Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I'm serious. If Fred is dead who cares which God he lost faith in? Do we really need a term for that?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is not a default position
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
In what way was I uncivil?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Against better judgment, I basically showed, yet again, that Internet forums killed the Socratic method.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What did I do wrong here? I was answering as best I can your question.Against better judgment, I basically showed, yet again, that Internet forums killed the Socratic method.
Isn't this about what people believe regarding God, so definitions don't really need to cover dead people whose loss of faith is not being discussed.
What did I do that caused offence, please tell me and I will apologise?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Just drop it.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No please, I have offended you. What was it that I said?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Why do you ask? Do you ask that question a lot?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I ask because you said you wanted to ask me a question, and I am answering it as best I can. And you are all of a sudden very cross at me. What happened? Just tell me, I will apologise and ensure it does not happen again.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Do you know what hypotheticals are, and the difference between topic or issue vs personal? My questions to you were not really about you per se, but it was a hypothetical set in an "let's say...", "if x...." and such. Your response to ask me why I'm asking these questions doesn't relate to the hypothetical case but is personal. The switch from topic to personal, like motivations or intentions is avoidance to the topic. It's a way to skip the answer and drag a red herring in front of the fox. It sidetracks the issue or thread that's being discussed. In other words, I'm not really offended, but I know from your response that the train died straight on the track and is now stuck. I'm not offended, but it won't work. The dialogue died.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I am less interested in hypotheticals than I am in what people believe and why. Sorry.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's okay. If I was offended by what you said, I had put you on ignore (which I didn't). So you're okay, but I can tell that we're not on the same wavelength. And it's not you, we're just too different about these things.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure, I was just exploring the accusation that I was uncivil, I had no intention to be,
But yes, you are 100% correct, I am not interested in the hypothetical as much as, I am in trying to understand somebody elses position.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Sure.
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
I was arguing with you ... but in the same general direction. Setting aside your assertion that all definitions are flawed, I wasn't really arguing against you.
What I was really hoping for was a citation or three to support your other assertion that certain people seek to somehow twist the meaning of atheism ... when it really couldn't be more simple: Atheists aren't convinced that supernatural, divine beings exist. Gods? Celestial beings? Call these alleged entities whatever you wish ... if you'd like me to believe in them, show me the evidence.
All of the theistic arguments I've ever heard amount to a very bad sales pitch for an imaginary solution to a non-existent problem.
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
There are plenty of examples of that in this thread.
Indeed.
This is reasonable. So, we can ask exactly what you do not find convincing.
Now, in the first step itself, we face a big hurdle. You are not clear about the very basics.
No kind of theism is based solely on argumentation. If you have tasted mango, can you explain the taste to me? No. So, theism deals with subjective experiences and teaches the ways to overcome the damaging painful effects of ego's working. Nothing of this is graspable.
Whereas, science works with graspable and measurable objects. I am a professional science person and I see no conflict in working of science and working of most theistic belief systems ... Except those created by ego, which is sense of separate real individuals and which is false.
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
Could you be more specific? Because if that's all you're going to give me to work with, my answer is inevitably going to be: All of it.
Except the part where Adam tried to blame Eve in the garden of Eden. That episode screams out "TRUTH" in ways that apparently only select mystics can comprehend.
The basics being that there's a god (or gods) that literally exist?
Sure I can. I can explain it to you all day. It's sweet. You understand what "sweet"means? At least a ballpark idea, yes? It's a little tangy. You understand that I'm not telling you it's fiery hot ... that it isn't bitter. That is isn't salty.
The real question is: What good will any of that do? Will it convince you that it's worth tasting? Perhaps.
ANd as an additional bonus, mangoes are known to actually exist. Aren't we fortunate?
By making objective claims about it, evidently.
Really? I'm not sure what religion you're speaking about, but it seems to me that the central premise of the Christian religion is that the entire universe was created just so believers could have a personal relationship with god. Doesn't this strike you as the very Nth degree of egotism?
It's a wonder that you're bothering to explain it.
Is that actually what the name plate on your desk says? I'll admit that I sincerely hope it does.
Q. - Does the (alleged) willful creation of an entire universe count as an egotistical act?
So provide one....