17 Jan 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II"I look at all the carnage on living organisms that has happened over the history our planet and conclude that clearly there is no Being Filled With Lovingkindness in sovereign control of our planet"... and, yet, somehow you and I are here today.
I concur that we are spinning our wheels. I will end my part in your thread by pointing out the obvious: I look at all the carnage on living organisms that has happened over the history our planet and conclude that clearly there is no Being Filled With Lovingkindness in sovereign control of our planet. You look at the same evidence and say it is obviou ...[text shortened]... ing the most thoughtful, virtuous job that could conceivably be done in administering our world.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDoggone you for goading me into another post when I said I'd quit. 😛
"I look at all the carnage on living organisms that has happened over the history our planet and conclude that clearly there is no Being Filled With Lovingkindness in sovereign control of our planet"... and, yet, somehow you and I are here today.
Your observation reminds me of the things you hear on the TV news after a passenger jet crashes, ripping apart and burning 129 adults and 13 children.
[Microphone in face] "I'm just thanking the good Lord for giving me that flat tire on my way to the airport. I had a ticket for that flight, but I arrived at the airport too late. He protected me."
Do you see that as an example of the survivor "damning by faint praise"? Or maybe an example of a self-centered, selfish attitude?
17 Jan 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIMy error in presuming to reply to your final post. Please accept my apology.
Doggone you for goading me into another post when I said I'd quit. 😛
Your observation reminds me of the things you hear on the TV news after a passenger jet crashes, ripping apart and burning 129 adults and 13 children.
[Microphone in face] "I'm just thanking the good Lord for giving me that flat tire on my way to the airport. I had a ticket fo ...[text shortened]... he survivor "damning by faint praise"? Or maybe an example of a self-centered, selfish attitude?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBump for the sake of those who are attempting to insist that atheism is not a rejection of the divine, but rather simply a lack of belief.
One would think so.
But one would be wrong.
Theism (conceptually) had been the default position for so long, it was unthinkable to consider a person in denial of the divine.
Atheism (as a word) was used in ancient Greece first as a way of censuring a person's ungodliness, or impiousness.
It later evolved (5th century B.C.E.) to reference an intenti ...[text shortened]... angeable until around 1700 when deism shot off in a complete and separate direction from theism.
19 Jan 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieIs it the Christian God that is the monster, or is it the Christians that turned Him into this monster?
1-we dont know............yet.
2 -yes, why wouldnt it?
3- we dont know for sure.
4- we invented it using our brains. maybe there are better systems for describing the laws of nature that we havent or are incapable of inventing, who knows.
5- its still a new science, give the boys in the lab coats a few hundred years before you start calling them w ...[text shortened]... d.
11- can be, not always though.
12- i would never follow the christian god. he is a monster.
I think the later. My personal spiritual experiences, of which there are many, have taught me, He is well beyond their comprehension.
19 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis one has received 2 thumbs-down and the bumped version got the same and 1 thumbs-up but no-one has actually responded to it. I don't think I am qualified so my response isn't going to be very robust!
One would think so.
But one would be wrong.
Theism (conceptually) had been the default position for so long, it was unthinkable to consider a person in denial of the divine.
Atheism (as a word) was used in ancient Greece first as a way of censuring a person's ungodliness, or impiousness.
It later evolved (5th century B.C.E.) to reference an intenti ...[text shortened]... angeable until around 1700 when deism shot off in a complete and separate direction from theism.
Can you point to your sources for these?
Ungodliness and Impiousness both sound compatible with our use of the term. It certainly also includes explicit disbelief in deities but I see nowhere there to preclude implicit disbelief.
I, personally, am quite happy for you to use non-theist to refer to those who implicitly lack belief in deities as well as those who explicitly identify as atheist, if it helps the conversation move on. It may be helpful though if you in turn use 'explicit atheist' when you are talking about those you currently call atheist. Deal?
Penguin.
20 Jan 14
Originally posted by PenguinThanks, Penguin!
This one has received 2 thumbs-down and the bumped version got the same and 1 thumbs-up but no-one has actually responded to it. I don't think I am qualified so my response isn't going to be very robust!
Can you point to your sources for these?
Ungodliness and Impiousness both sound compatible with our use of the term. It certainly also includes explic ...[text shortened]... explicit atheist' when you are talking about those you currently call atheist. Deal?
Penguin.
I appreciate the response.
http://www.defineatheism.com/
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=&searchmode=none
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
The above links have proven to be reliable thus far.
Ungodliness and Impiousness both sound compatible with our use of the term.
I disagree.
The insult of the both concepts (ungodliness/impiousness) was intended to convey a person's lack of moral fiber, their deficiency in spiritual matters and therefore, their less-than status as a human being. "You're a godless communist" would be a modern-day approximate.
An atheist may wear that badge with honor, but the person is trying to say you're sub-human.
I, personally, am quite happy for you to use non-theist to refer to those who implicitly lack belief in deities as well as those who explicitly identify as atheist, if it helps the conversation move on.
Like you and LemonJello, I hold the belief that words have meaning--- even if I don't always do as good of job as the two of you in the application.
I also believe boundaries ought only be moved in the case of overwhelming need.
In the case of the word/concept atheist I do not consider it necessary to add qualifiers; I feel they have an overall effect of sullying the word.
It's like that ridiculous rating system (no offense, GB) of 0-7: if you answered anything less than a seven, you're not an atheist.
20 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"It's like that ridiculous rating system (no offense, GB) of 0-7: if you answered anything less than a seven, you're not an atheist." -FKBH [No offense taken... Dawkins' 1 to 7 calibration scale of agnosticism/atheism options is the first I've seen]
Thanks, Penguin!
I appreciate the response.
http://www.defineatheism.com/
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=&searchmode=none
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
The above links have proven to be reliable thus far.
[b]Ungodliness and Impiousness both sound compatible with our use ...[text shortened]... stem (no offense, GB) of 0-7: if you answered anything less than a seven, you're not an atheist.
"November 1, 2009 on Imus: "Neither me nor my girl believe in God or marriage, so there's not gonna be a big church wedding... I always say I don't know. Even Richard Dawkins a man whose name has become synonymous with atheism says he puts a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being absolute certain there is a god and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't, and he says even he's a 6.9. Because no one knows for sure what's out there. He says yes there could be a god and there could be a spaghetti monster out there, but it doesn't look like it." Thread 157517 (Page One)... RD, not GB.
20 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI didn't think it was yours; I just didn't want you to think I thought you ridiculous.
"It's like that ridiculous rating system (no offense, GB) of 0-7: if you answered anything less than a seven, you're not an atheist." -FKBH [No offense taken... Dawkins' 1 to 7 calibration scale of agnosticism/atheism options is the first I've seen]
"November 1, 2009 on Imus: "Neither me nor my girl believe in God or marriage, so there's not gonna b ...[text shortened]... r out there, but it doesn't look like it." Thread 157517 (Page One)... RD, not GB.
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II"God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe." -Paul Dirac
One of the OP's questions mentions endangered species.
It has been estimated that 99.9% of all species that have lived on Earth are now extinct.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/999-of-all-species-have-gone-extinct.html
Does that number suggest a loving deity carefully watching over Creation? Do you agree that most of those extinctions happ ...[text shortened]... ens, such that most extinctions cannot be blamed on us? If the blame is not on us, who is it on?