I will now prove atheists are illogical!

Ill prove atheists illogical in two words, watch!

naturalistic pantheism.

game over.

 

Pantheism is a religious belief established by myth and superstition so what does it have to do with athiests?

 

hmm you seem to not know what pantheism is...

the view that god and universe (nature) are synonimous is not established in myth nor superstition.


when god is viewed as nature itself atheism is moot.

 

Which is an odd thing to say, because as an atheist, I don't believe the "big bang created everything". I think it was as the theory states, an expansion of the universe and a cooling of the energy to the point where matter began to form.

Not sure what several thousand year old fables have to do with that.

 

and i forgot, many of the worlds most famous great minds were/are pantheist.

for example;

einstein, hawking, newton, sagan - all pantheist.

 

I appreciate the explanation of what was intended by the statement but then this argues against beliefs in a "personal" god or gods. One could say, based upon this definition, that "god" was the big bang and that all which has evolved since then is merely the natural evolution of the "god" over time. It would logically discredit virtually all religious writings so to speak.

It is really philisophical but I can see logical arguments both for and against this philosophy.

 

abc

like 123

a .... separation from 'god' to a 'personal god' is a form of paganism, no matter how it's labeled.

b ....what banged? When you wake up, 'bang' your conscious. What is the BB but another 'nothing' enabling the creation of 'everything' as if by magic (all logic is broken of the physics and facts, no matter the 'god').

c .... truth destroys ignorance

what philosophy?

being honest with the self, is what enables the best medicine

maintaining a belief, substantiated by nothing but opinion, is 'bad medicine'

1. knowledge evolves over time, enabling the new layers of comprehension to combine from the old layers, over time the truth stands at the pinnacle

2. comprehending what is true about existence and nature, is a matter of survival (life or death), ultimately!

3. Enabling the next generations with knowledge furthered by our generation is good for 'life to continue'


Does this make sense?

Do you have a 'philosophy' to appreciate that can fit the ABC's with 1-2-3's?

 

In other words, you wish to participate in discussion about religion by claiming everything but your opinion is myth and superstition, though we well know that science and logic on the matter are far from conclusive?

So much open minds and compassion.

 

I'm saying that the question of the existence of gods is a scientific question and can be answered scientifically... it just hasn't, yet.

You really don't know how to read. Now I'm convinced of that. You have absolutely no clue how to read.

I said there was no evidence of God. I NEVER said that there was no God. There's a huge difference between those two statements.

I had never even heard of this book until you linked to it. My library appears to have it, so I'll be checking it out to read.

Um... I don't even know what you're talking about at this point.

This is so false it's not even funny. In fact, I'm calling it out as a complete and total lie, especially since I've already given you the definitions. So you are lying to me.

Which is why I'm both an agnostic and an atheist.

I never claimed that science drove me anywhere.

The lack of faith cannot be a faith choice. That is contradictory. Something cannot be what it is not.

Atheists are skeptical. That's why they're atheists.

If you notice, I did not respond to your post with questions. This is because we are done. I have no problem debating with people who disagree with me, but when they are so dishonest as to start putting words in my mouth and attacking me for saying things I never said, I have to say goodbye.

So congratulations. I've only been a member of this forum for 3 days, and already my ignore list has one person on it, and that person is you. I refuse to debate, or even engage, the intellectually dishonest. Lying will get you to the point where you can only talk to yourself, because no one else will want to talk to you.

Goodbye. And good riddance.

a) There is no reason ignorant people can't be successful.
b) Successful non-believers:
-Bill Gates is successful enough to be the wealthiest person in the US. He is an atheist.
-Sir Richard Branson is an atheist.
-John Lennon was a highly successful musician, and was an atheist.
-Andrew Carnegie was a highly successful businessman in the US. He was an atheist.
-Sigmund Freud (I shouldn't have to say who he is) was an atheist.
-Noam Chomsky is an atheist. Warren Buffet is an atheist.
-George Carlin was an atheist.
-Carl Sagan was an atheist.
-Richard Feynman was an atheist.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist.
-Stephen Hawking is an atheist.
-Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones are atheists.
-David Gilmour (lead guitarist of Pink Floyd, and one of the greatest guitarists of all time) is an atheist.
-Roger Waters (bassist of Pink Floyd) is an atheist.
-Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) was an atheist.
-Jodie Foster is an atheist.
-Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) is an atheist.
-Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is an atheist.
-Ayn Rand, the successful (though controversial) Libertarian, was an atheist
-Katherine Hepburn, an extremely famous and highly successful actress, was an atheist.
-Peter Higgs, the scientist who theorized about the Higgs field (and now has the Large Hadron Collider looking for his field) is an atheist.
-Steve Wozniak, who founded Apple with Steve Jobs, is an atheist.
-Russell T Davies, who produces the current run of Doctor Who, is an atheist.
-Billy Joel, that famous piano player and singer, once admitted, while about his song "Only the Good Die Young", that he was an atheist.
-Bill Maher is an atheist

In fact, there's a whole website dedicated to listing famous/successful atheists. It's right here. Check it out for a nice compendium of successful people who don't believe in God.

The only one missing from the site is Olivia Wilde, who once said her favorite author was Christopher Hitchens (which would be odd for somebody who believed in God, wouldn't it?).

So... atheism, then?

Wikipedia: Naturalistic Pantheism

Perhaps you're confusing Naturalistic Pantheism with Pandeism?

See above.

-Newton was a Christian.
-Einstein was a Pandeist.
-Carl Sagan claimed himself to be a pure agnostic, though I'm convinced he was an atheist based upon what he's said about religion and God, even if he wouldn't admit it.
-Stephen Hawking is an atheist, and if you saw the Curiosity episode "Did God Create the Universe", you would know that.

 

but by combining, then more objective approaches can be maintained.

Science is better for life, than sustaining beliefs, objectively speaking of course.

compassion is found in the personal responsibility. ie.. "no false witness" is a moral, to any compassionate obligation.

The open minds, look for answers, versus claiming that they have them all; it's practically a requisite of science to have 'open minds and compassion'.


Whereas the biased minds will not succumb to the humility of possibly being wrong.

I know you are a preacher and would have to admit error to far more than just yourself.

 

That evolutionary programming would have been present long before the cave painting would have been made. The trait of children programmed to follow the cue of a parent is present in many species not just ours. Spirituality is unique to humans. Other than funny videos on YouTube I have yet to see an animal give thanks to god. I imagine spirituality is the result of a trait that evolved unique to us. The ability to reason perhaps?

I thought there was references outside of the Bible that Jesus existed. Regardless though, it is not unreasonable to believe that there was a man named Jesus at that time period who was executed for challenging authority. As to whether or not that Jesus was god or the son of god, that is highly debatable.

I have to disagree here. There are enough successful atheists to disprove your assertion. If people of religion tend to be more successful than those who are not, it is due to factors other than their belief.

 

I think spirituality arose as a response to the recognition of death.

The vast majority of the extra-Biblical sources used by Christians were written long enough after the New Testament events were claimed to have happened that they most likely used the New Testament as their source.

And the very few sources that may have been written early enough to not have used the New Testament as a source are thought by many scholars to be forgeries. Josephus's "Testimonium Flaviunum" is the main one; it's either mostly or entirely a forgery, determined mainly because of the awkward positioning it is within Josephus's histories (it's almost forced in between a single point that randomly breaks off before the "Testimonial", and then picks up after... in other words, there's no context for the passage), the weird way it's written (it makes some proclamations that no Jew who hadn't met Jesus at the time would have written), and the fact that there's no reason Josephus would have even heard about Jesus at that point.

There's also the fact that the Romans don't talk about him at all. This is highly uncharacteristic of the egotistical, "we must chronicle everything, no matter how small!" Roman Empire.

I tend to think there may have been a stone-age hippie who's story was taken by an enterprising individual (Paul, most likely) and blown into this mythological epic. I don't believe a cult can grow as big as Christianity has without some sort of grounding in reality, so there had to be some guy. That said, I seriously doubt this guy walked on water, turned water into wine, raised the dead, healed the blind, and so on. Hell, he probably wasn't even executed.

 

You have no way of knowing what someone else believes. Many successful people do say they believe in God. They say many things, and many of those seem to be contradicted by their actions. Successful and smart folks often tell others what those people want to hear, rather than what they really think or believe.

In our society, there are advantages to claiming a belief in God, so many do so whether they believe or not. Many other successful folks simply refrain from commenting on their beliefs one way or another, because there are disadvantages to proclaiming an atheistic belief or even an agnostic position towards God.

The silence of many, the insincere assertions of others, these things may make it seem to you like "most successful and smarter people" believe in God. But you really have no idea how many people actually do believe in Him.​

 

I see right now you mean faith in the religious sense, but when you recently used the word 'faith' to describe simple confidence in one's beliefs surely you can see that it's a bit... confusing at best.

I don't respond to the point about science leading to agnosticism because I don't really have a problem with it. If you see that is ignoring it then I apologise - I hereby declare that the aforementioned statement is acceptable to me. Better?

Atheism claims nothing. Atheism is LACK of a particular claim, just like 'atonal' sound LACKS tone and 'asexual' organisms LACK sexuality. Individual atheists can and very often do claim that god definitively doesn't exist, but atheism itself cannot and does not. Personally, I take the position that if there no evidence for a thing exists, I assume that thing doesn't exist until proven otherwise. For example some evidence suggests the Big Bang did happen, but there is no real evidence for a Solid State Universe, merely conjecture. Consequently I believe the Big Bang may have happened, but I dont believe the SSU theory at the moment.

By the way, it's odd that you whine about me 'demanding' you lay out evidence, when my post was in reply to you OFFERING that evidence:

I know its a long thread and it's easy to overlook these things, but theres no need to give me attitude for asking for something you actually offered.

It's also odd that you think I'm 'pissy' about being told I have faith in my opinions. I just admitted that I do have faith, albeit in a very trivial way.

Believe it or not, I did ask god for proof, too. But I never got it. I know believers will tell me I didnt ask correctly, or I didnt recognise the answer, or 'its just gods way'. But none of that changes the fact that I looked for spiritualism and did not find it.

I admit I've probably used the word 'delusion' in my younger days to describe religious belief. I kind of regret that. A delusion is a PROVABLY false belief, but religion is merely a belief that has no evidence, just like if anyone was to claim that the Solid State Universe is absolutely true.

 

Pantheism attempts to redefine god or divinity, which are generally considered supernatural. You might as well define 'god' as a cheese sandwich, and thereby 'prove' that atheists are wrong because a cheese sandwich exists.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZuknsnphEU"]GREAT ATHEISTIC QUOTES - YouTube[/ame]

 

so your saying a god is just a process of nature, not a person, not someone who's image we were created in

 

Wait.

President Taft? Seriously? I thought George Washington was the only President to be critical of religious claims. That extends further into the US Presidential line?

Who else falls on this skeptical spectrum?

 

The entire New Testament was written long enough after the life of Jesus to be questionable as to it's accuracy. We certainly know that the quotations of Jesus were at the best paraphased versions of what might have actually been said. On the other hand they could be completely fictitious for all we know.

 

Neutral, your argument so far seems to be that there is a god, and it's plainly obvious, and denial of this claim is akin to denial of the holocaust, or something equally obvious. You agree that science provides no evidence of god--but then what does? Some of the other believers on this thread seem to have religious views that are almost athiestic (ie. they have redefined "god" to the point where the word has no meaning, or is synonymous with "nature"). Why should anyone believe in your god, as opposed to, say, an all powerful rock? Why do you? Because of the testimony of people who claim to have experienced miracles? There are people of every faith who make such claims, including pagans. Still waiting for a response to this earlier post: you've finally admitted that "I don't know" isn't a cop out (unless you admit that you're copping out on the creation of god), but you've ignored my broader point, which is that in absence of evidence there are no rational grounds for belief--in Christian god, or anything else. I don't know what caused the big bang. I have a pretty good idea that it happened, because that's what the evidence indicates. I have no particular emotional interest in the big bang. If a better theory--one more compatible with the evidence, were described, or if new evidence comes to light, I would change my beliefs in an instant. I would be thrilled to see some evidence in favor of a god--especially the christian one (even more especially some Viking ones). I think a world with a god or an afterlife would be a better world than the one we actually have. But a rational person doesnt choose what to believe in, and if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

I also contend that your shed argument works against your case. When we see man made things, we can tell exactly because they are distinct from natural things. The natural things don't look man made, they look natural. Trees look the way they've evolved to look. Ibid people. What natural, not man made thing looks so man made that I couldn't be convinced it is the product of natural (not-designed) processes? That would be some evidence for a god, and you keep referring to it, but all I see from the natural world is exactly what I would expect.

 

God is not a cheese sandwich. God is pasta and meatballs.





Sorry, I just couldn't avoid the humor of the statement.

 

Well yeah. I was simply talking about so-called "extra-biblical" sources. The validity of the New Testament itself is a whole other level of debate...

 

Has any Human not been Illogical ?

The Problem with Religious minded humans is they make it a Lifestyle of the Ignorant and Culturally BACKWARD.

 

When you say "redefine" you act like pantheism has not existed as a view since virtually the beginning of recorded history.


the truth is, god has been called nature for millenia.

atheists ASSUME all views of god are supernatural.

it is obvious they did not reach that conclusion scientifically.


"i believe in spinozas god, who manifests itself in that which exists" - einstein

 

a) For all of written history, when people have used the word god, they have used it in reference to an intelligent, supernatural first cause. It's wasn't until Baruch de Spinoza that the word "god" started to be used as a metaphor for nature, the universe, the laws of nature, and the laws of physics.

b) Baruch de Spinoza himself actually inspired Pandeism. Pantheism is basically Spinoza watered down to a metaphor.

c) If God and nature are one in the same, then what purpose is there in using the supernaturally-loaded term "god" to refer to it? Just say "nature" and leave it at that.