So why not assume the Universe to be the first cause?Perhaps because cause and effect are so central to our experience of the universe, we intuitively look for the first cause to which all other causes can be traced.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So why not assume the Universe to be the first cause?Perhaps because cause and effect are so central to our experience of the universe, we intuitively look for the first cause to which all other causes can be traced.
If any of this were true I doubt I would want to know any such God. Given that I believe there is much to our existence that is more down to luck or bad luck without any interference from some unknown entity, and as to such, life makes more sense to me than anything otherwise.We can't please everyone. Maybe God hates you? Maybe God ignores you? Its obviously a position one has to consider when flippantly considering the possibility of God at all. The shield of agnosticism though is usually for the purpose of fending off an imposition of theocracy of some sort. I doubt anybody wakes up one morning thinking "I'll invent a concept of monotheism, call it God and then doubt if it is relevant to myself."
What gives you the right to decide?I think that by "magical thinking" you mean something very differently then what @icehorse was talking about.
If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist.
The definition of the word "atheist"?What gives you the right to decide?
That would be this: +The definition of the word "atheist"?
It's like saying "I'm a shape with 4 corners, no curves, all corners are 90° and all sides have the same length, but I am not a square!"
Good oneThat would be this: +
Atheism+
I'll look into that, but I don't see anything wrong with your English.Maybe there's a problem with my english understanding, but I don't think a cross consisting of just 2 lines counts as a "shape" which is a geometric figure, particularly its external form / contours / outlines, meaning that it has a surface which can be calculated.
Thanks.But good one, nonetheless
So why not assume the Universe to be the first cause?
A definition created by the religious and used by the religious to label people that are not like them. I assume you realize it is a label to single out people. I do not have to recognize myself with any label.The definition of the word "atheist"?
It's like saying "I'm a shape with 4 corners, no curves, all corners are 90° and all sides have the same length, but I am not a square!"
Definition of Universe;Indeed, why not. Then all we have to do is define the universe, know it's qualities, determine it's origins, and understand how it relates to us (and us to it).
A definition created by the religious and used by the religious to label people that are not like them.
It's barely even a label tbh.I assume you realize it is a label to single out people. I do not have to recognize myself with any label.
And as to your square, it is not an independent thinking thing. It is also a strict and structured design. The definition of Atheist is vague to include all those that the religious don't understand. If you wish use such a label feel free. I am not and will not be labeled.
Might depend where you are.It's barely even a label tbh.
Not really.
It's what the word means: somebody who doesn't believe in god(s).
It's barely even a label tbh.
It's like "assymmetrical". It's a word that applies to a shape when said shape isn't symmetrical.
But oh well
I see your point, but if you go in and drop "atheist' in certain locales and spaces, people make a lot of assumptions about you.
Yup.Sure. And that's their mistake, not mine.
My definition of Atheist is a Person who believes that some or all gods and/or some or all religions cause some or all harm to our world
, otherwise why would a person label themselves as a lack of belief or knowledge.
Indeed. Which is why "atheist" is such a stupid word. Which is why I said that it really barely qualifies as a "label" to begin with.Generally, we label our beliefs and knowledge or are label by others for lack of.
Other people's mistakes are not my responsibility however.Yup.
But it still has consequences. Its up for the person using or not using the label to decide if its worth it.
I think all the weirdness scientific investigations keep turning up will eventually resolve into something that makes sense. Eventually as in centuries from now perhaps. The idea of there being a god behind it is just a figment of our tendency to anthropomorphise, I think. We make things so from there the assumption that there must be a big powerful human-like entity that made everything else. But there’s no reason beyond our own perspective and imagination to think that is actually the case.I don't think that there is anything that anyone will ever be able to imagine, describe or define, that created the universe. I agree with the Buddha that speculating about it either way, whether or not he/she/they/it exist(s) is a useless, counterproductive and positively harmful distraction which drives people mad (in more ways than one). God says so Himself.
I'm not actually sure how I ended up here. Maybe because I saw myself going mad (in more ways than one) trying to find some way for it to have some meaning for me to say that an unknowable creator exists, or does not exist.