Questions about my version of atheism

[Magic Man]

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

Do you have a question for me?

 

[Popeyesays]

Do you have a question for me?

I was actually agreeing with you in this instance.

If you desire a question " What is it in your own belief system that makes you so easily provoked?"

Regards,
Scott

 

[Magic Man]

I was actually agreeing with you in this instance.

I'm sorry I honestly didn't get that. It might be from a preconceived notion, and I apologize. Thank you for the support.

If you desire a question " What is it in your own belief system that makes you so easily provoked?"

Regards,
Scott

I don't need a question, but I'll gladly answer. There is nothing in my belief system that makes me easily provoked. I am provoked by many of the same things that provoke others. Arrogance, condescension, stubbornness, to name a few. (And those are not directed at you, I promise )

 

[GadFly]

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

It is good to find another person on this thread that makes sense. What you point out is that without correct logic, science would not be possible. If universal laws of logic are not stable, but relative as the atheist believe, there would be no science. Our instructor on this thread has the audacity to teach us that theist rely on blind faith while atheist use logic to explain the world. Yet, he has not adhered to one principle of logic yet. I say this because he gives no premises for any of his assertions. After you, more tactfully than I pointed this out, he ignored you in the next response by asking if you had a question, completely ignoring you. How rude. At least he did not call you rude. But, if he does call you names, ignore him. As a true believer, God bless you.
GadFly:bow:

 

[Father Heathen]

Gadfly, have you ever heard of The Scientific Method? I mentioned it in another thread. If atheist logic is horribly flawed, how do you explain all the technological and medical advancements? Haven't you been told before about using weak, tired straw men? You can't just redefine things and then project your own wacky presumptions about the way we think.

 

[Magic Man]

It is good to find another person on this thread that makes sense. What you point out is that without correct logic, science would not be possible. If universal laws of logic are not stable, but relative as the atheist believe, there would be no science. Our instructor on this thread has the audacity to teach us that theist rely on blind faith while atheist use logic to explain the world. Yet, he has not adhered to one principle of logic yet. I say this because he gives no premises for any of his assertions. After you, more tactfully than I pointed this out, he ignored you in the next response by asking if you had a question, completely ignoring you. How rude. At least he did not call you rude. But, if he does call you names, ignore him. As a true believer, God bless you.
GadFly:bow:

I've had enough, Gadfly. Stay out of my thread, please.

I will respond one last time, and this is it.

I am only an instructor inasmuch as I know how an atheist's mind works because I am one. If you want knowledge about how football works, wouldn't you ask a football player?

I never used the term blind faith. I have actually been arguing the difference between faith and blind faith in another thread.

If you had asked about my assertions, and what logic was behind them I would have answered. You didn't, you just choose to ignore anything I have to say.

I didn't see how Popeye's statements were relevant, and so I asked whether he had a question. I then apologized for being so curt with him. I guess you missed that, though.

Please listen this time. I don't want to hear what you have to say anymore. I will not answer any more of your questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you stay out of my thread. If you want to waste someone else's time in another thread, and have their blessing, go ahead, but don't do it here. I tried my best to be nice to you, but I'm at my limit. :shout


Now, anyone else who is willing to listen and be respectful, even if you disagree, which includes most on RF, please continue with the questions.

 

[Scott C.]

As do I. I think that some people believe in an external ideal of God to remove all responsibility from themselves...

You lost me. Since I believe in God, I feel accountable to Him for my actions.

 

[Popeyesays]

mball, There is no such thing as a private thread here. Get over it. It's a public board and all are welcome to post, it's up to moderators to decide if a thread is being hijacked.

If you want private diuscussions use the PM software.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Magic Man]

mball, There is no such thing as a private thread here. Get over it. It's a public board and all are welcome to post, it's up to moderators to decide if a thread is being hijacked.

If you want private diuscussions use the PM software.

Regards,
Scott

Yes, but I can request that my thread stay as intended. I only said it so clearly and loudly because it seems pretty hard to get through to him. If you started a thread, and I went off topic, so you told me to start another thread about the new topic, you'd be perfectly within your rights. That's all I was doing.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yes, but I can request that my thread stay as intended. I only said it so clearly and loudly because it seems pretty hard to get through to him. If you started a thread, and I went off topic, so you told me to start another thread about the new topic, you'd be perfectly within your rights. That's all I was doing.

Baha`i's don't like confrontation as a tool, but prefer consultation.
Consultation requires one to put forth one's thoughts then give up ownership so those thoughts can be considered without anyone putting self into the equation.

Consultation brings things to light. Confrontation obscures the other view point with self-interest.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Willamena]

mball, There is no such thing as a private thread here. Get over it. It's a public board and all are welcome to post, it's up to moderators to decide if a thread is being hijacked.

If you want private diuscussions use the PM software.

Regards,
Scott

But there is a point to remaining on topic (if I recall, it's even in the Forum Rules).

 

[Popeyesays]

But there is a point to remaining on topic (if I recall, it's even in the Forum Rules).

Yes, but it is up to the moderators to determine. Discussion should be pretty free roving.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but it is up to the moderators to determine.

Yeah. That was something I appreciated, back when I first joined these forums.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, but it is up to the moderators to determine. Discussion should be pretty free roving.

Regards,
Scott

So should I do whatever I want in my personal life until the cops come and take me away? "Hey, you shouldn't have killed that guy!" "Oh, who cares, if something should be done about it, the cops'll do it." Does that also seem right to you? I'd rather make less work for the mods by keeping things at a generally accepted level of respect and relevance if at all possible.

 

[s2a]

I am an atheist, and I've seen some misconceptions lately about atheism in general. I can't speak for every atheist, but I can speak to questions about my version of atheism. If you have any questions regarding how at least one atheist sees things, here's a chance to ask. I will try my best to get to all questions in a timely manner, but, of course, I can't promise anything.

I recall from another discussion we engaged that you said:
"That assumption is based on faith, and so our views begin with faith-based claims, and anything built on those primary faith-based claims ends up also being based on faith itself."

OK then, I'll bite...

What atheistic views that you personally espouse are reliant upon faith-based claims?

What assumptions/conclusions of atheistic perspectives (if any) are completely removed from faith-based claims?

As a self-proclaimed atheist (of your own part)...do you simply doubt the validity of religious claims (predicated on faith alone)...or do you require some evidential/burdened proof that a religiously-claimed deity is veritably existent/non-existent?

Do you argue/venture that reasonable doubts remain as to an (as claimed) existent deity, or not?

If not, why not?

If so, what reasonable doubts remain to be resolved to your satisfaction?

Just to be clear regarding "what if", god postulations....

Atheists say; "I don't believe (any of) the religious claims are true, or correct, or substantiated".

Agnostics say; "I don't know whether the "religious claims are true, or correct, or substantiated...or not. Maybe they are...maybe they need/deserve equal/especial consideration/review...before any reasonable certainty can be attained or attached to an atheistic view regarding claims of invisible, untestable, unmeasurable, and inevidenced deities".

What then is your "version" of atheism?

How does it then differ from a personal lack of religious faith; or is "maybe" a fair enough rebuttal regarding religious claims of existent or "real" deities? Is it the evidence of absence, or the absence of evidence...that best serves to define your "version" of atheism?

Thanks.

 

[Magic Man]

I recall from another discussion we engaged that you said:
"That assumption is based on faith, and so our views begin with faith-based claims, and anything built on those primary faith-based claims ends up also being based on faith itself."

OK then, I'll bite...

What atheistic views that you personally espouse are reliant upon faith-based claims?

What assumptions/conclusions of atheistic perspectives (if any) are completely removed from faith-based claims?

Everything other than my thinking and my existence is based on faith. Descartes proves better than I could that "I think, therefore I am" is true. Beyond that I can't honestly say that anything else isn't based on faith. I have faith that the physical world is "real", and that my senses correctly describe it to me. I have faith in science and its conclusions about this physical reality. I believe the aforementioned quote is the only claim each of us can make that is completely free from faith.

That being said, I think there is much better reason to believe that my senses show me a true picture of reality, and that the basics like other people and the world that I can see, exist, than things that I can't perceive with my senses, such as a deity, exist.

As a self-proclaimed atheist (of your own part)...do you simply doubt the validity of religious claims (predicated on faith alone)...or do you require some evidential/burdened proof that a religiously-claimed deity is veritably existent/non-existent?

Basically, to believe in any theistic religion, I would want to see verifiable evidence of their God.

Do you argue/venture that reasonable doubts remain as to an (as claimed) existent deity, or not?

If not, why not?

If so, what reasonable doubts remain to be resolved to your satisfaction?

I think that once an idea is brought up, it's impossible to disprove its existence. I actually just said in another thread that the only thing I don''t like about atheism is the fact that I can never prove myself completely right. The existence of a God could be proven beyond doubt, however.

So, to a point, I am an agnostic too, as I would say many atheists are, but only as much as any Christian who admits the possibility that God doesn't exist. Essentially, I don't see enough evidence of God's existence to worry about the possibility.

Just to be clear regarding "what if", god postulations....

Atheists say; "I don't believe (any of) the religious claims are true, or correct, or substantiated".

Agnostics say; "I don't know whether the "religious claims are true, or correct, or substantiated...or not. Maybe they are...maybe they need/deserve equal/especial consideration/review...before any reasonable certainty can be attained or attached to an atheistic view regarding claims of invisible, untestable, unmeasurable, and inevidenced deities".

What then is your "version" of atheism?

How does it then differ from a personal lack of religious faith; or is "maybe" a fair enough rebuttal regarding religious claims of existent or "real" deities? Is it the evidence of absence, or the absence of evidence...that best serves to define your "version" of atheism?

Thanks.

Well, I guess I just answered this part, too. I think both of those, evidence of absence, and absence of evidence, would equally describe my view.

As I said, I believe that there is no God, but I realize that, just like anything else I say, I could be wrong. It's like my car. I assume my car is going to run every day when I get in until one day when it doesn't. Every day there is the possibility that it won't run, but there's no point in worrying about that possibility until it happens. I will never deny the possibility of God's existence, but I also don't worry about whether he does exist, which is the part that, to me, makes me atheist, rather than agnostic.

I hope I answered your questions clearly and fully. If not I'd be happy to clarify.

 

[DarkSun]

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

Look back over it and you'll see that your wording suggested that you were looking for an argument.

And as for your latter querie, I'd have to say that some things in this world are not logical. Don't misunderstand, though. That doesn't devalue them.

Just like many things in this world, unconditional love can't be explained in terms of science. There's the whole idea of lust, but that's not what I mean. In reference to organisations like World Vision, or Amnesty International, the fact that we can care for someone we've never met, half way across the world, and act of their behalf, makes no logical sense. We don't need to help these people. Yet such bouts of compassion, and "morality" are valued universally throughout humanity.

Religious beliefs are very much the same. They don't need to make sense for us to know that they're right.

I believe God caused the Big Bang, but I don't need to know the origins of God. Maybe God's so clever that he made himself. Does it really matter? All I know is that this world is awe made incarnate, and that during several points in my life so far, I've found volumes strength in the emptiest of places. That's proof enough for me.

 

[.lava]

I don't think I can understand, which is part of the reason I don't believe in one. It seems to me that a creator would give us the ability to understand it.

do you understand this life?

Dreams are memories, just put together in different ways. I think we can see with our eyes closed because everything we see gets stored as symbols in our minds. Our minds can then reproduce those symbols without visual subject matter.

there are people who learn some stuff in dreams. a friend's aunt learned how to knit in her dream.
a friend of mine, a special one who only has LD during sleep, goes for a ride to look for new flat to rent and she finds a place that she likes in in her dream. then she goes there and rents the apartment.


how do you explain lucid dreams?

 

[Magic Man]

do you understand this life?

No, not fully. I think I understand some things about it, but I don't think any of us will ever fully understand it.

there are people who learn some stuff in dreams. a friend's aunt learned how to knit in her dream.
a friend of mine, a special one who only has LD during sleep, goes for a ride to look for new flat to rent and she finds a place that she likes in in her dream. then she goes there and rents the apartment.


how do you explain lucid dreams?

I don't have an answer for that. That would take a lot of research on my part. Maybe it would lead me to a belief in something new, or maybe it wouldn't, but right now, I don't know enough about the subject to even guess. It does sound interesting. Do you have any suggestions on things read concerning that topic?

 

[.lava]

No, not fully. I think I understand some things about it, but I don't think any of us will ever fully understand it.

yea i agree. i asked that because you said you donot understand concept of God in your previous reply to my questions. i think we can not understand God. we can understand the concept though. we talk about it. how could we talk about God or No God if we did not get the idea of a Creator?

I don't have an answer for that. That would take a lot of research on my part. Maybe it would lead me to a belief in something new, or maybe it wouldn't, but right now, I don't know enough about the subject to even guess. It does sound interesting. Do you have any suggestions on things read concerning that topic?

you can google it i guess. there are many sources about LDs, OObes . however i don't believe how western people explain that stuff.