Oh noes, dont call Castiel an atheist, for he has a religion phd and knows more than you do.
/notseriouspost.
Dinosaurs are not real :(
- Thread starter stoke1863
- Start date
Oh noes, dont call Castiel an atheist, for he has a religion phd and knows more than you do.
/notseriouspost.
Neither Philosophy or Comparative Religion, and certainly not Linguistics are considered 'mickey mouse' degrees.....quite the opposite in fact and by stating such nonsense you are comparing some of the greatest thinkers of history to a cartoon character.
Do you actually think that people like Karl Popper, Noam Chomsky, Kant and the list goes on were all 'mickey mouse'
Your ideas get more extreme and wild as you go on...
Last edited:
You quoted part of my post, but cut the key part and didn't reply to it. Here is is again:
Your stated position currently contradicts itself. What are you going to do to resolve that?
I don't accept the premise in the first place.....so it isn't a case of belief or disbelief, simply a case of ambivalence. Until you can supply a coherent falsifiable definition then I cannot make a personal decision as the existence of God. I can postulate on the likelihood of various unfalsifiable positions as they are largely ambiguous and inconsistent definitions of God....but from a purely personal one I have no belief or disbelief on the concept of God itself.
So, no I am not an atheist as defined as a philospohical position. Although Everyone is atheist about something if you define it loosely enough and you are absolutely correct the way in which different definitions of the various positions are created and formulated by various philosphers and commentators means that it is increasingly difficult to define any particular position to any specificity as they consistently overlap each other.
For example Atheism can be expressed as a myriad of positions from strong atheism to agnosticism, and even to a point if we loosen the definition enough ignosticism...however from a personal perspective I do not consider myself an atheist, but a theological noncognitivist or ignostic, as that better or more narrowly defines my personal position than simply stating agnostic (which I do use for simplicity in forum discussion, it is impractical to explain unfamiliar terms such as ignosticism all the time) or weak/negative/implicit atheist....
I hope that explains my position a little clearer.
Last edited:
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods or deities.
I dont understand how anyone can describe it as anything else, when this is clearly what it is.
I dont believe in any gods or deities, and any such idea of gods or deities presented to me by others are false until proven otherwise.
My (current) stance is that there are no gods or deities. This is not a permanent stance and is subject to change given enough valid evidence supporting the existence of a god or deity, but the likelyhood of this being possible is equal to the possibility that invisible pink unicorns are real, therefore I 99.999999999999999(add many many more 9s)% believe that there are no gods or deities.
My belief would be equal to a null hypothesis of the existence of god, and changeable should any repeatable method be able to prove that god exists.
I dont understand how anyone can describe it as anything else, when this is clearly what it is.
I dont believe in any gods or deities, and any such idea of gods or deities presented to me by others are false until proven otherwise.
My (current) stance is that there are no gods or deities. This is not a permanent stance and is subject to change given enough valid evidence supporting the existence of a god or deity, but the likelyhood of this being possible is equal to the possibility that invisible pink unicorns are real, therefore I 99.999999999999999(add many many more 9s)% believe that there are no gods or deities.
My belief would be equal to a null hypothesis of the existence of god, and changeable should any repeatable method be able to prove that god exists.
Last edited:
I am not becoming a priest or any kind of religious scholar....it is a scientific research position.
So nothing really substantial or worth noting then?
You try too hard to be honest with you
Yes, that sounds exactly like you. Well done on that anyway.
Thankyou.
Regarding God / Deities / creation of the universe, here is an analogy of my my method of thinking:
My current stance is that aliens / god / dieties / no definable 'being' of any kind created the universe, nor does that creator, or any such supernatural deity exist.
However I accept the hypothesis that the Big Bang may have created the universe because there is supporting evidence from observation of space expansion and formation of stars / solar systems that strongly suggest a possibility of a centre of the universes origin.
I do not accept that either hypothesis is yet completely true or false, but have more reason and evidence to believe that the big bang theory is much more likely than magical aliens having created the universe.
My current stance is that aliens / god / dieties / no definable 'being' of any kind created the universe, nor does that creator, or any such supernatural deity exist.
However I accept the hypothesis that the Big Bang may have created the universe because there is supporting evidence from observation of space expansion and formation of stars / solar systems that strongly suggest a possibility of a centre of the universes origin.
I do not accept that either hypothesis is yet completely true or false, but have more reason and evidence to believe that the big bang theory is much more likely than magical aliens having created the universe.
Last edited:
That is a perfectly acceptable position to take Bhavv, no-one is disputing that. However the big bang may have been a mechanism for the creation of the Universe rather than the creator of the Universe itself.....so it doesnt necessarily preclude the existence of God....
I would be more inclined to suggest that you have more reason to suppose that the big bang created the Universe by pure chance than that a God created the Universe, either with the big bang or otherwise.....
If you see what I mean?
The chance of a 'God' creating the universe seems very far fetched and doesnt have any support behind it.
It would be equal to my analogy of magical aliens having created the universe.
Even if something, anything did create the universe, how do you or anyone else know that this 'thing' is decribeable as 'God'?
In fact, imagine this scenario - Someone discovers with absolutely certainty, proof and a valid repeatable method that the previous idea / theory known as 'God' is real, and actually did create the universe.
However, the person that makes this discovery chooses not to name his discovery 'God', but chooses to call it the 'Big bang' instead.
Therefore, 'God' did not create the universe and is not real. However, the 'Big bang', which meets all the defining criteria of the Jeudeo-Christian 'God' is what created the universe and is now the supernatural entity previously believed to have been 'God'.
You cannot attribute any kind of definition or qualities to the idea of 'God', and any such ideas that currently exist are not yet true, and even if proven to be true, may still not be should the person that discovers this calls it something other than 'God'.
It would be equal to my analogy of magical aliens having created the universe.
Even if something, anything did create the universe, how do you or anyone else know that this 'thing' is decribeable as 'God'?
In fact, imagine this scenario - Someone discovers with absolutely certainty, proof and a valid repeatable method that the previous idea / theory known as 'God' is real, and actually did create the universe.
However, the person that makes this discovery chooses not to name his discovery 'God', but chooses to call it the 'Big bang' instead.
Therefore, 'God' did not create the universe and is not real. However, the 'Big bang', which meets all the defining criteria of the Jeudeo-Christian 'God' is what created the universe and is now the supernatural entity previously believed to have been 'God'.
You cannot attribute any kind of definition or qualities to the idea of 'God', and any such ideas that currently exist are not yet true, and even if proven to be true, may still not be should the person that discovers this calls it something other than 'God'.
Last edited:
Is their substantial support behind any of the theories?
Last edited:
If there is then I would be very interested in seeing it. So far the big bang alone is the only one that makes any sense from centuries of research in astronomy.
It may make some sort of sense, but where is the evidence for how it occured? There isn't, conjecture on both sides of the fence.
Which kind of the point I have been making for a whie now. The concept is meaningless without a falsifiable and universally accepted definition....
However, your example about the naming of a specific falsifiable concept which in every way is indestinguishable from the Judeo-Christian god would by definition still be god...the term god is not specifc to the abrahamic faith...it is also a standard descriptive term, so for example the person who proves the Big Bang is indistiguishable from God is simply calling God 'The Big Bang', it is still god, but by another name. There are gods throughout world religion that go by various names, they are all still gods however....The Abrahamic God for example has various names, in the Qur'an for example is it stated that God has 99 names, Judaism refers to 72 divine names, and Christianity obviously has the trinity amongst others.....
No evidence for how it occurred, I doubt that would be possible to provide / discover, but that is similar to there being no evidence of Humans and Chimpanzees evolving from the same ancestor as we have no evidence how it occurred.
As I said, I only believe the hypothesis, I do not believe it to be 100% true and cannot make any conclusion, but to have a far higher possibility than other ideas and theories that I have heard on how the universe was created.
I dont believe that humans will ever discover how the universe formed, speculative guesses are all we will ever be able to make.
Yes that was my point, but it wouldnt be called 'God' anymore.
Last edited:
Doesn't that make spiritualist beliefs like Buddhism/Hinduism and Wicca Atheist then? O.o
And it being created by a bearded man who sits on a cloud is somehow one of the better guesses? and if so who made god?