Nontheist

[osgart]

So the divine isn't the intelligence you promote?

I don't believe in the divine because it's way too ideal. I'm not exactly promoting anything. Just stating my convictions.

 

[danieldemol]

... "Life always finds a way". If you doubt that, look at evolution...

Or you could simply look at the barren 99.999% of the universe where life hasn't found a way

 

[osgart]

Planning on the fly

We are not static, and that is my point. You said planning on the fly is not intelligent. I would say on the contrary that it is more intelligent than forethought, which assumes the design is going to fixed, or static. Creating and adapting on the fly, takes creativity, which is a higher form of intelligence than preplanning. Thinking on your feet in other words, is much more intelligent than having a few billion years of preplanning.

So do you see nature's abilities to adapt and change to survive in changing situations to be contrary to the nature of the Divine? Didn't God create nature? And isn't the balance of all these systems working together which supports and sustains life that very grand perfection? You don't see the Miracle of it all!

Planning on the fly is very intelligent. Preplanning there's no time for that I don't think.

It's far from a grand perfection is what I see. It is quite a miracle indeed. It's astounding and could have very possibly never have happened.

 

[Windwalker]

Or you could simply look at the barren 99.999% of the universe where life hasn't found a way

So you're saying it's life is not successful unless it's existing in closer to 100% of everywhere you can possibly look? That's an interesting perspective. Sounds really crowded.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes well something like a 10,000 species a year go extinct because they didn't adapt. The odds for adapting for any species seems really stacked against them. Evolution seems more trial and error than design unless the designer really doesn't know what they are doing.

They estimate that 99.9% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. So if there is a "designer" they got it right .01% of the time.

Why are you taking a species-centric view of evolution? It's only good if it means my species wins and remains on top? Isn't that like the leaves complaining that the tree sucks because they only get to last for 3 seasons of one year? The center of the universe is not the human species.

 

[Nakosis]

Why are you taking a species-centric view of evolution? It's only good if it means my species wins and remains on top? Isn't that like the leaves complaining that the tree sucks because they only get to last for 3 seasons of one year? The center of the universe is not the human species.

Since I didn't say anything about the human species, I'll take it that you either didn't read the post fully or simply weren't able to come up with a counter argument which made any sense.

 

[danieldemol]

So you're saying it's life is not successful unless it's existing in closer to 100% of everywhere you can possibly look? That's an interesting perspective. Sounds really crowded.

I'm saying life is not finding a way in the overwhelmingly vast majority of the known universe. That is all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly, so I win right?

Well, if it makes you feel better, then yes. But I still act differently mentally.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you asking how Walt Disney can conceive the idea of a talking mouse that is often involved in mischief? Mickey Mouse exists as an idea in reality. There are no actual talking mice. There are images of Mickey Mouse. These are created by cartoonists. The cartoons are real, the talking mouse isn't.

You've never seen Mickey Mouse? Or you have and you think it's an actual mouse?

No, the word credible is a word with useful meaning, and applies when it can be argued and defended. If some overweight guy, with bad skin, and a terrible haircut claims to be the sexiest man alive, it is fair and arguable that his claim is NOT credible. Those who claim any number of gods exists yet can't explain hos it's true also make claims that are not credible. Any time someone mentions a god they are likely not stating a credible claim about reality. Why? A massive lack of evidence.

Yet you don't mention what it is, so I have option but to ignore this.

Have I claimed any such thing? No. Do you know what fallacy this is? Straw man. Laugh at that.

Yeah, useful is in your mind and only have first person subjective meaning.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

You don't even understand that useful as useful is not science.

 

[AppieB]

Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and non-religious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in the existence of God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of gods and differs from atheism, or active disbelief in any gods.

I suppose I will have to consider myself a nontheist since atheism has been defined by many as someone who disbelieves in a God.

I an neutral about the existence of any God since I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists.
Prior, imo, atheism ought to cover this since an "a" prefix usually means without. So an atheist is someone without a God such as someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in a God, however since it has been defined otherwise it becomes a matter of more confusion than necessary.

So you "neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists"? That doesn't make any sense. You are stating a dichotomy, but say neither applies to you.
"neither believe one exists" which means: you do not believe a god exists
"nor disbelieve one exists" which means: you do not not believe a god exists

There is no third option, unless you want to violate the law of excluded middle.

 

[PureX]

OK, not a thing, a sense of wonder and mystery, so why insist on calling it God?

Who cares what we call it? God is just a word.

 

[Nakosis]

So you "neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists"? That doesn't make any sense. You are stating a dichotomy, but say neither applies to you.
"neither believe one exists" which means: you do not believe a god exists
"nor disbelieve one exists" which means: you do not not believe a god exists

There is no third option, unless you want to violate the law of excluded middle.

The law of excluded middle only applies if I said that God both exists and doesn't exist which I've never claimed.
I am simply saying I don't know which statement is true and which is false.

 

[Nakosis]

But I still act differently mentally.

I should hope so since your brain is unique and different from mine.
Otherwise we'd both would have the same brain.

 

[AppieB]

The law of excluded middle only applies if I said that God both exists and doesn't exist which I've never claimed.
I am simply saying I don't know which statement is true and which is false.

You essentially are saying: I do not believe a god exists and I do not not-believe a god exists.
In other words: I believe a god exists and I don't believe a god exists.
The law of excluded middle applies (something is p or not-p): believe of not believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You essentially are saying: I do not believe a god exists and I do not not-believe a god exists.
In other words: I believe a god exists and I don't believe a god exists.
The law of excluded middle applies (something is p or not-p): believe of not believe.

No, believe is in one case about truth and false.
For that version of it is I don't consider it true or false that God exists and I don't consider true of false that God doesn't exist. It is version of suspending judgment on the truth on something.
You have to for claims to include the fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[Kfox]

Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and non-religious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in the existence of God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of gods and differs from atheism, or active disbelief in any gods.

I suppose I will have to consider myself a nontheist since atheism has been defined by many as someone who disbelieves in a God.

It has been my experience that those "many" who define atheism that way are theists, that atheists define themselves as non-belief in Gods. If you want to get information about someone, you go to that person; not someone who disagree with, or even have disdain for them.

 

[Kfox]

You essentially are saying: I do not believe a god exists and I do not not-believe a god exists.
In other words: I believe a god exists and I don't believe a god exists.
The law of excluded middle applies (something is p or not-p): believe of not believe.

No, it is perfectly reasonable to remain skeptical, or to suspend judgment concerning the truth of a matter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it is perfectly reasonable to remain skeptical, or to suspend judgment concerning the truth of a matter.

No, if I am subjectively certain, then I don't have to doubt if it is an objective fact, because the standard is that I am subjectively certain. All truth requires, is that I am subjectively certain as that is the end justification for truth and knowledge.
I.e. I have objective knowledge, that I am XY, because I am subjectively certain of that and thus it is true and can't be doubted.

 

[AppieB]

No, believe is in one case about truth and false.
For that version of it is I don't consider it true or false that God exists and I don't consider true of false that God doesn't exist. It is version of suspending judgment on the truth on something.
You have to for claims to include the fallacy of the excluded middle.

You are not reading what it says. It's not about truth and false. It's about believe and not believe. That is a dichotomy.

 

[AppieB]

No, it is perfectly reasonable to remain skeptical, or to suspend judgment concerning the truth of a matter.

Whether you are skeptical or suspend judgment doesn't matter. Either you believe or not believe.
Or in the case Nakosis is formulating: Either you do not believe or you do not not-believe.