Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Sep 4, 2018.
Not in the slightest.
That's a benefit that comes with asserting a philosophical position.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Apparently some think there are no core identifying themes, despite there being literature, history and memes (in short, the very things that establish the existence of core identifying themes amongst a group of people) that suggests otherwise.
I think you are wrong here...there is no dance...it is more that because of your world view you need to invent such a description.
If anyone is on the dance floor it is you and Jan doing what I would call the evasive side step.
Before you is someone who is not dancing around any issue, and I hasten to point out that it is indeed your good self and Jan that seems alone on the dance floor.
That is your invention and all can see you have constructed a straw man without reference to the reality.
I expect you have your reasons but your approach does nothing to consider that atheists do indeed have philosophies and arguably superior to yours...take the eternal universe for example that is a great one given we find a creator is inconsistent with what is a more than reasonable assumption.. you simply cant accept that atheists are real, truthful and rational but you go on to demand the moral high ground.
I have told you some aspects of my philosophy which you ignore...
I suppose I am guilty of a similar approach to religion in so far as I point out the problems without giving recognition that so many folk do not have the ability to construct their philosophy and are content to adopt something, which although superstitious, leaves them satisfied that they at least have something.
My objection to that is merely that making stuff up and calling it reality is so bronze age... you could do better but make the unfortunate choice to accept bronze age ideas based entirely on superstition and make believe.
You make a poor choice.
I put forward a small part of my philosophy and yet you persist with your straw man.
Can you not see what you are doing here and can you not see that it is not working?
I dont have to destroy your credibility as I could never do as good a job as you are doing.
But this is exactly what you are saying.
You say they have nothing on the one hand and then in an effort to establish the opposite you make the addmission in general atheists do indeed have what you then try to claim they do not.
In any event perhaps you should be specific.
What values do they lack in your view.
What values do I lack other than I wont accept made up stuff or claim that I have the answer as to why it all is..
I admit I dont know...you can not be more honest than that.
You say you do know but do so without support for your extrodinary claim (s).
My admission that I dont know does not mean I dont hold high morals and fail to value and respect all humans.
In fact a critism I have of theists (generalisation alert) is their compassion does not extend to folk outside their inside.
You claim you do know the answers which I suggest you dont and can not know.
Your claims lack reasonable support and reasonable folk can reasonably reject them...is that not reasonable?
Rubbish....short hand for nonsence presented with out thought or evidence.
Before you I have presented but a few of my values ...and I am not dancing as you put it...
I have been specific yet you choose to ignore all I say and proceed to attack a strawman.
Poor attempt but given you are trying to prove an invalid point I shall work with it.
Dont you think I invest in my philosophy with the motivation to be truthful, be kind and honest.
You have no idea of the good deeds I do or the folk I help.
I have come forward and invested my time in explaining my position and yet you make a claim that I do not...leaves you on the dance floor with no music.
The main reason I suspect you hear little from atheists is they simply can not be bothered discussing matters with folk like you and Jan who have nothing to offer or at the very least refuse to offer something that tells what they really believe.
We still dont know anything about Jan or you other than you both are evasive...we dont even know what god you claim is real...we do know you are evasive when asked specific questions..now all that is cute but perhaps you may now understand why most atheists wont give you the time of day.
Take my question to you re the flood.
Look at your answer and justify it in the context of my allegation of your evasiveness.
I asked you your thoughts on the Theory of Evolution and you ignored me.
Is it such a difficult question?
You use your intelligence to be secretive and evassive which you probably think is clever...well it is not...you construct straw men to attack that look nothing like your opponent...what does that do for you anyways.
Folk ask why you come here and I to wonder why.
You have yet to present as having any thing more than bluster.
If you have anything to really say why dont you say it?
When asked specific questions why can you not provide a genuine reply?
You and Jan provide interesting entertainment and for that I thank you.
Have a great day and please show me you can avoid evasiveness and present your views on evolution and expand upon your take on the flood.
Also please overlook my spelling etc I type all this one finger on my phone and I recognise a lot suffers as a result...I hope you can live with appologise that I treat my replies in such a casual manner.
Just think of yhe effort with one finger and how it acts to degrade my posts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow down to only 70 left☺
And that was 2013.
Just out of curiosity, how do you account for the red shift, and the cosmic microwave background radiation?
The Big Bang Theory accounts for it nicely.
Just out of curiosity, how do you account for ignoring & dismissing science so much then asking such a question?
How do you account for it in an eternal universe?
I dont know that I need to given that we really cant look at the start of the expansion of space and time other than it it seems it was very hot and very dense but it seems there was something at the start and perhaps prior to the start rather than nothing.
Many theists dont like the big bang assuming it suggests everything came from nothing which is curious given a God creation must be a creation from nothing.
But I get the impression many consider there was something "before" there are both scientists and nonscientist who think such as well as theists and atheists.
But it is clear any speculation in this area is speculation it just some need to make up a God...and they can only make that up as no one actually knows.
The start of the bible "In the begining"...clearly is not an eye witness report and if inspired by God somehow did not get it right...that is undeniable given our modern observations.
I doubt if anyone wondered where God came from or imagined him to be anything other than eternal.
I think there is some speculation that our universe may in the distant future collapse and perhaps such collapse continues to a point where the conditions of a hot dense universe similar to the conditions prior to the big bang... return and from there we have another big bang...and this expansion of time and space followed by collapse and reexpansion continues in an eternal cycle.
Its not my idea see the Spoongy Universe thread.
We observe cycles in nature so perhaps the universe cycles thru various conditions...maybe we are in cylinder one in some huge V8 traveling a highway in some other inconveivably larger place...
I think an eternal universe was somewhat favoured prior to the Catholic Church going thru their 20 year facination with the pagan cosmic egg idea and the development of the big bang theory of cosmology and it is not unreasonable to think an "egg" came from some prior condition.
It boils down to this...
You can either opt for an intelligent God who must be eternal, else provide a suggestion where God came from, and having existed in an eternity this God created our universe some finite time ago...and it is somewhat irrelevant for the purpose of considering that a God existed for an eternity and at some point acted to create this universe..pick 10,000 year old universe or a 14 billion year old universe we still must ask what God did for the eternity prior to creating our universe...and so I find it easier to conceive an eternal universe cycling away forever rather than an eternal intelligent God taking time out from eternity to create our universe.
I like the saying "it is a wise man who can imagine a stick without ends"...
We are human our experience is extremely limited and because our experience shows us everything is born and dies we can not imagine "eternal" or "infinite" just as few can imagine a stick with no ends few can imagine a eternal universe...or an eternal God for that matter.
I can see why a God makes folk happy as it is sortta like finding the ends of the stick but as I said the options are an eternal universe or an eternal God...either way you must imagine a stick without ends.
Red shift and the CMBR are completely compatible with an eternal universe.
Why do you ask?
At what point did the expansion start?
In space or time?
In terms of time, expansion began about 13.8 billion years ago. Inflation, which was a much faster phase of expansion, began about 10e-32 seconds after the Big Bang.
Spirituality may be rediscovered, taking on a new look. I'm certain the religious of years past never envisioned the arrival of televangelists. I see a blending of world religions in the future. People are always searching for meaning. Atheism can't supply that. Even if theism could be erased from history, people would still be searching for meaning.
There is an element of truth to this. Atheists tend to congratulate themselves on a job well done when all their energy is engaged in wrangling over idiosyncratic details on the periphery of the big issues.
Tent show revivalists predate TV by centuries.
But atheistic religion can. So can unorganized atheistic spirituality.
Meanwhile, right now, there doesn't seem to be an organized theistic spirituality capable of providing meaning to even a majority of educated people - too much new knowledge has yet to be well placed in a theistic context. It's a problem.
Meaning derives from context - one of the uglier aspects of some theistic religions, exemplified in the Abrahamic ones especially, is their frequent cooption of music and dance and art and storytelling and poetry and other such traditional ways of providing context from which human beings derive meaning.
Ignoring no such animal as atheistic religion I think it would be hard to fill even a 4 person tent with a choir with the swaying and chanting
We all rot in the ground when we're dead
The worms and the beetles are well fed
No heaven to go to as well
Then as well we got no hell
Praise the Lord we don't believe in
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.