Questions about my version of atheism

[Magic Man]

No... so far you've supplied "right" answers, and do you know how hard it is to continue a discussion when all parties agree? lol

Of course, we could always debate agreeance. In what I said, what in particular do you agree with?

I hear ya, I'm just not used to that from you. I do thank you for testing me constantly, though. It keeps me sharp, and helps me sort through things.

 

[Willamena]

Do you see any that contradicts between post #16 and post #38?

 

[Magic Man]

Do you see any that contradicts between post #16 and post #38?

No, what am I missing?

 

[Storm]

I think Storm has it right in that she says she knows that to some people the existence of a God seems illogical, but, since she takes that part as a given due to personal experience, she at least wants her explanation of it to make logical sense. It's hard to argue with that way of thinking. And feel free to correct me there, Storm, and I apologize if I misspoke for you, but that's how I understand your assessment of it.

One possible misunderstanding. I don't want it to make sense for the purpose of debate. I want it to make sense for its own sake.

 

[Magic Man]

One possible misunderstanding. I don't want it to make sense for the purpose of debate. I want it to make sense for its own sake.

OK, gotcha. Sorry if I implied the opposite.

 

[Storm]

No worries. I just thought it was unclear.

 

[GadFly]

*Sighs.*

I agree with you, but the way you've argued it is flawed... Belief in God is a testament to faith, and not necessarily logic.

The way I see it, this universe is far too arcane to have come about at random. I believe its creation was attributable to some higher power, far beyond our understanding. That belief may or may not be logical, but it's my own.

Besides, WhereIsMyNoteCard had a point. The way you phrased that was uncalled for. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, and neither you nor I have the right to claim that ours are superior.

It seems that I am having trouble in being rude. I do not see what I worded in such a manner that it was not called for. Had I been aware of what was rude, I would have tried to re-word what I said. I do apologize.:sorry1: An explanation from you would be appreciated.

I also believe the creation of the universe is attributable to a higher power. And I ask you, can a testament to faith also be logical? You do not believe that faith and logic are in conflict, do you?

GadFly

 

[Magic Man]

It seems that I am having trouble in being rude. I do not see what I worded in such a manner that it was not called for. Had I been aware of what was rude, I would have tried to re-word what I said. I do apologize.:sorry1: An explanation from you would be appreciated.

I also believe the creation of the universe is attributable to a higher power. And I ask you, can a testament to faith also be logical? You do not believe that faith and logic are in conflict, do you?

GadFly

Faith and logic are not always in conflict, but sometimes they are. We take pretty much everything on faith, just because we cn't know anything for sure, but a lot of times what we believe, we do because it's logical. Blind faith on the other hand excludes logic to the point of taking something solely because. I'm sorry I can't describe to you how you were rude, if you don't already see it. I might try later, but it should be painfully obvious.

 

[GadFly]

As I said, there is no reason for me to believe that there is anything beyond what we can perceive.

I would much rather you asked questions to educate yourself on atheism, rather than just go for an argument. I put this in the "debate" section, because inevitably there will be some debate, but the whole idea is to inform, not so much argue.

My intentions are to inform. If my information is corrupt in some way, inform me. I am ready to be enlightened. Explain how you do not believe in God in reference to what most people believe. Don't you think that sometimes enlightenment by nature hurts us? Sometimes it is possible to mistake enlightenment for rudeness.
GadFly

 

[Storm]

Don't you think that sometimes enlightenment by nature hurts us? Sometimes it is possible to mistake enlightenment for rudeness.
GadFly

It's been my experience that if you have to say you're enlightened, it's because you're really not.

 

[Magic Man]

My intentions are to inform. If my information is corrupt in some way, inform me. I am ready to be enlightened. Explain how you do not believe in God in reference to what most people believe. Don't you think that sometimes enlightenment by nature hurts us? Sometimes it is possible to mistake enlightenment for rudeness.
GadFly

I don't understand your last comment. Are you saying you're enlightened and that's why you were rude? The point here is not to inform me, its to inform you. There are plenty of other debate threads to bring these things up. The point of this one was to answer any questions non-atheists, or even atheists, had about the way I see things, to give them a better understanding of what an atheistic point of view is like.

 

[GadFly]

Thank you for this response. I agree with everything you said. I can understand the idea that it must take something more than what we're seeing to create what we're seeing, but I just don't attribute it to an intelligent power. I have no problem with the way you see it, though.

You are absolutely correct that faith is the key which Gadfly is missing. It doesn't always make logical sense, but to most theists, that's not the point. Theism, many times, is tripped up by logic, where atheism thrives on it. That's not to say that theism is wrong, it just takes a different approach than logic. It's not that atheists don't have faith, it's just that we tend to put our faith in only those things which we can perceive, which is our evidence. I figure that anything that cannot be perceived cannot be reliable evidence.

I think Storm has it right in that she says she knows that to some people the existence of a God seems illogical, but, since she takes that part as a given due to personal experience, she at least wants her explanation of it to make logical sense. It's hard to argue with that way of thinking. And feel free to correct me there, Storm, and I apologize if I misspoke for you, but that's how I understand your assessment of it.

You asked Storm to correct you, can I do the same without being rude? "You are absolutely correct that faith is the key which Gadfly is missing." This is not true. GadFly has strong faith but I do not allow blind faith. Faith which can not be substantiated is false. The Christian, for example, believes faith is substance and things- real things. With all due respect, you are not qualified to speak for theist because you do not know what a theist believes.

It is true that to some folks the existence of God seems illogical but this has nothing to do with the nature of God. The fact is that this appearance has to do with the logic used to reason about God. If you reason about God with faulty logic, your conclusion about God will be illogical. If this is not true, please inform me what is true.

GadFly:yes:

 

[GadFly]

I do know what it's like to not believe in God. Throughout high school I was a very thoughtful person. I read extensively. I didn't believe in God. I don't think I even thought about God once. I had been Roman Catholic as a boy; consequently, I had some religious knowledge. However, I rejected it and shelved. I did not think about the possibility of again until I read 'War and Peace' by Tolstoy. Somewhere in the middle of the novel, Tolstoy made one of his many philosophical 'asides' in which he discussed the teleologically argument for the existence of God - the argument of cause and effect. I could not escape it. Once I picked up the bible and began reading the Gospel of Luke, I was caught by God.

It is a secure feeling to be captured by God.

 

[Storm]

He asked me to correct him because he was briefly talking about MY views. You seem to be trying to correct him on HIS views, and no, you cannot do that without being rude.

 

[GadFly]

As do I. I think that some people believe in an external ideal of God to remove all responsibility from themselves, or to justify anything---like demanding tithes from poor people when the preacher makes a mint already, or to justify suicide bombing. That should not be the goal of any religious/ethical belief. I think people should see that reality is what you make of it---it can be wonderful or terrible, but the choice is still ours.

In my opinion your responses to this thread have been excellent and enlightening. Of course laws of God are universal. But an atheist can not admit that as you point out. If an atheist points out laws are universally applied, he acknowledges a premise for God that can not be talked away.

The same is true of theories of relativity. If there is moral codes that are universal, it is illogical to say morals are relative. This response is actually to all your comments and not just this one. Thank you.
GadFly

 

[GadFly]

He asked me to correct him because he was briefly talking about MY views. You seem to be trying to correct him on HIS views, and no, you cannot do that without being rude.

I disagree with you. In this case I feel that it was the truth which may have offended him. He asked others to differ with him in this topic. He did not welcome my comments because he had no answer.

It could be rude to correct someone in a different forum that did not cherish debate to generate enlightenment. We are all here to learn. When I say something that is false, I learn a lot when I am shown something better. If I can not defend my position, I should not bring it up. For sure I should not ask for questions about what I believe if I am not honest enough to explain them or renounce them. That to me is not rude.

One thing which seems difficult to do here is to pick whose Ideas will be accepted and whose will not be. Since I have been accused of being rude, I think I have a right to respond. I have no intention to be rude whatsoever. I recognize the rebukes I have received as limitations on the ability of the rebuker. So carry on my brothers and sisters as I intend to stick to my arguments, of course with all due respect.:bow:
GadFly

 

[Magic Man]

You asked Storm to correct you, can I do the same without being rude? "You are absolutely correct that faith is the key which Gadfly is missing." This is not true. GadFly has strong faith but I do not allow blind faith. Faith which can not be substantiated is false. The Christian, for example, believes faith is substance and things- real things. With all due respect, you are not qualified to speak for theist because you do not know what a theist believes.

It is true that to some folks the existence of God seems illogical but this has nothing to do with the nature of God. The fact is that this appearance has to do with the logic used to reason about God. If you reason about God with faulty logic, your conclusion about God will be illogical. If this is not true, please inform me what is true.

GadFly:yes:

All right, let's start here. You're more than welcome to corret me, if I say something false. In this case, I think it is just a misunderstanding. When I said that faith is the key which you you're missing, I didn't mean that you're missing faith. I meant that you're missing the idea that it is faith, not logic, on which religions like Christianity are built.

I actually do know what a theist believes in general. I can't speak for each specific theist, but I know the basics, having grown up Catholic for 18 years, and having gone to Catholic school for 8 of them. I'd say I have at least enough info to discuss the general idea.

If you reason anything with faulty logic, you will come up with a faulty conclusion. The problem is that, if you reason the Christian God with sound logic, you still get a faulty conclusion. That's why there is faith.

 

[Magic Man]

In my opinion your responses to this thread have been excellent and enlightening. Of course laws of God are universal. But an atheist can not admit that as you point out. If an atheist points out laws are universally applied, he acknowledges a premise for God that can not be talked away.

The same is true of theories of relativity. If there is moral codes that are universal, it is illogical to say morals are relative. This response is actually to all your comments and not just this one. Thank you.
GadFly

See, here is the problem. You tell me I can't talk for theists, and then you go and talk for atheists when you don't have all of the info.

Universal rules do not necessarily lead to God. There could be, as I stated already, universal rules without a God. I admitted that there might be universal rules. Maybe you can "enlighten" me as to how that can have no meaning other than the existence of God. I can certainly talk away the notion of God's existence, while pointing out that universal rules might exist. I already did.

If there is a universal moral code. That is the key. I believe there is not such a thing, therefore there is no contradiction in my believing that morals are relative.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree with you. In this case I feel that it was the truth which may have offended him. He asked others to differ with him in this topic. He did not welcome my comments because he had no answer.

So you have the truth, and I don't, huh? You might be right, but, then again, you might be wrong. I asked others to ask questions, not differ. There will be differences, but debate is not the point here. I have plenty of answers for your comments, you just choose to ignore them.

And Storm was right. I asked her to correct me because I was basically putting words in her mouth. I just wanted to make sure they were the right words.

It could be rude to correct someone in a different forum that did not cherish debate to generate enlightenment. We are all here to learn. When I say something that is false, I learn a lot when I am shown something better. If I can not defend my position, I should not bring it up. For sure I should not ask for questions about what I believe if I am not honest enough to explain them or renounce them. That to me is not rude.

The problem is that you don't learn. You bring up your point, and ignore anyone else's. If I even got the idea that you were trying to see things differently, it would make things a lot better. We are here to learn, so ask questions, and don't tell others what they think before getting any info on them. If you really want to learn, this is the thread for you. So stop telling me your opinion, and start asking for mine, or go to another thread.

One thing which seems difficult to do here is to pick whose Ideas will be accepted and whose will not be. Since I have been accused of being rude, I think I have a right to respond. I have no intention to be rude whatsoever. I recognize the rebukes I have received as limitations on the ability of the rebuker. So carry on my brothers and sisters as I intend to stick to my arguments, of course with all due respect.:bow:
GadFly

Stick to your arguments in another thread then. In the meantime, if you have any questions you actually want answered, just to get more answers, then please ask away here.

 

[Popeyesays]

Tradition or belief that begs rational explanation is superstition.

"If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition . Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation." ~Abdu'l Baha, Bahai World Faith pp. 239-240

Regards,
Scott