|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 2, 2014 19:25:53 GMT -5
I'm okay with your definition of atheism.....but in my opinion it's a narrow definition. It is a narrow definition. It is also the definition. That would indeed be a broader definition. It is so broad it also defines theists. If you redefine the term to suit your means it can, of course, mean whatever you wish. An atheist does not reject a god. An atheist lacks belief of the existence of god(s). There is no god to reject. One of my favorite definitions of “God” (from wiki): God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. (Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995) I believe there are people on this planet, who could be accurately described as “atheists”. They are people who have become so free that they no longer rely on the concept of a supreme being or have a principal object of faith. (Or, on the flip side, perhaps they see all as “God”.) But, just for a moment, can you conceive of someone who (though they do not believe in a Christian God, Zeus, or even Valiant Thor) have “facts” or “rationality” as their principal object of faith? Why would that not make “facts” or “rationality” their God?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 2, 2014 20:23:07 GMT -5
One of my favorite definitions of “God” (from wiki): God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. (Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995) I believe there are people on this planet, who could be accurately described as “atheists”. I believe there are people on this planet, who could be accurately described as atheists.[/quote]OKI fail to see how that fits with the definition of atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.Although, you have quoted the word God so I am unsure what you have in mind as an alternate meaning. Facts (without the quotation marks) do not require faith. Rationality (again without the quotation marks)is the almost the antithesis of faith. One does not usually consider facts or rationality to be dependent on faith.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 20:56:27 GMT -5
It is a narrow definition. It is also the definition. That would indeed be a broader definition. It is so broad it also defines theists. If you redefine the term to suit your means it can, of course, mean whatever you wish. An atheist does not reject a god. An atheist lacks belief of the existence of god(s). There is no god to reject. A very rational response! Like most things in life there are ranges within a concept. I was recently talking to a parent who sends his child to a local Christian preschool. He indicated that he was an atheist but he was quite happy for his children to be taught about Jesus. I invited him to church the following week and he came. We talked about religion afterward and he proffered that he didn't believe the world had come into existence by a big bang and he wasn't sure what was behind it all. His words "I know I said to you I was an atheist and I am....but I guess I'm not as hard and fast an atheist as some folk". I replied tongue in cheek - at this rate you'll be a Christian next week...." You stated, "there are ranges within a concept" (of atheism)
However, in the very incident you just cited, the man was NOT exhibiting any of the definition of atheism; Within any "range" or otherwise!
Obviously, he seems to be as oblivious as you are to the definition of the term "Atheist ."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 21:15:46 GMT -5
It is a narrow definition. It is also the definition. That would indeed be a broader definition. It is so broad it also defines theists. If you redefine the term to suit your means it can, of course, mean whatever you wish. An atheist does not reject a god. An atheist lacks belief of the existence of god(s). There is no god to reject. One of my favorite definitions of “God” (from wiki): God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. (Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995) I believe there are people on this planet, who could be accurately described as “atheists”. They are people who have become so free that they no longer rely on the concept of a supreme being or have a principal object of faith. (Or, on the flip side, perhaps they see all as “God”.) But, just for a moment, can you conceive of someone who (though they do not believe in a Christian God, Zeus, or even Valiant Thor) have “facts” or “rationality” as their principal object of faith?Why would that not make “facts” or “rationality” their God? Yes. -When I re-word your statement to "can you conceive of someone who (though they do not believe in a Christian God, Zeus, or even Valiant Thor) have “facts” or “rationality” as their principal object of faith belief.
I rely on “facts” or “rationality” for my God belief .
Theists often want to define atheists with theist words such as "faith" and "God!"
Then they consider that they have "trapped" us because they think that we must answer with a "Yes" or "No!"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 21:20:45 GMT -5
If the reason atheists don't want a "god in their lives because God is an obstruction in the path of personal joy," then why do Christians who believe they have god in their lives continuously talk so much about the "joy of God in their lives?"
Why is God NOT an obstruction in THEIR the path of personal joy the same way you claim about atheists?
You can't have it both ways.
Lewis is simply saying that some atheists are exactly that because they find God to be an obstruction in the path of personal joy. God is seen as a negative who stops people from enjoying themselves. Christians who love God clearly don't find God to be this kind of obstruction. God represents life today and future life - he represents joy today and future joy. I wonder if that was what caused Lewis to be an atheist all those years?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 2, 2014 21:22:38 GMT -5
Why would that not make “facts” or “rationality” their God? One does not usually consider facts or rationality to be dependent on faith. Sometimes it is interesting to contemplate "what one does not usually consider." Without doubt, it has enriched my life.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 2, 2014 21:29:27 GMT -5
Then they consider that they have "trapped" us because they think that we must answer with a "Ye" or "No!" Not trying to "trap" anyone here. Not my style. Definitely not. Just putting forward an alternative way of viewing things. I don't mind (at all) if it doesn't make any sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 2, 2014 21:48:44 GMT -5
One does not usually consider facts or rationality to be dependent on faith. Sometimes it is interesting to contemplate "what one does not usually consider." Without doubt, it has enriched my life. Sure, it is interesting. Suppose we could converse with frogs?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 21:49:46 GMT -5
You seem to fail to appreciate that an atheist does not see god. Not as a force of good, not as a force of evil. Not as a positive force. Not as a negative force. Not as anything. Atheists do not accept god. They do not reject god. God is simply not. The null set. Perhaps what Lewis meant was that there are theists who reject god. They are welcome to believe this and I am glad that their belief brings them joy. I'm okay with your definition of atheism.....but in my opinion it's a narrow definition. A number of atheists have arrived at their position by rejecting God. A broader definition includes those who have rejected God or a deity and continue to do so. Lewis' statement is "some atheists...", not "all atheists..." I wonder why it is so hard for you to understand that atheists do not arrive at our position by "rejecting" God?
I arrived at my position as an atheist by realizing there WAS NO god! It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god! I didn't have to "reject" anything!
How does one go about "rejecting" something if there is no evidence of something to "reject?"
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 2, 2014 21:55:28 GMT -5
Sometimes it is interesting to contemplate "what one does not usually consider." Without doubt, it has enriched my life. Sure, it is interesting. Suppose we could converse with frogs? Not something I had ever considered. But, you know, on quiet evenings here - looking over the valley and the lake, surrounded by nature's abundance - to the chorus of frogs - I can sometimes feel in harmony with everything - including them. That's probably better conversation than most.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Sept 2, 2014 22:12:21 GMT -5
"The frog whisperer " horses, dogs, why not frogs? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 2, 2014 22:12:34 GMT -5
Sure, it is interesting. Suppose we could converse with frogs? :D Not something I had ever considered. But, you know, on quiet evenings here - looking over the valley and the lake, surrounded by nature's abundance - to the chorus of frogs - I can sometimes feel in harmony with everything - including them. Interesting, considering what the male is saying to the females in the area! Almost certainly! They know what they want.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 22:17:59 GMT -5
Then they consider that they have "trapped" us because they think that we must answer with a "Ye" or "No!" Not trying to "trap" anyone here. Not my style. Definitely not. Just putting forward an alternative way of viewing things.I don't mind (at all) if it doesn't make any sense to you. It is hardly an "alternative way of viewing things" when one uses religious terms to define the "alternate."
Terms such as: a principal object of "faith."
their "God"
I don't believed that I expressed any concern about whether what you said made any sense to me or not.
What I was concerned about was your attempting to use religious words & phrases in describing atheists.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 2, 2014 23:48:10 GMT -5
It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god!I see evidence of a creator in creation. It takes a lot of faith to believe everything just happened all by itself.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 2, 2014 23:55:40 GMT -5
I wonder why it is so hard for you to understand that atheists do not arrive at our position by "rejecting" God?
I arrived at my position as an atheist by realizing there WAS NO god! It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god! I didn't have to "reject" anything!
How does one go about "rejecting" something if there is no evidence of something to "reject?"
I didn't know you spoke on behalf of all atheists? :) As much as Dawkins does!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2014 0:06:59 GMT -5
It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god!I see evidence of a creator in creation. Care to share the evidence that makes a creator a requirement? It takes no faith at all. There are somethings that are known and there are other things that are still unknown. The existence of the Higgs boson, for example, was theorized in 1964 but was not confirmed until March of 2013. But during that time it was not a matter of faith but a theory waiting for the equipment needed for verification.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2014 1:06:01 GMT -5
I wonder why it is so hard for you to understand that atheists do not arrive at our position by "rejecting" God?
I arrived at my position as an atheist by realizing there WAS NO god! It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god! I didn't have to "reject" anything!
How does one go about "rejecting" something if there is no evidence of something to "reject?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an aside I had to smile at a prominent atheist on radio this morning who stated "there is no sin because there is no God". In listening to his message, you would be forgiven for thinking "this guy essentially believes there is no wrong - every individual should be able to do what they want to do..." I'd hate my kids to listen to that kind of message - they'd reject it anyway - but what a slippery slope. That is exactly why you cannot speak for what atheists believe!
That atheist was stating what we believe that "there is no sin" because it is your religion that created & uses the word "sin!"
No, I don't forgive you for thinking "this guy believes there is no wrong "- because that isn't what he said, -that is what you said! That is just what you want to think about atheists!
Neither did he SAY "every individual should be able to do what they want to do..." -because that isn't what he said! Again, That is what you said he said!
He didn't say either one of the things that you attribute to him! YOU SAID THEM! YOU PUT WORDS IN HIS MOUTH!
You need to worry more that your children learn how to do some critical thinking on their own.( AND PERHAPS LEARN NOT TO MISQUOTE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 2:03:27 GMT -5
It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god!I see evidence of a creator in creation. It takes a lot of faith to believe everything just happened all by itself. Fixit, It takes a lot of faith to believe that Jesus was dead and decomposing in the grave and then up and about again 3 days later none the worse for his ordeal. It also takes a lot of faith to believe he was then ascending skywards within a week in complete defiance of every law of nature ever laid down. It takes a gargantuan amount of faith to believe that he is still up there looking down on us and caring for our every need. Do you see any evidence in creation (or anywhere else for that matter) that Jesus continues to exist in some form or other and wants to save our souls? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 2:31:21 GMT -5
I wonder why it is so hard for you to understand that atheists do not arrive at our position by "rejecting" God?
I arrived at my position as an atheist by realizing there WAS NO god! It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god! I didn't have to "reject" anything!
How does one go about "rejecting" something if there is no evidence of something to "reject?"
As an aside I had to smile at a prominent atheist on radio this morning who stated "there is no sin because there is no God". In listening to his message, you would be forgiven for thinking "this guy essentially believes there is no wrong - every individual should be able to do what they want to do..." I'd hate my kids to listen to that kind of message - they'd reject it anyway - but what a slippery slope. Ross, your children are probably aware of the difference but for your own information and for future reference; Matt10 From the Oxford English Dictionary Wrong; NOUN An unjust, dishonest, or immoral act: Sin; NOUN An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law:
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2014 8:45:28 GMT -5
I see evidence of a creator in creation. It takes a lot of faith to believe everything just happened all by itself. Fixit, It takes a lot of faith to believe that Jesus was dead and decomposing in the grave and then up and about again 3 days later none the worse for his ordeal. It also takes a lot of faith to believe he was then ascending skywards within a week in complete defiance of every law of nature ever laid down. It takes a gargantuan amount of faith to believe that he is still up there looking down on us and caring for our every need. Do you see any evidence in creation (or anywhere else for that matter) that Jesus continues to exist in some form or other and wants to save our souls? Matt10 It took longer than a week to get everything in place. About 40 days. Word on the street is that Jesus will return using the same means of transportation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 9:33:56 GMT -5
Fixit, It takes a lot of faith to believe that Jesus was dead and decomposing in the grave and then up and about again 3 days later none the worse for his ordeal. It also takes a lot of faith to believe he was then ascending skywards within a week in complete defiance of every law of nature ever laid down. It takes a gargantuan amount of faith to believe that he is still up there looking down on us and caring for our every need. Do you see any evidence in creation (or anywhere else for that matter) that Jesus continues to exist in some form or other and wants to save our souls? Matt10 It took longer than a week to get everything in place. About 40 days. Word on the street is that Jesus will return using the same means of transportation. Goodness me, I had no idea he hung around for so long afterwards. Perhaps I was reading the wrong gospel. I have a vague recollection that he bumped into a few people, ate some broiled fish and invited thomas to thrust his hand into the gaping hole in his side, but 40 days, I thought that was the fasting thing in the desert. Is it any wonder I am an unbeliever today. I guess I really should have paid more attention when these things were being discussed in the living room if my youth instead of watching the clock waiting for the time to go by. Anyway thank you for pointing out my error. I promise I won't leave as a result of it. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 11:57:10 GMT -5
I'm okay with your definition of atheism.....but in my opinion it's a narrow definition. A number of atheists have arrived at their position by rejecting God. A broader definition includes those who have rejected God or a deity and continue to do so. Lewis' statement is "some atheists...", not "all atheists..." I wonder why it is so hard for you to understand that atheists do not arrive at our position by "rejecting" God?
I arrived at my position as an atheist by realizing there WAS NO god! It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god! I didn't have to "reject" anything!
How does one go about "rejecting" something if there is no evidence of something to "reject?"
well a few atheist come to thier rejection of God through being a christian for a time which then lead them to reject the idea of any god...
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Sept 3, 2014 14:17:44 GMT -5
I guess I really should have paid more attention when these things were being discussed in the living room if my youth instead of watching the clock waiting for the time to go by. My sister and I had to pay attention in church as our dad would quiz us afterwards. We got a taste of hell if we couldn't ante up.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2014 14:22:45 GMT -5
It took longer than a week to get everything in place. About 40 days. Word on the street is that Jesus will return using the same means of transportation. Goodness me, I had no idea he hung around for so long afterwards. Perhaps I was reading the wrong gospel. I have a vague recollection that he bumped into a few people, ate some broiled fish and invited thomas to thrust his hand into the gaping hole in his side, but 40 days, I thought that was the fasting thing in the desert. Is it any wonder I am an unbeliever today. I guess I really should have paid more attention when these things were being discussed in the living room if my youth instead of watching the clock waiting for the time to go by. Anyway thank you for pointing out my error. I promise I won't leave as a result of it. Matt10 Sorry I didn't split your post up into words! Some people have said that 40 in the bible just meant a long time. Like 40 years wandering in the desert. 40 days in the wilderness. Raining on Noah 40 days and 40 nights. But the 40 days before the sendoff seems to be just that - 40 days. I think somewhere in there is a story about walking with two friends who didn't recognize him after hanging out with him for 3 years. Seems like that would raise questions.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2014 14:48:43 GMT -5
I wonder why it is so hard for you to understand that atheists do not arrive at our position by "rejecting" God?
I arrived at my position as an atheist by realizing there WAS NO god! It was simply a fact that there was NO evidence of any god! I didn't have to "reject" anything!
How does one go about "rejecting" something if there is no evidence of something to "reject?"
well a few atheist come to thier rejection of God through being a christian for a time which then lead them to reject the idea of any god... No, wally. Some of us may have been Christians, but it is NOT a "rejection" of something when you realize it doesn't exist!
It is one of those eureka moments. You realize all of a sudden what you had been so concerned about all your life doesn't even exist!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 14:52:52 GMT -5
Goodness me, I had no idea he hung around for so long afterwards. Perhaps I was reading the wrong gospel. I have a vague recollection that he bumped into a few people, ate some broiled fish and invited thomas to thrust his hand into the gaping hole in his side, but 40 days, I thought that was the fasting thing in the desert. Is it any wonder I am an unbeliever today. I guess I really should have paid more attention when these things were being discussed in the living room if my youth instead of watching the clock waiting for the time to go by. Anyway thank you for pointing out my error. I promise I won't leave as a result of it. Matt10 Sorry I didn't split your post up into words! Some people have said that 40 in the bible just meant a long time. Like 40 years wandering in the desert. 40 days in the wilderness. Raining on Noah 40 days and 40 nights. But the 40 days before the sendoff seems to be just that - 40 days. I think somewhere in there is a story about walking with two friends who didn't recognize him after hanging out with him for 3 years. Seems like that would raise questions. Luk 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2014 14:56:38 GMT -5
That is exactly why you cannot speak for what atheists believe!
That atheist was stating what we believe that "there is no sin" because it is your religion that created & uses the word "sin!"
No, I don't forgive you for thinking "this guy believes there is no wrong "- because that isn't what he said, -that is what you said! That is just what you want to think about atheists!
Neither did he SAY "every individual should be able to do what they want to do..." -because that isn't what he said! Again, That is what you said he said!
He didn't say either one of the things that you attribute to him! YOU SAID THEM! YOU PUT WORDS IN HIS MOUTH!
You need to worry more that your children learn how to do some critical thinking on their own.( AND PERHAPS LEARN NOT TO MISQUOTE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY)
I think I know what the guy is saying I'm just having a bit of a lend of you. You knew what the man was saying, yet it didn't upset your sense of morality to misinterpret what he said? It didn't upset your sense of morality to put words in his mouth that he never said?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2014 15:33:07 GMT -5
Luk 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. I knew there was an explanation! "It doesn't seem right that they would not recognize Jesus." "God did it. Introduced 'face blindness'." "Of course. That makes sense." (What would be the point of not letting them know to whom they were talking? Could it be they walked/talked with a stranger and later applied a name after convincing themselves that their eyes were 'holden'?)
|
|