Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FWIW, your Ten Truths are clearly making a case for a materialist atheist worldview. No hint of belief in anything supernatural. There was no ambiguity that you are an atheist.
Reinforcing the idea of "supernatural" anything plays into the atheist hands because it is neither true nor necessary. There are things that we do not currently understand and may not be able to understand but there is no need to call them supernatural. Everything that we have discovered about our Reality is information about God and is natural. Using the Nine Truths, excuse me - the Ten truths does NOT make a case for the atheist worldview. They equally make the case for a theist worldview because the issue of God is NOT resolved or resolvable.
I've seen all manner of approach in this forum, "good, bad and ugly." I've not noticed strong evidence that either "side" has been without the bad and ugly.
As for my posts, I can't imagine anyone who has paid half attention to my comments somehow thinking I cold be a theist. Or even wondering. Especially if you understood my Ten Truths.
If you can find a one post of mine that might suggest such a thing, I'd be curious to see it pointed out.
it wasn't that i saw your posts suggesting either side, but I recall posts that roughly agreed or disagreed with this or that and the result was that i saw someone willing to argue either way. I don't exclude a theist from doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Reinforcing the idea of "supernatural" anything plays into the atheist hands because it is neither true nor necessary. There are things that we do not currently understand and may not be able to understand but there is no need to call them supernatural. Everything that we have discovered about our Reality is information about God and is natural. Using the Nine Truths, excuse me - the Ten truths does NOT make a case for the atheist worldview. They equally make the case for a theist worldview because the issue of God is NOT resolved or resolvable.
Reinforcing the idea of "supernatural" anything plays into the atheist hands because it is neither true nor necessary. There are things that we do not currently understand and may not be able to understand but there is no need to call them supernatural. Everything that we have discovered about our Reality is information about God and is natural. Using the Nine Truths, excuse me - the Ten truths does NOT make a case for the atheist worldview. They equally make the case for a theist worldview because the issue of God is NOT resolved or resolvable.
Maybe visit that thread again and further explain, because I certainly don't agree with your summation here...
I do like what you too explain here though. "There are things that we do not currently understand and may not be able to understand but there is no need to call them supernatural." Sounds more like what my truths are about. In part anyway...
it wasn't that i saw your posts suggesting either side, but I recall posts that roughly agreed or disagreed with this or that and the result was that i saw someone willing to argue either way. I don't exclude a theist from doing that.
Damn.
Argue either way? How have I ever argued on behalf of theism? You've really got me scratching my head with that one. Seems you have followed along with some of my comments, but understand them? I'm not too sure. Again a specific or two would no doubt help a good deal...
PS: are we all agreed about this definition of atheism?
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
If a Theist is one who believes in gods, then by definition, an Atheist must disbelieve, since that is what the "A" in "Atheist" means.
The difference between disbelieving and lacking belief is verbal gymnastics.
If you lack belief, it's because you do not believe, meaning you disbelieve.
That's different than an Agnostic. An Agnostic lacks information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief, with the additional implication that a god or the nature of any god not could be comprehended by any human, and to that extent, the existence of a god is totally irrelevant.
Note that christianity is based in part on the principle of a personal god, which is contrary to the views of Agnostics and Atheists. Contrast that with Judaism, which is not predicated on a personal god, rather on a national god, and as the texts in the Old Testament state, each nation/people (goyim) has its own god.
In modern context, nation/people is nation-State, like Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, et al, and they could never have envisioned a country -- a non-nation-State -- like the US.
For the Hebrews, a country like the US consisting of many different nations/peoples could not have existed.
Unlike christianity and Judaism, Islam is a true monotheistic religion, but like christianity, Allah is viewed as a personal god.
The other true monotheistic religion is Sikhism and their god, who doesn't really have a name just a nice list of adjectives, is also a personal god. They adopt an Agnostic view in that you cannot comprehend god, but that you can experience god.
Argue either way? How have I ever argued on behalf of theism? You've really got me scratching my head with that one. Seems you have followed along with some of my comments, but understand them? I'm not too sure. Again a specific or two would no doubt help a good deal...
Lokk, I haven't done a meticulous scrutiny of your posts to decide where you stand, and couldn't recall anything that struck me as rooting for either theism or atheism. I recalled that you sometimes agreed and sometimes argued. So I didn't have any reason to assign you to either view. Now you declared for atheism, fine.
Quote:
PS: are we all agreed about this definition of atheism?
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Reinforcing the idea of "supernatural" anything plays into the atheist hands because it is neither true nor necessary. There are things that we do not currently understand and may not be able to understand but there is no need to call them supernatural. Everything that we have discovered about our Reality is information about God and is natural. Using the Nine Truths, excuse me - the Ten truths does NOT make a case for the atheist worldview. They equally make the case for a theist worldview because the issue of God is NOT resolved or resolvable.
You don't believe in the supernatural?
I said the Nine/Ten Truths was making a case for materialist atheism. I didn't say I found it compelling, personally.
You don't believe in the supernatural?
I said the Nine/Ten Truths was making a case for materialist atheism. I didn't say I found it compelling, personally.
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
If a Theist is one who believes in gods, then by definition, an Atheist must disbelieve, since that is what the "A" in "Atheist" means.
The difference between disbelieving and lacking belief is verbal gymnastics.
If you lack belief, it's because you do not believe, meaning you disbelieve.
That's different than an Agnostic. An Agnostic lacks information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief, with the additional implication that a god or the nature of any god not could be comprehended by any human, and to that extent, the existence of a god is totally irrelevant.
Note that christianity is based in part on the principle of a personal god, which is contrary to the views of Agnostics and Atheists. Contrast that with Judaism, which is not predicated on a personal god, rather on a national god, and as the texts in the Old Testament state, each nation/people (goyim) has its own god.
In modern context, nation/people is nation-State, like Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, et al, and they could never have envisioned a country -- a non-nation-State -- like the US.
For the Hebrews, a country like the US consisting of many different nations/peoples could not have existed.
Unlike christianity and Judaism, Islam is a true monotheistic religion, but like christianity, Allah is viewed as a personal god.
The other true monotheistic religion is Sikhism and their god, who doesn't really have a name just a nice list of adjectives, is also a personal god. They adopt an Agnostic view in that you cannot comprehend god, but that you can experience god.
"Verbal gymnastics" far as you are concerned but it seems to me you are slipping badly off the bars. Not understanding my point about Carl Sagan's definition and the one I cited in any case, but what does it matter? I'm an atheist far as I know. Simple as that. No need for any further gymnastics rotating around that I don't think...
Lokk, I haven't done a meticulous scrutiny of your posts to decide where you stand, and couldn't recall anything that struck me as rooting for either theism or atheism. I recalled that you sometimes agreed and sometimes argued. So I didn't have any reason to assign you to either view. Now you declared for atheism, fine.
Sounds fine to me.
No need to get snippy...
You shared your observation or understanding about my comments, and I was puzzled since I don't think it takes much "meticulous scrutiny" to quickly surmise where people are coming from in this forum as a rule. Also not so much a matter of what sounds "fine" to you but more about simply explaining ourselves or sharing perspective, "comparing notes" wherever any of that may lead. Agree or disagree no matter to me.
It's informed intelligent civil discussion that matters the most to me. Hasn't taken much in the way of scrutiny to notice you tend to take the "high road" along those lines in most cases, which I appreciate. Thanks for that in any case...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
