Categories Of Belief In Deities

[steve_bank]

As I have said some earthiests write books and make money creating an atheist agenda. Atheism does not infer any morality or ethics. It is simple rejction of an hypothesis.



Some atheist would like to destroy religion as much as theist want to destroy or convert atheists.

Atheism is the rejection of theism. Atheists have a wide range of attitudes and beliefs. That is all obvious. Atheist is specific, atheism in broad terms can mean many things depending on the person or group. There is conflict and disputes and factions within atheism. In the previous incarnation of the forum the woman who lead the forum was in a running dispute with another atheist elsewhere.

Atheists are humans. I am atheist and generally align with naturalism and free thinking. I do not care what you believe as long it is not imposed on me or is socially harmful.. Other than that I do not read atheists or participate in the community or push atheism on anyone.

Some atheists quote atheist authors much like Christians quote scripture. Which leads to my general observation, all human social groups have the same human dynamics. Atheists, business, theists, unions, political parties and all the rest.

But none of that addresses the exclusiveness of atheism. You bemoan that theism is exclusive yet fail to recognize that atheism is just as exclusive.

You fail to demonstrate an understanding that truth by its nature is exclusive. You posted the definitions of atheism and theism. And by those definitions, one of them is true, the other is false (law of the excluded middle). If your atheism is true then it is excludes all other worldviews that are not atheistic. Thus your emotional tirade against exclusiveness carries no reason here in this context. It is just a weak self-refuting line of reason that is false.

Atheists are humans. I am atheist and generally align with naturalism and free thinking.

And you have before you a free thinking theist whose epistemology is not blind. Therefore, in brief detail, this is just one line of reasoning why this theist reasons that naturalism as a foundation of an atheistic worldview fails.

If you follow the science where it leads….then this universe began to exist. The cause of the universe cannot be natural because logically that would mean that nature would have to have existed before it existed to be its own cause. And for something to exist before it existed to be the cause of its existence is overtly self-refuting. I’m not asserting that science proves the universe began to exist. I’m saying the science most reasonably leads to implication that our universe began to exist. Thus with this theist you have the burden to rescue your naturalism to make your worldview reasonable.

Tired old forms of arguments. Atheism by definition excludes existence of gods. So what. Is that your point? As I said atheist theist is a binary preposition with no middle ground.

Unlike Christians as an atheist I do not exclude based on what you believe, but I look at the arguments for god in the same way I look at arguments for Big Foot. Is that not clear enough for you?

It is interesting that with Jews and Muslims in the USA I have known I do not get a sense of separation or divide. There is a fundamental human connection.

Christianity excludes classes of people. You are in or out, heaven or not. Atheism as an ideology does not. There is no heavy or god to be separated from. Atheists claim no special status based on beliefs.

And you have before you a free thinking theist

Free thinking as a philosophy excludes being limited to a particular ideology. Theist can mean anything. If you are a bible based Christian there is only one ideology.

Jessy was a Rabi preaching to Jews about the scriptures. You can say you are a Christian and ignore the bible, which is common. We have a Pagan Christian who posts here.

Free thinking theist(believer in a deity) is yet another personal invention. In the 70s I heard it said Christ consciousness and Krishna consciousness, same thing.

 

[remez]

The context of your OP dealt with the issue of the existence of deities. But you also ventured into the internal doctrines/ideologies of different worldviews. And complained of Christianity being exclusive in each context, deities and ideologies. Thus I began to address your charge in each context aiming to demonstrate that atheism is just as exclusive. Because exclusiveness is part of the nature of truth. If something is true then all others opposing things are not true. Why should we believe in things that are not true?
So this concession………….

Tired old forms of arguments. Atheism by definition excludes existence of gods. So what. Is that your point? As I said atheist theist is a binary preposition with no middle ground.

….takes care of the context of exclusiveness of deities.
Now this………..

Christianity excludes classes of people. You are in or out, heaven or not. Atheism as an ideology does not. There is no heavy or god to be separated from. Atheists claim no special status based on beliefs.

…….addresses a particular internal doctrine/ideology of Christianity. But your representation is an over simplification devoid of the understanding for it. The doctrine of heaven or hell regarding your concern is really just one of choice. You are given the free will choice to choose to be with Him or not. If this “separation” occurs it is of your choice. Consider your dating days….. Are you really excluding a girl if you allow her the freedom to choose not to be with you? Are you a heavy for giving her the choice to love you or not?
and
Don’t atheists exclude the ideology of heaven and hell?

Unlike Christians as an atheist I do not exclude based on what you believe, but I look at the arguments for god in the same way I look at arguments for Big Foot. Is that not clear enough for you?

It is very clear that you exclude theism from the realm of rationality by unreasonably presenting an argument by analogy to a cryptozoological figure. Provide three arguments for the existence of Big Foot that you have read. I suspect that those are even non-existent. I particularly want to see at least one where Big Foot is presented as a deity that created the universe. To reason by analogy to common known myth or fantasy is inherently exclusionary in its reasoning.

If I are to compare sincere arguments for atheism to those of yetis or unicorns, then I would be excluding atheism from rationality. I would be completely ignoring the sincere arguments provided for atheism. It would be ……immature…..and grossly unreasonable.....and exclusionary.

Free thinking as a philosophy excludes being limited to a particular ideology.

First notice that your errant assertion is exclusionary in its reasoning.
And remember……….
I, as a free thinker, am free to exclude false ideologies. As you do with Big Foot. That doesn’t mean I exclude you personally, just your specific ideological assertion.

If you are a bible based Christian there is only one ideology.

That is simply a straw man assertion of Christianity. Consider the reason why are there so many denominations. I don't exclude Calvinists when I reject some of their ideologies.

You can say you are a Christian and ignore the bible, which is common.

How are you reasoning that my Christianity ignores the bible? Do you exclude free thinkers from biblical ideologies?

Free thinking theist(believer in a deity) is yet another personal invention.

No, it is your invention to assert/exclude that theists don’t have evidence, reason and logic for their worldview.

 

[steve_bank]

The context of your OP dealt with the issue of the existence of deities. But you also ventured into the internal doctrines/ideologies of different worldviews. And complained of Christianity being exclusive in each context, deities and ideologies. Thus I began to address your charge in each context aiming to demonstrate that atheism is just as exclusive. Because exclusiveness is part of the nature of truth. If something is true then all others opposing things are not true. Why should we believe in things that are not true?
So this concession………….

….takes care of the context of exclusiveness of deities.
Now this………..

…….addresses a particular internal doctrine/ideology of Christianity. But your representation is an over simplification devoid of the understanding for it. The doctrine of heaven or hell regarding your concern is really just one of choice. You are given the free will choice to choose to be with Him or not. If this “separation” occurs it is of your choice. Consider your dating days….. Are you really excluding a girl if you allow her the freedom to choose not to be with you? Are you a heavy for giving her the choice to love you or not?
and
Don’t atheists exclude the ideology of heaven and hell?

Unlike Christians as an atheist I do not exclude based on what you believe, but I look at the arguments for god in the same way I look at arguments for Big Foot. Is that not clear enough for you?

It is very clear that you exclude theism from the realm of rationality by unreasonably presenting an argument by analogy to a cryptozoological figure. Provide three arguments for the existence of Big Foot that you have read. I suspect that those are even non-existent. I particularly want to see at least one where Big Foot is presented as a deity that created the universe. To reason by analogy to common known myth or fantasy is inherently exclusionary in its reasoning.

If I are to compare sincere arguments for atheism to those of yetis or unicorns, then I would be excluding atheism from rationality. I would be completely ignoring the sincere arguments provided for atheism. It would be ……immature…..and grossly unreasonable.....and exclusionary.

Free thinking as a philosophy excludes being limited to a particular ideology.

First notice that your errant assertion is exclusionary in its reasoning.
And remember……….
I, as a free thinker, am free to exclude false ideologies. As you do with Big Foot. That doesn’t mean I exclude you personally, just your specific ideological assertion.

If you are a bible based Christian there is only one ideology.

That is simply a straw man assertion of Christianity. Consider the reason why are there so many denominations. I don't exclude Calvinists when I reject some of their ideologies.

You can say you are a Christian and ignore the bible, which is common.

How are you reasoning that my Christianity ignores the bible? Do you exclude free thinkers from biblical ideologies?

Free thinking theist(believer in a deity) is yet another personal invention.

No, it is your invention to assert/exclude that theists don’t have evidence, reason and logic for their worldview.

I surrender, you win.

 

[steve_bank]

The context of your OP dealt with the issue of the existence of deities. But you also ventured into the internal doctrines/ideologies of different worldviews. And complained of Christianity being exclusive in each context, deities and ideologies. Thus I began to address your charge in each context aiming to demonstrate that atheism is just as exclusive. Because exclusiveness is part of the nature of truth. If something is true then all others opposing things are not true. Why should we believe in things that are not true?
So this concession………….

….takes care of the context of exclusiveness of deities.
Now this………..

…….addresses a particular internal doctrine/ideology of Christianity. But your representation is an over simplification devoid of the understanding for it. The doctrine of heaven or hell regarding your concern is really just one of choice. You are given the free will choice to choose to be with Him or not. If this “separation” occurs it is of your choice. Consider your dating days….. Are you really excluding a girl if you allow her the freedom to choose not to be with you? Are you a heavy for giving her the choice to love you or not?
and
Don’t atheists exclude the ideology of heaven and hell?

Unlike Christians as an atheist I do not exclude based on what you believe, but I look at the arguments for god in the same way I look at arguments for Big Foot. Is that not clear enough for you?

It is very clear that you exclude theism from the realm of rationality by unreasonably presenting an argument by analogy to a cryptozoological figure. Provide three arguments for the existence of Big Foot that you have read. I suspect that those are even non-existent. I particularly want to see at least one where Big Foot is presented as a deity that created the universe. To reason by analogy to common known myth or fantasy is inherently exclusionary in its reasoning.

If I are to compare sincere arguments for atheism to those of yetis or unicorns, then I would be excluding atheism from rationality. I would be completely ignoring the sincere arguments provided for atheism. It would be ……immature…..and grossly unreasonable.....and exclusionary.

Free thinking as a philosophy excludes being limited to a particular ideology.

First notice that your errant assertion is exclusionary in its reasoning.
And remember……….
I, as a free thinker, am free to exclude false ideologies. As you do with Big Foot. That doesn’t mean I exclude you personally, just your specific ideological assertion.

If you are a bible based Christian there is only one ideology.

That is simply a straw man assertion of Christianity. Consider the reason why are there so many denominations. I don't exclude Calvinists when I reject some of their ideologies.

You can say you are a Christian and ignore the bible, which is common.

How are you reasoning that my Christianity ignores the bible? Do you exclude free thinkers from biblical ideologies?

Free thinking theist(believer in a deity) is yet another personal invention.

No, it is your invention to assert/exclude that theists don’t have evidence, reason and logic for their worldview.

Free Thinning in philosophy is specific. A general question of areas like religion. Free Thinking does not mean freely thinking and speculating as you please.



The forum's name is TalkFreethought. Freethought and rationalism along with naturalism. You are Daniel In The Lion's Den. Love biblical metaphors. If you want to debate theism in terms of free thinking I started a thread on philosophy. Be there or be square.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

Freethought (or free thought)[1] is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a freethinker is "a person who forms their own ideas and opinions rather than accepting those of other people, especially in religious teaching." In some contemporary thought in particular, freethought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[1][2] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1] Modern freethinkers consider freethought as a natural freedom of all negative and illusive thoughts acquired from the society.[3]
The term first came into use in the 17th century in order to indicate people who inquired into the basis of traditional religious beliefs. In practice, freethinking is most closely linked with secularism, atheism, agnosticism, anti-clericalism, and religious critique. The Oxford English Dictionary defines freethinking as, "The free exercise of reason in matters of religious belief, unrestrained by deference to authority; the adoption of the principles of a free-thinker." Freethinkers hold that knowledge should be grounded in facts, scientific inquiry, and logic. The skeptical application of science implies freedom from the intellectually limiting effects of confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, or sectarianism.[4]

 

[remez]

Free Thinning in philosophy is specific. A general question of areas like religion. Free Thinking does not mean freely thinking and speculating as you please.

I precisely meant free thinking the way you did. I almost posted the same exact link and quoted the same definition.
Where have I not offered logic, reason and evidence for my presented positions with you?
I have never asserted you just have to blindly believe anything. I have challenged you to the contrary several times.

The forum's name is TalkFreethought. Freethought and rationalism along with naturalism. You are Daniel In The Lion's Den. Love biblical metaphors. If you want to debate theism in terms of free thinking I started a thread on philosophy. Be there or be square.

Seriously you assert that I love biblical metaphors……in the absolute absence of me presenting any…
And then…..
End with ….be there or be square. Thanks.

Freethought (or free thought)[1] is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a freethinker is "a person who forms their own ideas and opinions rather than accepting those of other people, especially in religious teaching." In some contemporary thought in particular, freethought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[1][2] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1] Modern freethinkers consider freethought as a natural freedom of all negative and illusive thoughts acquired from the society.[3]

That’s why I’m here.
Have you ever heard of natural theology?

 

[ideologyhunter]

So, is there a consensus on the horizon? (Doubt it.) People will believe ANYTHING. But, in the words of 60s linguist & semanticist Grace Slick, 'The human dream doesn't mean shit to a tree.' Now, those are words to live by.

 

[steve_bank]

So, is there a consensus on the horizon? (Doubt it.) People will believe ANYTHING. But, in the words of 60s linguist & semanticist Grace Slick, 'The human dream doesn't mean shit to a tree.' Now, those are words to live by.

Reject religion and scripture but quote LSD inspired musicians who in the end were just out to sell records. She turned out to be quite wacky. Saw the Jefferson Airplane twice. First time they had six packs of beer on stage drinking liberally.In the words of Firesign Theater 'give them a light and they will follow it anywhere'.

 

[steve_bank]

I precisely meant free thinking the way you did. I almost posted the same exact link and quoted the same definition.
Where have I not offered logic, reason and evidence for my presented positions with you?
I have never asserted you just have to blindly believe anything. I have challenged you to the contrary several times.

Seriously you assert that I love biblical metaphors……in the absolute absence of me presenting any…
And then…..
End with ….be there or be square. Thanks.

Freethought (or free thought)[1] is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a freethinker is "a person who forms their own ideas and opinions rather than accepting those of other people, especially in religious teaching." In some contemporary thought in particular, freethought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[1][2] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1] Modern freethinkers consider freethought as a natural freedom of all negative and illusive thoughts acquired from the society.[3]

That’s why I’m here.

Have you ever heard of natural theology?

Fascinating, utterly fascinating. Th endless spinning of beliefs and variations in theology. See the threads on Deism Vs Theism and Natural Religion . Aut freedom of religion and thought grand?

Deists can identify as Christian believing in a creator while rejecting supernatural and accepting naturalism at least to a point.

I am hard atheist with no ambiguities. What exactly are your beliefs?

 

[remez]

I precisely meant free thinking the way you did. I almost posted the same exact link and quoted the same definition.
Where have I not offered logic, reason and evidence for my presented positions with you?
I have never asserted you just have to blindly believe anything. I have challenged you to the contrary several times.

Seriously you assert that I love biblical metaphors……in the absolute absence of me presenting any…
And then…..
End with ….be there or be square. Thanks.

Freethought (or free thought)[1] is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a freethinker is "a person who forms their own ideas and opinions rather than accepting those of other people, especially in religious teaching." In some contemporary thought in particular, freethought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[1][2] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1] Modern freethinkers consider freethought as a natural freedom of all negative and illusive thoughts acquired from the society.[3]

That’s why I’m here.

Have you ever heard of natural theology?

Fascinating, utterly fascinating. Th endless spinning of beliefs and variations in theology. See the threads on Deism Vs Theism and Natural Religion . Aut freedom of religion and thought grand?

Deists can identify as Christian believing in a creator while rejecting supernatural and accepting naturalism at least to a point.

I am hard atheist with no ambiguities. What exactly are your beliefs?

I think you misunderstood want I meant by natural theology. So for clarification this is want I meant…….. NT is a branch of Christian theology which a aims to investigate the justification of Christianity’s truth claims apart from the resources of authoritative divine revelation….to make a case for God’s existence from nature through observation, reasoning, logic and evidence (free thinking). I provide the following link to amazon for further clarification......particularly the book description and editorial reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology-ebook/dp/B003VIWZEM

 

[Politesse]

A rather innovative definition.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So, is there a consensus on the horizon? (Doubt it.) People will believe ANYTHING. But, in the words of 60s linguist & semanticist Grace Slick, 'The human dream doesn't mean shit to a tree.' Now, those are words to live by.

Reject religion and scripture but quote LSD inspired musicians who in the end were just out to sell records. She turned out to be quite wacky. Saw the Jefferson Airplane twice. First time they had six packs of beer on stage drinking liberally.In the words of Firesign Theater 'give them a light and they will follow it anywhere'.

Gosh. Gracie on acid (and actually, Jim Beam was her downfall) was wittier and made more sense than Anne & Franklin Graham, Falwell Jr. & Sr., Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Bob Tilton, and John the Revelator combined. BTW, isn't John's Revelation a prima facie demonstration of the historicity of Bronze Age LSD?

 

[steve_bank]

So, is there a consensus on the horizon? (Doubt it.) People will believe ANYTHING. But, in the words of 60s linguist & semanticist Grace Slick, 'The human dream doesn't mean shit to a tree.' Now, those are words to live by.

Reject religion and scripture but quote LSD inspired musicians who in the end were just out to sell records. She turned out to be quite wacky. Saw the Jefferson Airplane twice. First time they had six packs of beer on stage drinking liberally.In the words of Firesign Theater 'give them a light and they will follow it anywhere'.

Gosh. Gracie on acid (and actually, Jim Beam was her downfall) was wittier and made more sense than Anne & Franklin Graham, Falwell Jr. & Sr., Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Bob Tilton, and John the Revelator combined. BTW, isn't John's Revelation a prima facie demonstration of the historicity of Bronze Age LSD?

I do not have a clue. I grew out of drugs in the 70s. The bible can be used to justify anything, now it seems psychoactive drugs. Ancient India writings refernce Soma usualy taken to mean some form of a drug.

Today wandering Sadhus smoke pot.

Whatever floats your boat.

Saw a documentary on Bob Dylan. I clip were he is at a typewriter with Joan Biaz. He says something like tese lyrics are going to drive the fans crazy. He said on camera if somebody finds meaning in his words good for them. He also said he was nobody's prophet.

Yet people glommed onto him. Bocks written, PHD dissertations. People quote his lyrics. A modern example of how the gospels arose from a human ordinary being.

 

[steve_bank]

Fascinating, utterly fascinating. Th endless spinning of beliefs and variations in theology. See the threads on Deism Vs Theism and Natural Religion . Aut freedom of religion and thought grand?

Deists can identify as Christian believing in a creator while rejecting supernatural and accepting naturalism at least to a point.

I am hard atheist with no ambiguities. What exactly are your beliefs?

I think you misunderstood want I meant by natural theology. So for clarification this is want I meant…….. NT is a branch of Christian theology which a aims to investigate the justification of Christianity’s truth claims apart from the resources of authoritative divine revelation….to make a case for God’s existence from nature through observation, reasoning, logic and evidence (free thinking). I provide the following link to amazon for further clarification......particularly the book description and editorial reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology-ebook/dp/B003VIWZEM

As always these philosophical debates end up about meaning and definitions over substance. Are you theist who believes in revelation from scripture, or a deist who rejects revelation in favor of observation of the natural world?

If you will, articulate your beliefs.

Not provable of course, I believe the universe always was and always will be with form in constant change. No god or creator required. A science based myth if you want. I look at the natural world and conclude no need for a creator.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Fascinating, utterly fascinating. Th endless spinning of beliefs and variations in theology. See the threads on Deism Vs Theism and Natural Religion . Aut freedom of religion and thought grand?

Deists can identify as Christian believing in a creator while rejecting supernatural and accepting naturalism at least to a point.

I am hard atheist with no ambiguities. What exactly are your beliefs?

I think you misunderstood want I meant by natural theology. So for clarification this is want I meant…….. NT is a branch of Christian theology which a aims to investigate the justification of Christianity’s truth claims apart from the resources of authoritative divine revelation….to make a case for God’s existence from nature through observation, reasoning, logic and evidence (free thinking). I provide the following link to amazon for further clarification......particularly the book description and editorial reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology-ebook/dp/B003VIWZEM

As always these philosophical debates end up about meaning and definitions over substance. Are you theist who believes in revelation from scripture, or a deist who rejects revelation in favor of observation of the natural world?

If you will, articulate your beliefs.

Not provable of course, I believe the universe always was and always will be with form in constant change. No god or creator required. A science based myth if you want. I look at the natural world and conclude no need for a creator.

If anything, the superstitious need for a creator arises from first observing natural processes. What is most interesting is that a person is not aware of their bias, and so makes conclusions based on their bias and not on their observations of reality. Doing so simply confirms that they have a bias of which they are unaware. Science for the win!

 

[remez]

Are you theist who believes in revelation from scripture, or a deist who rejects revelation in favor of observation of the natural world?

You seem confused as to what we’re talking about. First your distinction between theism and deism is off. Briefly main distinction is theists assert God is still active in this creation and deists assert that a deity created this universe and then went hands off.

As far as revelation…. There are two. General and Special revelation. Nature and Scripture respectively. Thus free thinking Christian Theologians argue for God’s existence from the natural. Thus NT’s have reason, evidence and logic for their beliefs. It is not a blind faith. It is not reasoning against the evidence like your cosmological view does…..myth of a past eternal universe.

You continually disparage theistic argumentation and at the same time fault theism for not being reasonable or logical. You assert without reason that theist cosmological reasoning fails. You heard it somewhere? Blind Faith? But you seem to be afraid or unprepared to defend your assertion of dismissal.

I am hard atheist with no ambiguities. What exactly are your beliefs?

Clearly Christian.

Not provable of course,

Let’s clear the deck on this loose pedagogy of “proof or proved.” Proof carries with it the implicit notion of absolute certainty which can only be found in is math and logic. The vast majority of what we accept (epistemology) to believe as true is not proofed absolutely. It is accepted on a basis of sufficient reasoning. It is in there……where our discussion/debate takes place. Who has the better reasoning, logic, science, philosophy and evidence for their beliefs?

Also this is a debate between two worldviews, atheism and theism. It is not science versus theism. That is the arrogance of the atheist to assume that scientific realm is defaulted to their position. Science is the instrument we both use to support our worldviews. Thus again this is a debate between our two worldview and I assert the science better supports theism in regards to our context of cosmology.

Not provable of course, I believe the universe always was and always will be with form in constant change.

A belief you assume is better than mine, and yet the evidence, reason, philosophy and science are overwhelmingly support my position. Those old arguments you believe are a waste of time. To me your belief is like believing in Santa. You are believing a fairy tale against the evidence.

No god or creator required.

Because........reindeer can fly? Right?

No it more like…….
No creator wanted.

A science based myth if you want

Precisely my point…..science fiction.
I don’t want.
My bias is to reason.

I look at the natural world and conclude no need for a creator.

But you admittedly conclude that with science fiction (myth if you want). I prefer a more rational approach.

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.
And
I’m prepared to offer reasoning, science and evidence to support that without the assistance of science fiction.

Free Thinking?

 

[remez]

What is most interesting is that a person is not aware of their bias, and so makes conclusions based on their bias and not on their observations of reality.

Like the bias that nature is all there is.

Doing so simply confirms that they have a bias of which they are unaware.

Evidence by your assumption of nature only.
Didn’t see that........ did you?

Science for the win!

Usually. But remember science requires philosophy in order to be an effective premise for epistemology.
Thus...............
Philosophy for the Win!

 

[steve_bank]

You seem confused as to what we’re talking about. First your distinction between theism and deism is off. Briefly main distinction is theists assert God is still active in this creation and deists assert that a deity created this universe and then went hands off.

As far as revelation…. There are two. General and Special revelation. Nature and Scripture respectively. Thus free thinking Christian Theologians argue for God’s existence from the natural. Thus NT’s have reason, evidence and logic for their beliefs. It is not a blind faith. It is not reasoning against the evidence like your cosmological view does…..myth of a past eternal universe.

You continually disparage theistic argumentation and at the same time fault theism for not being reasonable or logical. You assert without reason that theist cosmological reasoning fails. You heard it somewhere? Blind Faith? But you seem to be afraid or unprepared to defend your assertion of dismissal.

Clearly Christian.

Not provable of course,

Let’s clear the deck on this loose pedagogy of “proof or proved.” Proof carries with it the implicit notion of absolute certainty which can only be found in is math and logic. The vast majority of what we accept (epistemology) to believe as true is not proofed absolutely. It is accepted on a basis of sufficient reasoning. It is in there……where our discussion/debate takes place. Who has the better reasoning, logic, science, philosophy and evidence for their beliefs?

Also this is a debate between two worldviews, atheism and theism. It is not science versus theism. That is the arrogance of the atheist to assume that scientific realm is defaulted to their position. Science is the instrument we both use to support our worldviews. Thus again this is a debate between our two worldview and I assert the science better supports theism in regards to our context of cosmology.

Not provable of course, I believe the universe always was and always will be with form in constant change.

A belief you assume is better than mine, and yet the evidence, reason, philosophy and science are overwhelmingly support my position. Those old arguments you believe are a waste of time. To me your belief is like believing in Santa. You are believing a fairy tale against the evidence.

No god or creator required.

Because........reindeer can fly? Right?

No it more like…….
No creator wanted.

A science based myth if you want

Precisely my point…..science fiction.
I don’t want.
My bias is to reason.

I look at the natural world and conclude no need for a creator.

But you admittedly conclude that with science fiction (myth if you want). I prefer a more rational approach.

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.
And
I’m prepared to offer reasoning, science and evidence to support that without the assistance of science fiction.

Free Thinking?

You still have not said exactly what your believe and what you identify as. To do so one has to think through actively and critically your thinking. Daunting to the typical theists.

Moast Christians are unable to articulate oter tha belief in gid and Jesus.

You appear to be avoiding the question with more handwaving.

A concise paragraph will suffice.

 

[steve_bank]

Science does not require philosophy. Philosophy of science talks about what science does and interprets science, but does not say how science is done.

Ancient Zog who learned to control fore may have been the first scientists. Science is demonstrable.

The invention of the spin stabilized arrow using feathers was science.

I was a practitioner of applied science most of my adult life.

Naturalism, to repeat, says all that exists is by definition is natural. If I see a ghost and it is real there is a natural causal connection between the ghost and my brain, even if I can't figure out the causality.

The god hypothesis is not provable. You can make a subjective passement but there is no possible evidence for an actual proof. Attempted proofs all have logical flaws. Bootstrapping. I know god exists therefore my proof must be true. The tactic is I believe illegal in a courtroom.

Science is not biased, it deals only with what is quantifiable. Summarizing the intro to Durand's History Of Philosophy science deals with the quantifiable, the rest is religion and philosophy.

Or Kelvin, if you can't express in numbers your knowledge is 'of an inferior and meager kind'. One of my favorite quotes.

I took a psych class Alternate Sates Of Awareness. As an experiment he held up a series of envelopes with symbols inside and we had to deduce them. The class was at the statistical average, random chance. At that point science ends. Unless a phenomena can be demonstrated science can not be applied.

God and proofs of god are not for science. Science does not apply.

One can make the complexity argument. The unversed looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed. Another logical fallacy. Non sequitur.

Science can refute specific religious claims, like YEC. Claimed miracles are hit or miss. Some people pray and think get answered others do not.

Modern science reduces religious experience to biology and brain chemistry.

remez can offer what he thinks are proofs, but I think we have seen them all for years. If you want remez, jump over to the proof of god thread instead of derailing here. Or start a new thread for your proofs. Get a clean start.

 

[atrib]

And you have before you a free thinking theist whose epistemology is not blind. Therefore, in brief detail, this is just one line of reasoning why this theist reasons that naturalism as a foundation of an atheistic worldview fails.

An epistemology based on naturalism works just fine. The computer you use to post on the internet, the roads you drive on, the electrical grids that power our homes, and everything else that allows human civilization to exist and thrive are the product of naturalistic thinking. Can you name some process or technology based on supernatural thinking that has a similar impact on our lives? No, you can't. Supernatural thinking doesn't work, naturalism does.

You use the resources available to you as a member of a technologically advanced species, but all you do is curse the hard work and the methodology that makes this life possible.

How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child! Away, away!

Atheism is a rejection of supernatural claims. And that is all it is. It is not a worldview or an ideology, any more than non-belief in the existence of Santa Claus or Bantu the Supreme Cosmic Toad is a worldview or ideology.

If you follow the science where it leads….then this universe began to exist. The cause of the universe cannot be natural because logically that would mean that nature would have to have existed before it existed to be its own cause. And for something to exist before it existed to be the cause of its existence is overtly self-refuting. I’m not asserting that science proves the universe began to exist. I’m saying the science most reasonably leads to implication that our universe began to exist. Thus with this theist you have the burden to rescue your naturalism to make your worldview reasonable.

Let us examine your hypothesis and see where it leads. For the theistic creator hypothesis to be true, something necessarily existed before the Big Bang event; at a minimum, a supernatural entity cocooned in its own domain outside the visible universe. The theistic hypothesis also tells us that this entity does things, like create universes and meddle in their workings. Change requires time, and therefore this entity experiences time, and is subject to the arrow of time.

Did this entity begin to exist at some point? If the answer is yes, then the theistic hypothesis leads to an infinite regress of creation events and creator entities.

If the answer is no, then this creator entity must have existed forever. But that cannot be true because entropy would have reduced this entity to nothing within a finite period of time.

Your theistic hypothesis essentially boils down to special pleading:

Nothing existed before the Big Bang. But God existed before the Big Bang.
Perpetual motion machines cannot exist. But God is a perpetual motion machine.

Even a superficial examination of the problem should have led you to conclude that the theistic hypothesis is fatally flawed. Yet you keep telling us that you have educated yourself in this matter and pondered deeply on this problem. How is it possible that you missed these obvious flaws in your reasoning?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that.