Theism and religion are two different things. Believing in God doesn't mean choosing a religion. Even the bible says God does not favor religion.
I agree that this is the logical stance. However for whatever reason I remain a staunch atheist. Call me stupid if you will I just can't give any credence to religion. Another thing is I don't really think it's all that scientific to say religion is "possible" because the way most religions are defined they are immune to scientific scrutiny. Most religions are believed by their followers almost BECAUSE there is a lack of evidence for their existence. This is way "faith" is so important in religions, you must believe DESPITE a lack of evidence.
Besides all of this the reason I am an atheist is because to me personally I find it to be, sorry if I dip into religious territory here, a beautiful and concise world view. Seriously, I don't really want to live in any of the worlds any of the major religions posit. They are bland, and lack the natural awe present in a nonreligious world view.
Indeed. Possibilianism is anything but that, though . . . which you would know if you read the OP and/or were just slightly smarter.
you must fucking LOVE solipism
I'm not sure what the appeal of this dude's bullshit is. atheism is a disbelief in god. It doesn't speculate and say there is 100% no chance there is any type of supernatural "thing" out there. We don't have any evidence for it, so there is nothing to believe in. Here is an important part...If someday we do discover something supernatural, we are free to accept it, however, it will cease to be supernatural.
What do you believe is out there? Obviously we know relatively nothing. But there is no god as we currently define one, or creator for that matter. That is all atheism denies. I think you're grasping at straws, and I'm not sure why
Theism and religion are two different things. Believing in God doesn't mean choosing a religion. Even the bible says God does not favor religion.
Your definition of your belief is not compatible with the definition of atheism, making your arguments moot. You are basically taking the stance of one idea while claiming to defend another and only confusing the situation.
You are splitting hairs here. I think you know what I mean in my post above.
Again, I really wish you'd read the OP. The neuroscientist David Eagleman begins his defintion of possibilianism with the FACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE statement that:
And continues:
It was all right there in the OP, as was this:
If your repeated inability to absorb what he's saying (don't worry, you have plenty of OT company) is possibly because of some emotional commitment to atheism, then put that aside for the moment and re-read exactly what he has to say.
you must fucking LOVE solipism
I'm not sure what the appeal of this dude's bullshit is.
It doesn't matter and is not germane to his argument. It doesn't matter what any of us believe so long as we realize they are just ultimately unprovable beliefs and remain able to entertain a wider range of possibilities.What do you believe is out there?
The TRUE SCOPE of your first sentence negates the second.Obviously we know relatively nothing. But there is no god as we currently define one, or creator for that matter.
The issue isn't whether I understand your meaning, but rather whether you do. It is very important to separate God from religion, all religion is man-made. Typical atheist belief is that God is as well, but only because God is seen as a concept rather than an existent being.
Before you can grasp the supernatural you have to change your perspective from concepts to real and actual things. In other words, you must believe to see. Most would rather see to believe...
At least I'm able to spell it properly. By the available evidence, you aren't.
You are guilty here of disjunctive reasoning, a rookie teen philosopher mistake. Logically, you simply cannot conclude that because I don't buy your factually unsupported beliefs that I think we can't know anything.
It's sloppy reasoning. Please try harder.
If you would simply stop clinging to your emotional belief in atheism, you could more clearly see what this guy is saying, and you would be less blocked from accepting that it is the MOST scientific and rational approach to the mystery of our existence.
Clearly, you are not there yet, so you are emotionally compelled to call his highly rational position bullshit. This makes you look flailing and foolish.
It doesn't matter and is not germane to his argument. It doesn't matter what any of us believe so long as we realize they are just ultimately unprovable beliefs and remain able to entertain a wider range of possibilities.
Your angry and emotional response mimics that of the true believer who is closed to other extant possibilities and exposes you as such.
The TRUE SCOPE of your first sentence negates the second.
Why do you insist on clinging to your emotional belief that there is no god or creator, even as currently defined, when you simply can't prove that?
Like any true believer, if you would just lighten up and let go of your emotionally held beliefs, you could almost instantly become less stupid.
Sorry, but that's Fail. Atheism is a lack of Belief, not 100% certainty that there are no gods. That argument is a classic Strawman.
It doesn't matter and is not germane to his argument. It doesn't matter what any of us believe so long as we realize they are just ultimately unprovable beliefs and remain able to entertain a wider range of possibilities.
Your angry and emotional response mimics that of the true believer who is closed to other extant possibilities and exposes you as such.
At least I'm able to spell it properly. By the available evidence, you aren't.
You are guilty here of disjunctive reasoning, a rookie teen philosopher mistake. Logically, you simply cannot conclude that because I don't buy your factually unsupported beliefs that I think we can't know anything.
It's sloppy reasoning. Please try harder.
If you would simply stop clinging to your emotional belief in atheism, you could more clearly see what this guy is saying, and you would be less blocked from accepting that it is the MOST scientific and rational approach to the mystery of our existence.
Clearly, you are not there yet, so you are emotionally compelled to call his highly rational position bullshit. This makes you look flailing and foolish.
It doesn't matter and is not germane to his argument. It doesn't matter what any of us believe so long as we realize they are just ultimately unprovable beliefs and remain able to entertain a wider range of possibilities.
Your angry and emotional response mimics that of the true believer who is closed to other extant possibilities and exposes you as such.
The TRUE SCOPE of your first sentence negates the second.
Why do you insist on clinging to your emotional belief that there is no god or creator, even as currently defined, when you simply can't prove that?
Like any true believer, if you would just lighten up and let go of your emotionally held beliefs, you could almost instantly become less stupid.
Well you are using terms like logical and scientific and applying them to the believe and or disbelief of religion. But religions are inherently illogical, they contain, miracles and magic that require no explanation or logic. So how do you reconcile the two.
I think he is saying we should all believe in santa because we can't disprove the possibility
Sorry, but that's Fail. Atheism is a lack of Belief, not 100% certainty that there are no gods. That argument is a classic Strawman.
If I'm willing to stipulate your definition of atheism (it's not everyone's, but it's yours and others, so ok), then, given that stipulation, what is your take on possibilianism?
Classic sloppy disjunctive reasoning or lame-ass attempt at attack humor but either way, fail.
This is hardly the time and place to go into the concept of language and why words are for formed and the history of said words...
The short of it, it is called atheism because it is a belief, not a lack of belief. You can argue this for the rest of your short life, but you will always be wrong and always accomplish nothing more than confusing points. You are bringing nothing productive to this discussion.
This is hardly the time and place to go into the concept of language and why words are for formed and the history of said words...
The short of it, it is called atheism because it is a belief, not a lack of belief. You can argue this for the rest of your short life, but you will always be wrong and always accomplish nothing more than confusing points. You are bringing nothing productive to this discussion.
just re-read your post and looking at this, you are clearly trolling, or plain crazy. I think you're trolling though, you can't be this crazy...please tell me it isn't soIt doesn't matter and is not germane to his argument. It doesn't matter what any of us believe so long as we realize they are just ultimately unprovable beliefs and remain able to entertain a wider range of possibilities.
Your angry and emotional response mimics that of the true believer who is closed to other extant possibilities and exposes you as such.