Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Well the arguments I would give for my own atheism are:
    1. I don't find any of the various common philosophical arguments for the existence of God compelling.
    I can't comment on them as a whole but there are some that I find very compelling and others not so much.

    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    2. I think the problem of naturally-occurring pain and suffering (disease, earthquakes etc) makes it highly probable that a very-powerful very-benevolent God does not exist.
    This is a big one for me and perhaps the most potent. I know that there are particular theodicies in Christianity that deal with this issue but that doesn't take the sting out of it.

    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    3. I think the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) have serious internal problems with their holy books, e.g. containing lots of errors, teaching lots of bad things (Genocide of the amelekites, pro-slavery, "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!", anti-homosexuality, etc)
    Eh...I think a lot of these problems result from a lack of understanding regarding the text itself and the purpose of the text in a particular time and place. Jesus came to fulfill the law because the Old Testament was written for a particular time and place in history. You would be hard pressed to find anything but love and compassion being expressed by Jesus. I think there are a lot of Christians who miss these points.

    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    4. I've never come across any claim that a miracle occurred that I found sufficiently evidenced to be convincing. And I think that the modern information age (youtube, mass media, cellphones etc) seems to indicate a distinct lack of well-attested miracles occur worldwide. And while theologians can try to explain this away (God wants to leave room for doubt/faith etc), historically these religious faiths didn't seem to think God was nearly so reticent about miracles (e.g. Moses parting the dead sea in front of Israelites, Jesus healing people in front of their relatives or his disciples, the Catholic church claiming all kinds of miracles from the prayers of saints etc), but as our abilities to record evidence accurately have improved claims of miracles have steadily disappeared.
    I agree with C.S. Lewis when he says that a true miracle would be indistinguishable between a natural event. A lot of miracles attributed to the Bible may have resulted from natural forces but were more miracles of times. The Red Sea parting being one of them. Check out collin Humphrey's lectures or book on this. He is a materials scientist from Oxford who has some really interesting ideas concerning Biblical miracles.

    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    5. I think science has had a great deal of success explaining things that were previously attributed to God, and that the repeated successes of non-theistic explanations over theist ones in explaining everything from the nature of the stars to the origin of life on earth show we should probably be highly skeptical of what few if any (the nature of consciousness and the origin of the universe perhaps) things are still commonly explained by reference to God, and that we are probably justified in believing by induction that science will probably eventually have a decent non-theistic explanation of such things.
    I never understood this argument from the theistic or atheistic side. If we grant that God created nature and the universe, then he also created laws that govern things that would have been written into the "system" if you will. Science simply lets us understand what those laws are. IMO, science should be able to explain everything about the natural world.

    Comment


    • #77
      Starlight, the kick people out of your threads rule is not there for people to just isolate themselves from people they disagree with. Adrift has been civil and on topic. You can't just arbitrarily kick him out for no reason or just because he is beating you in debate.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        In fact, the vast majority of atheists do not claim that God does not exist. The supernatural God is regarded instead as an ill-defined and unproven concept; one that seriously distracts from a proper understanding of how things actually are.
        In your opinion.

        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        There are supposed to be strong-atheists that do claim that God definitely does not exist but I have never seen this opinion laid out in any detail. Anyone who doubts the existence of God is an atheist.
        Um no...I am not certain that God exists...does this make me an atheist.


        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        Strictly, a Baptist is atheist in respect of the Catholic God or the God of Islam to the extent that there are incompatibilities in the definitions of those Gods. If that were not the case the terms Baptist and Muslim would be interchangeable were it not for their different religious habits and rituals. The fact that they are opposed means that they are atheist relative to each other. So a Christian is also atheist by rejecting any other religion or God. Interestingly, this is not a barrier to cooperation when there is common interest such as positions on gay marriage and abortion. We observe that what is most important is faith in God even though any God will do.
        Again this is incorrect. Just because there are disagreements in certain attributes regarding God doesn't negate that these religions still believe in God. If two groups of people believed in an elephant but one group didn't think that they had tails but the other did...it would not follow that when an elephant visited these people that they wouldn't recognize it as an elephant. The group that didn't think it had a tail would simply think...huh, we were wrong about that whole tail thing.

        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        We also see that theists want to share the burden of proof with atheists because they know that God is not provable but they still want to say that even the atheist requires faith. In fact, the atheist position is a rejection of faith altogether as a means of acquiring knowledge. Faith itself is a sin to use Christo-speak; I am not sure how well you understand atheist-Christo-speak but it is a special formulation to assist theists here at Tweb understand what I am telling them (not that they really want to know).
        You can't just make up additional definitions for atheism. You could be an atheist and still be a mystic that believes faith in some form of magic leads to knowledge.


        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        You might want to think of atheists as pioneers in the post-religious age that we are all moving towards. This movement is inevitable because of the true nature of God. And what is that true nature? – This is what is discovered when a person grows into atheism – a state of enlightenment above spirituality.
        Again, this is your opinion. It also has nothing to do with the validity of theism. Even if everyone on the planet was an atheist doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        Note that atheists and theists alike seek to hold the moral and intellectual high ground while disputing what and where that high ground is – an insight that the theist lacks due to the imagined superiority of his God – He who is above all other matters – an impenetrable ceiling from the theists point of view- through which the atheist looks down at the theist – I know this is difficult to follow. You might think this sounds far too arrogant, but no, I am simply trying to stand my full height – truly, really, honestly. To put it another way; the theist looks down his nose, contemptuously, at the atheist, while the atheist looks down from an even greater height at the theist, but with the hand of friendship outstretched before him.
        Two things...

        A quote that I think applies even if it is a metaphor.

        1. It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels.

        2. I see it as the opposite and this is a major part of why I am on this board debating people like you. Two of my best friends are atheists. They are good people and I love them like they were my brothers (I don't have siblings so this is as close as I can get). Since I believe Jesus was God, I am under orders, so to speak, to try to not only tell you about God but be an example of a Godly person. I try to be an example but I fail miserably a lot of times (usually when conversing with Shuny). We have gotten into some serious arguments over this but we always hug it out afterwards.

        The reason that I am telling you this is to give you insight into my motivation. I don't look down my nose at you...I truly don't. I try to engage atheists in the way I do because I want people to see that you can be pro-science and still be a man of God. I too extend a hand in friendship...not to bring you down but to lift you up. To share with you my conviction that yes, this world is a horrible place but there is a God who loves you. I may be wrong and I recognize that. It very well may be a case of wishful thinking...I understand this. BUT...if I am right and it is not wishful thinking, then it opens up a realm of possibilities. My belief in God does not hinder me in terms of my intellectual nature, my compassionate nature, etc. He is not a ceiling. It teaches me to be humble and thankful because there is something greater than us. My belief keeps me in check.

        To quote David Foster Wallace:

        Originally posted by David Foster Wallace
        “Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.”

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Originally posted by shunyadragon
          I believe that atheism does indeed make a claim concluding that Philosophical Naturalism is the justified result based on Methodological Naturalism, which makes no claim one way or another.
          Atheism does no such thing, nor is such a conclusion justifable.
          You need to clarify the above. What is it at that atheist do not do?
          I thought it was clear. Atheism doesn't do what you said it does. Atheism doesn't make a claim that philosophical naturalism is the justified result based on methodological naturalism.
          Is the conclusion of atheism not justifiable?
          I think it is, but not on the grounds you stated.
          Every belief justifies its case in one way or another.
          Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            How does an atheist convince an agnostic of what?

            Agnosticism isn't an intermediate position between theism and atheism. It's an orthogonal axis. A different question. Some agnostics are atheisms. Some are theists.

            Believe in a god or gods and believe that the god(s) can be shown to exist: Theist, non-agnostic
            Believe in a god or gods but don't believe the god(s) can be shown to exist: Theist, agnostic
            Don't believe in any gods but don't believe it can be shown that no god exists: Atheist, agnostic
            Don't believe in any gods and believe it can be shown that none of the gods theists believe in exist: atheist, non-agnostic
            We've discussed this before, but this is NOT what Huxley had in mind when he coined the term "agnostic".

            Huxley expressly points out that "atheism" is a view, namely, the knowledge (gnosis) that God/s do not exist:

            Source: Life and Letters, 1, T.H. Huxley



            When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion.

            Like Dante--

            "In the midway of this mortal life
            I found me in a gloomy wood astray."

            But, unlike Dante, I cannot add--

            "Gone from the path direct"

            On the contrary, I had, and have, the firmest conviction that I never left the "verace via"—the straight road; and that this road led nowhere else but into the dark depths of a wild and tangled forest. And though I have found leopards and lions in the path; though I have made abundant acquaintance with the hungry wolf, that "with privy paw devours apace and nothing said," as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and though no friendly spectre has even yet offered his guidance, I was, and am, minded to go straight on, until I either come out on the other side of the wood, or find there is no other side to it, at least, none attainable by me. This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, long since deceased, but of green and pious memory, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there, and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction the term took.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Source: The Agnostic Annual, T.H. Huxley



            Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism. What other people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to answer these questions.

            1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
            2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.


            I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

            © Copyright Original Source



            This desire to sort of shoe horn agnosticism into atheism by offering labels like "soft atheism"/"weak atheism"/"atheist agnostic", etc. just adds a layer of confusion. As one agnostic blogger put it,

            Given what Huxley did by coining “agnosticism,” no useful purpose is served by fostering the notion that “atheism” = “agnosticism” or that all agnostics are also atheists. If you are what Huxley describes as an “agnostic,” then you are, in fact “an agnostic” and not “an atheist” by the traditional dictionary definitions of that word. If on the other hand you are what those dictionaries describe as “atheist,” then you are “an atheist” and not “an agnostic.” Huxley defined “agnosticism” in such a way as to exclude atheists: Those who “know” either that a deity does not exist, have — as Huxley put it — “attained a certain ‘gnosis’” and therefore are rather specifically not what he envisions as “agnostic.”

            It really is that simple, and there is no need to go any further. Redefining “atheism” by widening its scope, and quibbling over the difference between knowledge and belief, only confuses the meanings of words as they’re widely understood, and provides ammunition for theists, who really need not be given any more than they currently do.

            That said, I quite understand the effort here. Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose. Redefining “atheist” and “atheism,” on the other hand, won’t help, especially when dictionaries don’t uniformly support it.


            And as William Lane Craig correctly points out when dealing with the subject,

            Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism

            If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
              In fact, the vast majority of atheists do not claim that God does not exist. The supernatural God is regarded instead as an ill-defined and unproven concept; one that seriously distracts from a proper understanding of how things actually are.
              Not just ill-defined and unproven, but slippery and vague and moveable.

              It's very common for anyone questioning the existence of some-one's personal view of 'God' to see the theist rapidly retreat from anything involving Biblical or Koranic specifics to a theoretical first cause, as if denial of the former in necessitated denial of the latter. And as soon as any grudging admission that the universe had a cause is given, that is taken as admission of a host of other attributes including sentience, benevolence, omniscience, interest in humanity, uniqueness and of course continued existence, often by the simple false equivalence "This is God".

              Why should an atheist waste time justifying a rejection of some-one's specific idea of 'God' if they haven't bothered to do the same for the ideas of 'God' that they reject themselves, and don't even have a coherent concept of 'God'?
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Atheism has a definite claim, that there is no God.
                Aren't you the guy who recently complained about some-one not having a coherent grasp of orthodox Christian views?

                Yet you don't understand the first thing about atheism - that it is about all religions, not just yours.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  Aren't you the guy who recently complained about some-one not having a coherent grasp of orthodox Christian views?

                  Yet you don't understand the first thing about atheism - that it is about all religions, not just yours.
                  You seem to be defending a claim about Atheism and saying it has some sort of "orthodox" beliefs or views, that it "has none." A bit contradictory, no?

                  Besides I didn't mention which God. I said "God" which means any religion. Atheism means "no God" - the claim is built into the name itself.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    Not just ill-defined and unproven, but slippery and vague and moveable.

                    It's very common for anyone questioning the existence of some-one's personal view of 'God' to see the theist rapidly retreat from anything involving Biblical or Koranic specifics to a theoretical first cause, as if denial of the former in necessitated denial of the latter. And as soon as any grudging admission that the universe had a cause is given, that is taken as admission of a host of other attributes including sentience, benevolence, omniscience, interest in humanity, uniqueness and of course continued existence, often by the simple false equivalence "This is God".

                    Why should an atheist waste time justifying a rejection of some-one's specific idea of 'God' if they haven't bothered to do the same for the ideas of 'God' that they reject themselves, and don't even have a coherent concept of 'God'?
                    Are you at all familiar with Natural Theology? One of the cool aspects of Natural Theology is that it argues the case for god/s without heavy reliance on revealed theology (i.e. Biblical or Koranic).

                    Also, there are plenty of theists who believe in a god or gods who do not necessarily reject other religion's god/s. They may frame the existence of these other religion's god/s in some other fashion, but they do not out and out reject them. Also, why should it be surprising that different thinkers come to the table with differing views on something as profound as the divine? We see opposing views on all sorts of matters in philosophy, physics, sociology, biology, even in the maths. Is it really so odd that there would be differing perspectives in theology as well?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by element771 View Post
                      In fact, the vast majority of atheists do not claim that God does not exist. The supernatural God is regarded instead as an ill-defined and unproven concept; one that seriously distracts from a proper understanding of how things actually are.
                      In your opinion.
                      Do you have a detailed and coherent 'God'-concept that you are willing to subject to scrutiny?
                      Um no...I am not certain that God exists...does this make me an atheist.
                      No - it makes you an unarrogant theist, and possibly an agnostic.
                      Since I believe Jesus was God, I am under orders, so to speak, to try to not only tell you about God but be an example of a Godly person.
                      It's always refreshing to find people who appreciate the latter.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        We've discussed this before, but this is NOT what Huxley had in mind when he coined the term "agnostic".
                        It's exactly what Huxley had in mind, as your own sources show:

                        ...They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble...

                        ...I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence;...

                        ...It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe...

                        ...Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena...


                        Agnosticism is neither belief nor lack of belief, but acknowledgement that no knowledge is possible one way or the other. Or, as I put it: "don't believe the god(s) can be shown to exist/don't believe it can be shown that no god exists".

                        P.S. Huxley may have coined the term "agnostic", but he didn't coin the term "atheist", so his usage of that term is not binding.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          You seem to be defending a claim about Atheism and saying it has some sort of "orthodox" beliefs or views, that it "has none." A bit contradictory, no?
                          No. I'm not saying atheism has any "orthodox" anything.
                          Besides I didn't mention which God. I said "God" which means any religion.
                          Have you never heard of polytheistic or pantheistic religions? 'God' most certainly does not mean those religions.
                          Atheism means "no God" - the claim is built into the name itself.
                          Wrong. Atheism means "no god or gods", just like theism originally meant "belief in a deity or deities" prior to being co-opted by monotheists.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            uh, no. That would be Agnosticism, who says "I don't know and have no opinion on the matter"

                            Atheism has a definite claim, that there is no God.
                            The prefix a- in this case means “not” from Greek. Everyone is divided into only two groups: theists and not-theists (atheists). Agnostics are atheist by definition because they do not fall in the theist category and ordinary logic excludes the possibility of a separate third category. If anything, if you must have it, they would be a sub-category of atheist but safely neglected.
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              It's very common for anyone questioning the existence of some-one's personal view of 'God' to see the theist rapidly retreat from anything involving Biblical or Koranic specifics to a theoretical first cause, as if denial of the former in necessitated denial of the latter.
                              Are you at all familiar with Natural Theology? One of the cool aspects of Natural Theology is that it argues the case for god/s without heavy reliance on revealed theology (i.e. Biblical or Koranic).
                              Obviously. Thanks for proving my point.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Do you have a detailed and coherent 'God'-concept that you are willing to subject to scrutiny?
                                Sure, want to pick one aspect? How about omnipresent?

                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                No - it makes you an unarrogant theist, and possibly an agnostic.
                                Exactly but it proves my point that I am not an atheist like you suggested.

                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                It's always refreshing to find people who appreciate the latter.
                                Sure thing

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,506 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X