RE: Is atheism a belief?
March 5, 2019 at 7:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2019 at 7:06 pm by EgoDeath.)
(March 5, 2019 at 5:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: With this, I agree. And that is precisely why I declare as agnostic, and do not choose to identify by the term "agnostic atheist."
It's already been explained to you MULTIPLE times why agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. That you refuse to recognize this is your problem, not mine. For all intents and purposes, you ARE an agnostic atheist. Whether or not you choose to adopt said title is up to you.
The issue is, you enjoying the idea of calling yourself a blue unicorn doesn't mean that I have to. So, you're an agnostic atheist, whether or not you like it.
If calling yourself "agnostic" - and nothing else - tickles your clit, be my guest - I don't really care. Maybe it allows you to sit on the fence more comfortably, I don't really know, but either way, you must have a wooden stake up your ass at some juncture, which doesn't sound comfortable.
(March 5, 2019 at 5:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I can think of at least one reason to to think a non-religious God might exist, though it is logical in nature, and not much provable by material evidence.
I'd say, for example, that like begets like. Material processes, it seems to me, are like to beget material processes only. Since there is mind now, it is possible or likely that there has always been mind as part of the material system we call the Universe, though maybe not that we'd recognize as such. A universe which is completely devoid of mind, and then some organic molecules evolve on a tiny blue planet and poof! there's sentience-- this universe seems very strange and unlikely to me. In fact, the idea is so hopelessly anthropocentric that it seems to me it must be rooted in religious dogma.
If, right from the start, whatever allowed for the existence of material systems which were sentient, already included sentience, then I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to call the genitive philosophical property or entity "God." Maybe we shouldn't call it that-- since we wouldn't want a material panpsychism to serve as a point of reference for religious fucktards-- but it certainly seems like a reasonable possibility philosophically to me that at the Big Bang, there was the seed for both material and mind (or, if you prefer, the property of material which we call "mind").
The problem is, your oversimplification of the origin of life is totally nonsensical and not something any rational-minded, scientific person would subscribe to. This "poof" that you ascribe to the origin of life is much more akin to something a creationist would come up with than anything a rational-minded scientist would postulate. No scientist thinks that "some organic molecules evolve[ed] on a tiny blue planet and poof! [Life was formed!]" So, while that's a nice little straw-man you knocked over there, it doesn't really prove much except maybe that you don't really understand how science works.
The prime mover god begs more questions than it answers. And the god of the gaps doesn't even deserve a response. So yea, there's not much else I have to say.
(March 5, 2019 at 6:05 pm)fredd bear Wrote: redacted:
I'm not a good enough philosopher to argue the point with EgoDeath. IE that to say "I believe there is no god" does not attract the burden of proof.
I would however, be interested to learn the reasoning behind your claim.
My reasoning behind which claim?
If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.
