Question for Atheists...

[Exaltist Ethan]

Being a pantheist doesn’t mean your ideas have automatic validity. It’s still a form of theism, and there are assumptions your views have that aren’t based in fact.

Fine. I'll stop posting in this thread. It was a mistake to do so anyways.

 

[F1fan]

Fine. I'll stop posting in this thread. It was a mistake to do so anyways.

Oddly reactionary.

If your ideas are true and defendable then why not take time to explain it? If your ideas aren’t true or arguable then why believe them?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Oddly reactionary.

If your ideas are true and defendable then why not take time to explain it? If your ideas aren’t true or arguable then why believe them?

Because I have explained numerous times why I believe what I believe. I don't really care if you think my arguments are valid or not, I have more important things to do than to "prove" the validity of my arguments. If you explore other parts of these Forums you will see many threads created by me where I explain in multiple ways and details of my beliefs and why I hold them. Actually, I usually ignore the Debates section, and typically only post here when I'm defending someone else's view points - like Trailblazer's beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. And otherwise, what I try to do is bridge the gaps between believers and skeptics, often defending or relating to other people's view points instead of trying to defend my own. It's in my title.

I have very little use debating with you. You haven't proven to me that you've actually thought this anymore than a rudimentary sense of atheism. Trailblazer may gain pleasure from debating with the crowd of nonbelievers in this forum, but to me an atheist is someone who really hasn't thought about God seriously at all. I understand that for you F1fan, God is not part of your life, and that my view of pantheism isn't valid to you, and I have known this now for several months, but there's nothing more to be gained from this conversation. If you want to know why I believe what I believe I suggest you look at this thread. Otherwise, I have nothing to gain from this conversation.

 

[Kfox]

​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

I grew up.

 

[Nakosis]

This is vaguely insulting to people who accept that there's more to the world than the physical. It has nothing to do with your ability to reason or use logic. It would be one thing if the "supernatural" was conclusively proven to not exist, but that's not the case. It's a difference of opinion and experience. It has nothing to do with your intellect. I just wanted to point that out.

Logic and reason aren't about intellect.
They are about examining your thoughts/thinking.
Whether if you can justify what you think is true.

 

[Nakosis]

It's very hard to remember what one believed at a very young age, and in my case, a somewhat older age because as an abused child, I repressed much as a defense mechanism (that's in my childhood records from the institution that helped me heal).

Still, I don't ever remember a time when I believed in any sort of a god, and certainly not the Christian one that was the general belief all around me.

As to what you might call "supernatural," that's never been part of my beliefs, either. When I was young and saw magicians and mind-readers and so on, I always reasoned that there had to be an explanation -- even if I didn't now what it was -- and if that was the case it had to be natural. Just unknown (but not unknowable) to me.

As my child pshychiatrist once said, "he defends himself with rationalization and intellectualization."

I suppose we each end up here in our own unique way.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not all Atheists are naturalists. Some believe in a supernatural godless reality. Therefore, that question is applicable only to naturalism.

ciao

- viole

Yup, a mate I grew up with was an agnostic atheist, but a fervent believer in both an afterlife, and ghosts/spiritual manifestations.

 

[Nakosis]

Sure, but I'm not sure what idea you'd be communicating. The distinction between people who believe at least one thing that could be labelled supernatural and the people who don't believe any doesn't strike me as especially significant to anything.

If it is not significant to you then don't worry about it.

 

[Heyo]

Being a pantheist doesn’t mean your ideas have automatic validity. It’s still a form of theism, and there are assumptions your views have that aren’t based in fact.

Pantheist is a misnomer. It is not a form of theism, it is a form of deism.

 

[Heyo]

In essence the way supernatural is used and defined means that category of phenomenon are synonymous with imaginary. Oddly if a God were to exist it would be a natural phenomenon.

When a naturalist "believes" in telepathy, they assume a natural way it can be explained. Some form of wave that can be emitted by and detected by a brain. They can be swayed by evidence.
When a supernaturalist believes in telepathy, they don't care about scientific explanations, nor do they think there are any or need to be. Scientific evidence won't sway their opinion.

 

[lukethethird]

View attachment 78617​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

The supernatural requires magical thinking, I stopped magical thinking soon after I no longer believed in Santa Claus. Ruling out magical thinking ruled out God, ghosts, the paranormal, and all manner of things. Not a big deal, just a part of growing up.

 

[idea]

View attachment 78617​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

Choose words carefully. Believe in? Faith in? Trust?

I'm agnostic on existence.
I don't trust any supernatural entities. Don't have faith in them. If a ghost showed themselves, I wouldn't believe what they said. (I don't trust people either)
Ghosts exist? Possibly.
All-powerful? No.

 

[1213]

Sure, spirituality sees shadows on the wall while the scientist leaves to cave to go out and investigate regardless of how much the sun hurts their eyes.

Interesting, I think atheists are like the people staring the shadows and thinking what they see must be all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pantheist is a misnomer. It is not a form of theism, it is a form of deism.

But deism is a form of theism, so... *shrug*

 

[Heyo]

But deism is a form of theism, so... *shrug*

Nope. It's the other way around. Theism is a special case of deism.
A theist believes, additionally to the existence of a god, that it is also personal and intervening.

 

[Nakosis]

Interesting, I think atheists are like the people staring the shadows and thinking what they see must be all.

Of the folks who managed to escape the cave. Don't you think one of them would have come back to those remaining in the cave with some physical evidence of the world outside of the cave?

This is what scientists do. They go looking for the cause of the shadows and simply bring back evidence of what they find.
There have been folks who have offered a million dollars to provide evidence of a spiritual reality.
While scientists continue to bring back more and more evidence of what is casting the shadows.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. It's the other way around. Theism is a special case of deism.
A theist believes, additionally to the existence of a god, that it is also personal and intervening.

I feel like we've been through this before, but:

- a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.

- a deist is someone who believes in a god who doesn't intervene in his creation.

Deists are theists. Pantheists are theists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I grew up.

Being realistic and a skeptic helps too.

 

[Heyo]

I feel like we've been through this before, but:

- a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.

- a deist is someone who believes in a god who doesn't intervene in his creation.

Deists are theists. Pantheists are theists.

Deists and theists believe in a god.
Theists also believe that that god/those gods are intervening.

Which one is a subclass of the other?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Deists and theists believe in a god.

Theists believe in at least one god.

Deists believe in one creator god that doesn't do revelations or miracles.

Theists also believe that that god/those gods are intervening.

No, not necessarily.

Which one is a subclass of the other?

You think that, say, polytheists and evangelicals are all deists? Give your head a shake.