One can just as easily see “theism” as a self-defense or defense mechanism.
Without the so-called love and support of a personal God or any kind of god, the world can be a lonely, scary, unloving place to be without a self-sustaining identity and strong sense of flowing self.
I don’t understand the particular language of ~~~Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. It is a lack of belief in gods.
Can someone explain that to me. I don’t see much of a difference in that language. What is the missing link?
For me, to “disbelieve” something means the same as having a lack of belief.
I am an agnostic. I have no belief. That to me is a lack of belief.
Can you explain the origin of the big bang? It just was (or is if you believe in eternalism), not unlike: “God always was, always is and always will be”?
Atheism as opposed to agnosticism (at least in the commonly (an incorrectly) understood definition of the word, “I don’t know; insufficient data” ) is making a positive statement. It is asserting positively that there is no God. I don’t understand your objection to this assertion.
The “fingerprints of God” (or more precisely, a creator of some kind; the creator could be an extra-dimensional computer programer) are exactly what my philosophical proof of a creator posted here (under philosophy) purports to point to. This is how I counter the often raised argument that asking an atheist to prove there is no God is not unlike asking him or her to prove there are no fairies. There is absolutely no logical reason why fairies should exist in the absence of proof that they do. However, the question of why anything at all exists—indeed, why there is existence itself—remains unanswered. Therefore, the creator hypothesis remains a valid option to be refuted. It can be refuted by proving that another paradigm is true.
“Agnosticism is the only valid opening for a skeptic…”
Agreed, but again, in the commonly (mis)understood meaning of the word. Agnoticism as formulated by Thomas Huxley (he simply appended an “a” to Gnostic (knowledge)) is a rejection of Gnosticism, mysticism, in which the former incorporates the latter. He stated that man can only know what he can perceive through his physical senses. Thus, in actuality agnosticism too is a positive statement, the assertion that mysticism is not valid.
"I don’t understand the particular language of ~~~Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. It is a lack of belief in gods. Can someone explain that to me. I don’t see much of a difference in that language. What is the missing link?
“For me, to ‘disbelieve’ something means the same as having a lack of belief. I am an agnostic. I have no belief. That to me is a lack of belief.”
Yes, you just accurately defined agnosticism (subject to the caveat in my last response to Barbarian) as opposed to atheism which positively denies the existence of God. Peter is curiously not the first self-professed atheist I have encountered who denies this definition of their paradigm. By doing so, they reposition themselves as agnostics.
We are known more by our actions than by our words. The people who profess a belief in God … supported with participation in some religious rituals … yet … at the same time embrace consumerism and one or another ideology … political, economic, finance … expose their duplicity.
Leaving us with a very large community of atheists … as well as a very large community of hypocrites.
Leaving a very small community of true believers …
I dunno Phyllo … never met one … and it seems impossible to separate fact from fiction in the historical accounts of those who may have been true believers.
For example … legend suggests some of the nuns who lived in one of St Teresa (Avila) convents complained about her fear of starving to death … the convent relied on alms.
St Teresa apparently answered … we should be so lucky.
Is this story true?
Speaking for myself … I’m working on it but seems I’m still at square one.
Reminds me of the Arab axiom … trust in God but tie your camel tight.
That is a long story that I have been talking about on this forum for years. I call it “Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology”. But the false dichotomy that I referenced would be the notion that “either the universe had a beginning or conversely, there is no God”. That is a false notion.
God, being the cause of the universe and being eternal, is the very reason that the universe has always existed and always will. Wherever there is the cause, there is immediately the result (else there wasn’t sufficient cause). The concept of the Big Bang started as a joke, caught on due to a catholic priest seeing the utility of it, and has been promoted for socio-political-religious reasons ever since. The BB is an absurd, irrational impossibility.
God did not “begin the universe” God is the reason for or cause of (aka “First/Prime Cause”) of the universe. God is the very fundamental principle from which all existence stems.
I don’t see how you discerned that I was positioning such a dichotomy from anything I’ve written here or elsewhere. I actually agree with you entirely in substance, but differ in form. The difference between us (apparently) is how we view “God.” See my post under Philosophy on the “Why is consciousness?” thread in which I position undifferentiated, universal Consciousness as what you refer to as God, rather than an anthropomorphic, personal deity. This is accordance with the Eastern ontological view predicated upon the Upanishads.
However, my paradigm doesn’t preclude The occurrence of the Big Bang or other (seemingly) physical phenomena. I simply view them as manifestations of Consciousness with no fundamental reality of their own. The illusion of material realty, however, is so powerful that we experience them as it they were real as for all intents and purposes, they are, just as we can be freighted out of our wits, for example, by a nightmare.
I don’t refer to God as “universal consciousness”. To me, consciousness is an emergent property of the affectance that forms the physical universe.
Mine does.
I suspect a definition of “reality”, “physical reality”, or “existence” would be in order. You seem to be either a solipsist, relativist, perceptionist, or mentalist (or some combination thereof).
I refer to the metaphysical paradigm based upon the Upanishads as “corporate solipsism,” as opposed to what I term “radical solipsism.” Again, see my aforementioned post, if interested. For now, rest assured that I believe that you exist as I wouldn’t be wasting my time communicating with a figment of my imagination.
I don’t know … with any degree of certainty … that I don’t know.
In my life … I have already traveled 61.5 billion kilometers and I never experienced … as in conscious recognition of this travel … a single kilometer.
How can I say … with any degree of certainty … that God hasn’t "held my hand’ during all of this travel?
As soon as one believes in God, then one automatically believes that there is a particular relationship with God. God interacts with the world in some way, He interacts with others in some way and He interacts with the believer in some way.
So when one talks about a “true believer”, then one is referring to a better way of interaction as compared to an “average believer” or “hypocritical believer”.
An appealing ‘cornerstone’ Phyllo … let me try to ‘lay a stone’ beside it. If I err in understanding the underlying intentions of your above comment … the error is mine … fruit of my arrogance … and I beg forgiveness in advance.
The words “better way” point to an ever-increasing understanding … knowing … fueled almost entirely by personal experience.
Let me try to illustrate by sharing a personal experience from yesterday.
First some context.
My wife is farming 2-3 acres … largely by hand … and she has dragged me into participating in her enterprise. My reluctance to participate is shrinking … I’m learning a lot through participation … though I’m still selfish enough to keep some time and energy for my personal enterprise.
Yesterday afternoon we went on an inspection tour … walked around her gardens … her garden is not one contiguous parcel of land.
My keen observations lead to some profound thoughts:
We have had very little rain in the past month or so … the soil is like a dust bowl The young unhealthy plants seemed to be crying out … water … water … water … please! The seeds that have yet to germinate and sprout seem to be uttering the same plea.
Shortly after this observation I experienced a gut-wrenching feeling of angst. On reflection I understood my feelings to be rooted in how much we take food for granted. For most of the people in the world food security is a trip to the local supermarket. This wasn’t always the case … and today’s supermarkets may not always exist.
Reflected on the feast still celebrated in the West … Thanksgiving. I felt … at a much deeper level … the underlying intentions of the first instances of celebrating Thanksgiving Day. The feast is a relic of the past with no significance today. Western people might better celebrate a Zuckenberg proclamation … since he embodies what almost all people in the world aspire towards. Namely … fortune and fame … and by association the power that comes in it’s wake.
I better understand why more than one billion Chinese people work so hard every day … it’s in their jeans. Their ancestors survived generation after generation of hardship(s) … and that impressive survival was largely the fruit of hard physical labour.
I don’t think that St Teresa’s actions point to increased understanding. I think they point to increased confusion.
You (or at least some who you respect) seem to think that she did have some “ever-increasing understanding”. The question is why do you think so?
Take for example, her ordering weekly flagellation in the convent. Isn’t that completely out of sync with God and Jesus?
The entire concept of “mortifying the body” seems to point to confusion. It’s a denial of the physical nature of existence. If God did not want you to have a physical body and a life on Earth in that body, then He would not have made you or the world.
