Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 5 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

I decided to opt for a different source. Google's a bit broad.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

(1) Physicalism. Many pantheists argue that physical conceptions are adequate to explain the entire cosmos. This is an ancient form of pantheism, found for example in the Stoics, for whom only bodies can be said to exist. Soul they understood as nothing more than a specific form of pneuma, or breath, the active power to be found throughout nature. This is also a form of pantheism popular today—often termed, scientific or naturalistic pantheism. Such worldviews make no ontological commitments beyond those sanctioned by empirical science.


12. Personal

Einstein was a pantheist but rejected any notion of a personal God. (Einstein 2010, 325) And like Einstein, for many pantheists rejection of a personal deity is the definitive mark or most important element of their position. (Levine 1994; Harrison 2004) However, the matter calls for more considered attention.

It is important to distinguish between the specific question of whether God is literally a ‘person’ and the more general question whether God is ‘person-like’; the issue of whether notions such as intellect, thought, consciousness, intent, etc. have any application to the divine, even if analogical or metaphorical. It should also be recognised both that the notion of personhood is itself deeply problematic, and that a not inconsiderable number of traditional theists would only with considerable qualification be prepared to allow that God is personal.

These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.

It is clear that pantheistic systems which start from the theistic God which they then find to be all-inclusive, or Absolute Idealist systems which derive all reality from a spiritual principle, will find it easier to attribute something like personhood to the cosmos than will those which are more naturalistically motivated. But it is important to realise that not even the latter are wholly resistant to personhood.

For example, it has been argued (Baltzly 2003) that the Stoics believed in a personal deity. Just as they construed human beings as physical creatures animated by a physical soul, so too they regarded God as the mind of the world—with the cosmos as his body. Like a vast biological individual, to them God was a conscious rational being, exercising providence over life and to whom we might approach in prayer.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:59 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Sparhafoc wrote:Well then, with all respect, 'go Google it' wasn't really the answer because the answer given by Google still needed to be qualified by you. ;)


I did not know that until after you googled it you told me your interpretation of what it said.

i am glad you googled it, because now i have learned something new.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:01 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Sparhafoc wrote:I decided to opt for a different source. Google's a bit broad.




good, that was the point of my asking you to google it, so you could find more detailed information which demonstrates the validity of what i said.
Last edited by TJump on Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:16 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Sparhafoc wrote:Myth of homogeneous Christianity debunked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_Christianity


I guess you though that because I pointed out that Atheists tend to all have the same world-view, that this would counter that point. But reading the Bible is not a requirement of Christianity. Some have studied the Bible in varying degrees and by debating it is made evident who has studied more.
There are Churches that will tell you basically whatever you want to hear so that you give them money and will pretend to heal people. The Bible even warns that many people who say they are Christians, are not really Christians.

As I am sure you are aware, one would never expect a poll concerning the moral views of Atheists to 100% accurate. One reason is that, when surveyed, a small but significant amout of people who say they are Atheists, will always say that they also believe in God.

I know what you think, Spahafoc. Because of your rebellion against God. You are all the same. This entire forum is evidence of this.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:17 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I decided to opt for a different source. Google's a bit broad.




good, that was the point of my asking you to google it, so you could find more detailed information which demonstrates the validity of what i said.



Personally, I don't actually agree with what you said, nor do I feel that the sources corroborate your idea.

But I understand from your previous message that you want to restrict your definition to mean only a subset of the possible meaning of naturalistic pantheism, and I can at least understand what you intend by your restricted meaning.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:19 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Sparhafoc wrote:

Personally, I don't actually agree with what you said, nor do I feel that the sources corroborate your idea.
[/quote]


Not sure what you disagree with... the sources you listed clearly verify what i said.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:31 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

thenexttodie wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Myth of homogeneous Christianity debunked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_Christianity


I guess you though that because I pointed out that Atheists tend to all have the same world-view, that this would counter that point.


Clearly not.

Instead, this makes clear that Christianity is not homogeneous when it comes to attitudes on abortion, that Christian opponents to abortion are employing a particular exegesis that is not commonly held by all Christians, and thereby debunking several of the other claims you made.

The part of my post that counters your claim about atheists all having the same "world-view" is the bit you didn't quote from my post - the bit showing that not even all atheists in a single country are homogeneous when it comes to attitudes on abortion.


thenexttodie wrote:But reading the Bible is not a requirement of Christianity.


Given that there's not One True Christianity, and given that some sects hold that it is a requirement of Christianity and will cite scripture (i.e. Deuteronomy 5:31, 6:6, Joshua 1:8, Psalm 1, Matthew 22:29 etc.) to support their contentions, I am not sure where your statement is really accurate of Christianity, but may well be what you personally believe.


thenexttodie wrote:Some have studied the Bible in varying degrees and by debating it is made evident who has studied more.


Evident to whom?


thenexttodie wrote:There are Churches that will tell you basically whatever you want to hear so that you give them money and will pretend to heal people. The Bible even warns that many people who say they are Christians, are not really Christians.


Seems odd that you would elect to appeal to the Bible when it comes to this warning, but not when it says things like...

Matthew 22:29 wrote:Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.



thenexttodie wrote:As I am sure you are aware, one would never expect a poll concerning the moral views of Atheists to 100% accurate.


Ahhhh I see.

So your response to having empirical information contradicting your assertion is to claim that the empirical evidence is wrong in some way, rather than acknowledge that your assertion was wrong.

But I am to believe that your assertion IS 100% accurate?


thenexttodie wrote: One reason is that, when surveyed, a small but significant amout of people who say they are Atheists, will always say that they also believe in God.


Yes, people are complex buggers, aren't they?



thenexttodie wrote:I know what you think, Spahafoc. Because of your rebellion against God. You are all the same. This entire forum is evidence of this.


Your first sentence is provably wrong because not only do you not know what I think, even when I tell you what I think, you still pretend you know better than me what I think when this is just inane narcissism on your part.

Evidence is a tricky thing for untrained people. We're well aware of how people seek to confirm their biases and rather than amend their erroneous beliefs when presented with contradictory evidence, will actually end up believing their erroneous beliefs are confirmed by that contradictory evidence.

As such, I don't think your assertions are worth the e-paper they're written on.

They're just a public rehearsal of prejudice.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I decided to opt for a different source. Google's a bit broad.




good, that was the point of my asking you to google it, so you could find more detailed information which demonstrates the validity of what i said.



Well, for example...

... it has been argued (Baltzly 2003) that the Stoics believed in a personal deity. Just as they construed human beings as physical creatures animated by a physical soul, so too they regarded God as the mind of the world—with the cosmos as his body. Like a vast biological individual, to them God was a conscious rational being, exercising providence over life and to whom we might approach in prayer.


If the god of our universe was wholly natural in formation, and the universe was some part of the workings of its body or physical processes, then the belief in this position would still be considered naturalistic pantheism, would not invoke the supernatural, would posit a god - a personal one at that - and would therefore comfortably fit within the theism paradigm.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:35 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Sparhafoc wrote:
If the god of our universe was wholly natural in formation, and the universe was some part of the workings of its body or physical processes, then the belief in this position would still be considered naturalistic pantheism, would not invoke the supernatural, would posit a god - a personal one at that - and would therefore comfortably fit within the theism paradigm.



I already addressed that.... that formulation would be one of the infinitely many possible forms but that is irrlevent to the core of the position. Theists believe in the separate persons (the father son and holy ghost) who are all god yet they claim not to be polytheists. you can use ad hoc reasoning to manipulate definitions all you want buts its a waste of time. the point of the argument is the same.

The fact that some minority of stoics are argued to have possibly thousands of years ago have believed that form of pantheism doesn't change the fundamental position which entails no consciousness or personhood.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
If the god of our universe was wholly natural in formation, and the universe was some part of the workings of its body or physical processes, then the belief in this position would still be considered naturalistic pantheism, would not invoke the supernatural, would posit a god - a personal one at that - and would therefore comfortably fit within the theism paradigm.



I already addressed that.... that formulation would be one of the infinitely many possible forms but that is irrlevent to the core of the position. Theists believe in the separate persons (the father son and holy ghost) who are all god yet they claim not to be polytheists.

The fact that some minority of stoics are argued to have possibly thousands of years ago have believed that form of pantheism doesn't change the fundamental position which entails no consciousness or personhood.



Yes, you addressed it but you seem to have not acknowledged where it contradicts what you've said.

What is the 'core of the position' of naturalistic pantheism?

Well, it entails 'naturalism' which means that there is nothing supernatural; that all the universe and everything in it operates according to physical forces.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).


It also entails pantheism which entails the belief that the cosmos IS god, that there is nothing in the universe operating that is not god, and there can be nothing in the universe distinct from god.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.


Therefore, if I held the position that the universe and everything in it is god, and that god is a natural, physical entity and all that god does is natural and physical, and all the things in the universe are the result of those physical actions of god... then I would be best described as a naturalistic pantheist. I disavow the supernatural, but I believe in an explicit entity which makes all things happen, only naturally, and as such would be a theist.


Actually, pantheism does not entail no consciousness or person-hood as already shown in a prior quote - it can do, but is not actually restricted by that. One could be a pantheist who believes in a personal, conscious god, or a pantheist who doesn't.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:03 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 901Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Sparhafoc wrote:
The part of my post that counters your claim about atheists all having the same "world-view" is the bit you didn't quote from my post - the bit showing that not even all atheists in a single country are homogeneous when it comes to attitudes on abortion.



Ok buddy.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:05 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

you can use ad hoc reasoning to manipulate definitions all you want buts its a waste of time. the point of the argument is the same.

Whats you are describing is panpsychism.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:07 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

thenexttodie wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
The part of my post that counters your claim about atheists all having the same "world-view" is the bit you didn't quote from my post - the bit showing that not even all atheists in a single country are homogeneous when it comes to attitudes on abortion.



Ok buddy.



Sparhafoc wrote:So is thenexttodie going to modify his contention, pretend that 87% of 1098 samples = homogeneous, or just repeat the same false assertion?


Have you decided which one yet?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:07 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:you can use ad hoc reasoning to manipulate definitions all you want buts its a waste of time. the point of the argument is the same.

Whats you are describing is panpsychism.



Ad hoc? :facepalm:

Do you think I just went and quickly wrote entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy just to rebut your assertions?

For clarity, all I have actually received back from you so far is assertion.

Do you have something else to corroborate your contention?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:09 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

This is very simple, you are clearly just to deluded to understand so i will explain it to you as if you are a child...

Naturalistic pantheism only allows natural thigns

consciousness (based on naturalism) is a product of matter making it contingent

consciousness cannot be a god in naturalistic pantheism


What you are describing is more like panpsychism


AGAIN using nonsense ad hoc reasoning to play with definition is a waste of time irrelevant to the argument get on topic or leave please.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:12 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:This is very simple, you are clearly just to deluded to understand so i will explain it to you as if you are a child...


/scratchy head

Why the hostility?

Are you unable to have a civil discussion? I am not sure why you're being so defensive about this when it's not exactly like you've got anything resting on it.

Explain however you want to, but don't pretend it's me who doesn't understand when you're just going to repeat yourself as an authority when I've provided a legitimate source that contradicts your contentions.


TJump wrote:Naturalistic pantheism only allows natural thigns

consciousness (based on naturalism) is a product of matter making it contingent

consciousness cannot be a god in naturalistic pantheism


You're arguing against panpsychism.

I have not argued for panpsychism. Quite the contrary, I expressly stated that the god component is wholly natural in formation - not itself consciousness or mind - therefore its consciousness is also contingent on the same matter that makes up the god in exactly the same way our consciousness is contingent on the matter that makes us up, therefore the contradiction you have raised is not relevant.


TJump wrote:AGAIN using nonsense ad hoc reasoning to play with definition is a waste of time irrelevant to the argument get on topic or leave please.


It's clearly not ad hoc reasoning.

Ad hoc signifies that I would need to be creating a solution specifically to answer to the question, but this is clearly not the case as I've cited from a legitimate and credible source which, I assume, you don't believe I wrote just for this argument.... right? For it to be ad hoc, I would need to have written those essays in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy bespoke for this argument. Do you actually believe that's true?

Rather, what I've done is shown an example whereby your previous contention that naturalistic pantheism is atheistic is flawed. While I can accept that some formulations of it may be atheistic, it doesn't preclude theism whatsoever. As James said - you seem to be talking about philosophical naturalism, specifically of the ontological version.

So again, do you have any actual sources for your contention about naturalistic pantheism? Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you suggested that there were sources which would corroborate your position as not being idiosyncratic.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:29 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:Naturalistic pantheism is a kind of naturalism, but again you can google the term i did not invent it. and it is NOT a kind of theism...



Here's a suggestion: why don't you google the term, find the source on which you're basing your ideas, then cite it here to support your contention?

You accept that's how it works, right? Onus probandi and all that.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:34 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Sparhafoc wrote:/scratchy head

Why the hostility?


i do not like debating definitions... it frustrates me to have such pointless irrelevant conversation that have nothing to do with my argument its a pointless waste of time.The natural ambiguity of language in linguistics means words dont have inherent meaning so you can use ad hoc reasoning to make any word mean anything you want.

I told you my defintion, and you posted the links justifying the definition, and then said "but what about this one example form 2k years ago where people believe something contradictory...." <--- this is ad hoc reasoning irrelevant to the argument.

My definition is correct, if you disagree your wrong.... even if i was wrong (which im not) you understand the definition im using which means my argument is the same regardless STOP WASTING MY TIME.

Sparhafoc wrote:Are you unable to have a civil discussion? I am not sure why you're being so defensive about this when it's not exactly like you've got anything resting on it.

Explain however you want to, but don't pretend it's me who doesn't understand when you're just going to repeat yourself as an authority when I've provided a legitimate source that contradicts your contentions.


your sources prove me right.... which means the problem must be with your understanding. Hard to have a civil conversation with the facts you provide prove you wrong yet you present them as proving you right.

Sparhafoc wrote:I have not argued for panpsychism. Quite the contrary, I expressly stated that the god component is wholly natural in formation - not itself consciousness or mind - therefore its consciousness is also contingent on the same matter that makes up the god in exactly the same way our consciousness is contingent on the matter that makes us up, therefore the contradiction you have raised is not relevant.


omg............ if consciousness is not fundamental and only the laws of physics are, then in naturalistic pantheism CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT A GOD. God is synonymous with fundamental or necessary/non contingent.

Sparhafoc wrote:
It's clearly not ad hoc reasoning.

what I've done is shown an example whereby your previous contention that naturalistic pantheism is atheistic is flawed.



I told you my defintion, and you posted the links justifying the definition, and then said "but what about this one example form 2k years ago where people believe something contradictory...." <--- this is ad hoc reasoning irrelevant to the argument.

I said, X means 1

you said, but bob believes X means 2... <--- ad hoc

Sparhafoc wrote:
While I can accept that some formulations of it may be atheistic, it doesn't preclude theism whatsoever.



omg........ theists believe in 1 god, but christians believe in 3 (the father the son and holy ghost).... theism must therefore not preclude polytheism even though they are logically contradictory????????

people believe contradictory things all the time YOUR ARGUMENT IS AD HOC.


Sparhafoc wrote:As James said - you seem to be talking about philosophical naturalism, specifically of the ontological version.




Philosophical naturalism and ontological naturalism are synonyms, as are metaphysical naturalism and naturalistic pantheism........ can other people have different definition of all these words OF COURSE.... does that prove they dont meant the same thing...... NO

Sparhafoc wrote:So again, do you have any actual sources for your contention about naturalistic pantheism? Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you suggested that there were sources which would corroborate your position as not being idiosyncratic.
[/quote]


AGAIN your own sources PROVE U WRONG..... you just don't understand them.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.

It is clear that pantheistic systems which start from the theistic God which they then find to be all-inclusive, or Absolute Idealist systems which derive all reality from a spiritual principle, will find it easier to attribute something like personhood to the cosmos than will those which are more naturalistically motivated.
<---------- I.E. NATURALISTIC PANTHEISM..... can some people believe contradictory things??? sure, Do i care... NO

your own reference is making the same point i am..... naturalistic pantheism is most commonly understand as an impersonal universe.the word Literla means the most common usage of a word.... naturalistic pantheism literally means an impersonal universe.

Can other people define it differently.... anyone can define anyword however they want, does that change the literal meaning of the word.... NO

stop wasting my time arguing definitions................. i have told u my deifntion, im right. if you disagree i don't care it doesn't change anything about my argument and every msg you have posted on this topic has been nothing but a waste of time. Hence why im frustrated.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:55 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Greetings,

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:There may be other space-time continua - in a Multiverse, for example - but one can't say that there's something "outside" of space and time in the absolute sense.

No again still false.... you can say things existing in space and time are all we currently know about, you CANNOT say anything that can ever exist must be apart of space and time.

We don't know everything which by definition means there could be other kinds of ways to exist that do not involve space or time in the absolute sense that we simply dont know about yet.

The problem is that God is said to exist outside space and time. As a "supernatural" entity it can do this since Nature comprises space-time continua, therefore in Naturalism, nothing can exist outside of space and time in the absolute sense.

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:I understand the term, I simply don't agree with the usage - if it's indistinguishable from naturalism, in that it does not recognize anything supernatural, what's the point in adding the terms "theism" or "deism"?

The point of adding the term 'theism' to naturalistic pantheism is to equate it with the theist perspective so they understand it. theists see naturalism as contingent/created (because of the big bang), whereas they see god as necessary/uncreated... using the term pantheism indicates its like theism in that it is non contingent/uncreated form of naturalism.

Nature doesn't exist because of the Big Bang - only our space-time continuum does. We're just one 'verse in the Multiverse, aka Nature.

Getting theists to realize that the Big Bang isn't the beginning of everything is how we correct this misconception.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:15 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Greetings,

Sparhafoc wrote:
TJump wrote:good, that was the point of my asking you to google it, so you could find more detailed information which demonstrates the validity of what i said.

Well, for example...

... it has been argued (Baltzly 2003) that the Stoics believed in a personal deity. Just as they construed human beings as physical creatures animated by a physical soul, so too they regarded God as the mind of the world—with the cosmos as his body. Like a vast biological individual, to them God was a conscious rational being, exercising providence over life and to whom we might approach in prayer.

If the god of our universe was wholly natural in formation, and the universe was some part of the workings of its body or physical processes, then the belief in this position would still be considered naturalistic pantheism, would not invoke the supernatural, would posit a god - a personal one at that - and would therefore comfortably fit within the theism paradigm.

I'd disagree with Baltzly.

Although the Stoics acknowledged the existence of Nature spirits (gods within Nature), they held that these gods had no control over human destiny - that that was solely in the hands of ourselves.

Since Christianity absorbed Stoic philosophy, it's possible that he's referring to early (Stoic)-Christians.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:22 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 5 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron