me that is free will.

Well... technically we don't know the physics of what we call thought... yet... and it may be governed by something like molecular physics... so what you perceive as a choice is simply an interaction between molecules acting on a given set of physical, predictable rules.

Regardless... the point is we don't know, and won't know if we, humanity, keep stopping at the explanation that an imaginary friend decides it all and he wants you to wear a special hat.

 

[ArtieE]

The point was more to do with the fact that a lot of atheists are not as pure in their application of extreme scepticism , unbelief and doubt as they may believe about themselves. We all have crutches - its just that as a Christian mine is bigger and better than yours.

It seems you've got the completely wrong picture of atheism. Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods, nothing more nothing less just like theism is the presence of belief in the existence of at least one god. Nothing more nothing less. An atheist can believe whatever he likes as long as no gods are involved. A theist can believe whatever he likes even things involving gods. That's the only difference. Simply think of it this way. We are all atheists and live like atheists until we learn about gods and then we can choose to become theists and live like theists or continue to live like atheists as we've always done. Atheists range from people who just don't believe gods exist and haven't given the subject a second thought to strong atheists who are anti-theists and irreligious and do everything they can to persuade people from not believing in gods because they think such beliefs are harmful.

The problem here is that it's difficult to determine what is most beneficial and/or detrimental to society, atheism or theism. Theists can list many atheists who have done terrible things, atheists can counter with the fact that practically all serial killers in the US are theists, KKK, IS, al-Quaida and Muslim terrorist suicide bombers are all theists and on and on. It isn't whether one is atheist or theist that's the point, it's what other beliefs you have.

So no one has seen God - who could without blowing up. Yet God has revealed Himself to many and they have seen God. This is not actually a contradiction if you think about it.

Well, actually it is but no point in continuing that discussion...

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I used the definition of free will as it is commonly understood. And if you do not agree with that definition, then you do not agreed with the common definition.



I never argued or implied that cognitive reasoning and mental processes do not play a vital role in our decision-making. So, I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.



It is indeterminate because it is not completely determined by a prior cause. So, it would seem that you actually agree with the definition of free will I provided. (By the way, the definition of free will I provided is technically known as libertarian free will.)

You do realize definitions change, and words are added to the dictionary all the time... right?

You treat the dictionary like a bible. It's weird. Was it the number 1 definition, or the number 2... and is Merriam Webster right now having meetings to possibly update that definition?

Get out of your books, and into the real world... so you can speak from an experienced position, and a truly educated position.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

What do you think "necessity" means?

According to Merriam-Webster, something that happens of necessity is something that happens "in such a way that it cannot be otherwise."

Either our decision-making is a completely deterministic process or it is not. If it is, then the choices we make happen in such a way that they could not be otherwise. If it is not not, then our decision-making is (at least, partially) an indeterministic process.

Merriam-Webster defines indeterminism as (a) "a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes" and (b) "a theory that holds that not every event has a cause."

Now, let us return to Merriam-Webster's "simple" and "full" definitions of free will.

Merriam-Webster's simple definition of free will is as follows: "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God."

Merriam-Webster's full definition of free will is as follows: "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention."
The difference between the simple definition and the full definition is that the full definition is just more complete. Both the simple and the full definitions refer to libertarian free will. (This is the kind of free will most people believe they have.)



To reiterate: Your decision-making is either a completely deterministic process or it is not. If it is not, then it is (at least, partially) an indeterministic one by default. (Those are the only two logical possibilities. So, if you believe that your "brain" can make choices that are not completely predetermined, then you must believe they are not completely determined by physical processes.)



It plays a vital role in our decision-making. I never argued that our decision-making is a completely random process. That's why I specifically invoked a teleological explanation or final causality in speaking about free will.



If you believe your choices are not completely predetermined (which you apparently do), then you must believe (for the sake of logical consistency) that something is happening in your decision-making that is "uncaused." (Atheistic or scientific materialism has trouble with "uncaused causes.")

lol... I couldn't even get through that.

Do you pray to Merriam Webster? You quote it chapter and verse like it's gospel.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The ultimate purpose is the final cause. Also, I never argued that atheists are less for not having it. I simply argued that their view of world is absurd for not having it.

By the way, the argument I have made in the original post of this thread is essentially the same argument that atheist existentialists have made. So, I don't know why this is so controversial. I'm simply stating the obvious.

Again, look up the word "Connotation".

Like any racial epithet, discriminatory label, or immature name calling... your use of the word "absurd" is used in the same vein.

Merriam Webster defines "imagination" as:

:the ability to imagine things that are not real

: the ability to form a picture in your mind of something that you have not seen or experienced

: the ability to think of new things

: something that only exists or happens in your mind

Since the religious cannot prove their God exists anywhere but in their mind, Gods are imaginary.

 

[mindlight]

It seems you've got the completely wrong picture of atheism. Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods, nothing more nothing less just like theism is the presence of belief in the existence of at least one god. Nothing more nothing less. An atheist can believe whatever he likes as long as no gods are involved. A theist can believe whatever he likes even things involving gods. That's the only difference.

Of course strictly speaking you are right about this - the difference between atheists and theists is faith in a Deity.

Simply think of it this way. We are all atheists and live like atheists until we learn about gods and then we can choose to become theists and live like theists or continue to live like atheists as we've always done.

No children can pray from a very early age and I have heard incidents of children doing this where no one told them to do it. I remember an atheist lady being very shocked when the mum of the child in question told her this before me. Biblically it seems there are multiple incidents of children reacting to God even from the womb (john the Baptist meeting Jesus), Samuel (hearing Gods voice without understanding that it was God talking to him). We all live in the same world and some are forever blind to its full dimensions and some are open to the spiritual world seen or unseen and some become aware of this wider realm in time.

Atheists range from people who just don't believe gods exist and haven't given the subject a second thought to strong atheists who are anti-theists and irreligious and do everything they can to persuade people from not believing in gods because they think such beliefs are harmful.

Yes I have met and argued with both kinds

The problem here is that it's difficult to determine what is most beneficial and/or detrimental to society, atheism or theism. Theists can list many atheists who have done terrible things, atheists can counter with the fact that practically all serial killers in the US are theists, KKK, IS, al-Quaida and Muslim terrorist suicide bombers are all theists and on and on. It isn't whether one is atheist or theist that's the point, it's what other beliefs you have.Well, actually it is but no point in continuing that discussion...

I think in the context of the Caliphate or in Socrates reaction to the Greek pantheon of gods he was required to worship we have some healthy examples of atheism. In the case of mass murderers like Stalin or Mao we have 2 examples of atheists responsible for more deaths between them than all the religious wars in history.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

No, I'm not saying that. In fact, the observer effect in quantum mechanics provides a role for consciousness to play. Of course, the skeptics will scoff at this as quantum mysticism.

How much do you know about QM and the "mathematics" involved?

I always find it a rich hypocrisy for the religious to use discoveries made by those who refused to accept religion and god as the final answer.

If physicists had simply stopped at the imaginary friend theory, Merriam Webster would define "thunder" as:

: one of God's mysterious ways.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I generally agree. But there's something you're missing here. A truly random event is a truly mystical one because it defies any kind of mechanistic explanation.

Like Mary's virgin birth?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

It is absurd to hold to a world view that has no answers to the big questions and is essentially hopeless. Atheism is rendered absurd by the reality of meaning which any honest person essentially grasps is possible.

It is absurd to think you know it all... and make up weird things for that which you do not know.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Christ existed and exists and is the best possible affirmation of Theism. There was an historical context to the revelation of Jewish and Christian scriptures which people can agree on. It is absurd to pigeon hole Christianity with other non historical religions and it is absurd to dismiss out of hand the evidence that give a context to these claims.

Even your own book allows for false prophets and man being a lying sinner.

Orthodox Jews don't believe Jesus is the messiah, and they don't buy into your history, or the New Testament.

One group is completely wrong. Which is it?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Actually I find that I am more atheistic than most atheists when it comes to other gods. Atheists do all sorts of stupid non atheistic things like check their horror scopes , believe in aliens and alien abduction. But when it comes to the God whom Christ reveals the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. Here I stand I can do no other!

Offer some proof up please, and I will easily refute it.

This isn't "The Secret", where you just put it out there and somehow it makes it real.

All atheists believe in horoscopes and aliens. That's news to me. This is the narrow minded, inexperienced world view living out of a book produces.

 

[mindlight]

It is absurd to think you know it all... and make up weird things for that which you do not know.

If I had made them up it would be absurd. I like you am a finite, imperfect and mortal being that cannot possibly have all the answers and especially not about whether God exists or not. However if God a perfect, infinite and eternal Being affirms my testimony then it does carry authority. There is no authority on these kinds of questions without revelation. Attempts to convince merely on the basis of observation and deduction will always flounder.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The bible talks about the visit of the Magi in terms of the study of the stars but so also condemns astrology. But no you are probably right that astrology and belief in aliens are not intrinsically Theistic beliefs. The point was more to do with the fact that a lot of atheists are not as pure in their application of extreme scepticism , unbelief and doubt as they may believe about themselves. We all have crutches - its just that as a Christian mine is bigger and better than yours.



He is Almighty - there is no force in the universe that is stronger. However and understanding of his power needs to be balanced with the limits he himself has set for himself and enforces.



Christians have a solution to this in the Incarnation of course. But there are dimensions of God which would blow a persons mind and dimensions which do not. Look at the natural universe to see the same thing. Most of the universe we can see is observable because it carries an electro magnetic signature of some sort. However scientists speculate that given the apparent mass of the universe it is likely that most of what is out there is unseen dark matter or energy. Indeed 95% is hidden. The % with God is probably similar. So no one has seen God - who could without blowing up. Yet God has revealed Himself to many and they have seen God. This is not actually a contradiction if you think about it.



Married Bachelors definitely do not exist.

God's limits are actually defined by man interpreting a book. One person, or religious group claims a different interpretation... how do the religious determine the correct interpretation? Rock, Paper, Scissors?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Of course strictly speaking you are right about this - the difference between atheists and theists is faith in a Deity.



No children can pray from a very early age and I have heard incidents of children doing this where no one told them to do it. I remember an atheist lady being very shocked when the mum of the child in question told her this before me. Biblically it seems there are multiple incidents of children reacting to God even from the womb (john the Baptist meeting Jesus), Samuel (hearing Gods voice without understanding that it was God talking to him). We all live in the same world and some are forever blind to its full dimensions and some are open to the spiritual world seen or unseen and some become aware of this wider realm in time.



Yes I have met and argued with both kinds



I think in the context of the Caliphate or in Socrates reaction to the Greek pantheon of gods he was required to worship we have some healthy examples of atheism. In the case of mass murderers like Stalin or Mao we have 2 examples of atheists responsible for more deaths between them than all the religious wars in history.

So a friend of a friend of a friend of someone who used to go to high school with your third cousin said they saw a baby pray without any influence, because they were surgically attached to the parents 24/7 and can testify there was no influence?

Bunk.