Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, May 16, 12:52:39am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: A fundamental misconception Author: Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 02/23/02 11:29am In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "A fundamental answer." on 02/ 7/02 6:24pm Getting back to some posts I never answered... :) >>I disagree on all this. But before moving on, I would >>like to pose a simple question. You say the universe >>is "orderly", and that this order is better explained >>by theism than atheism (incidentally, to me the whole >>word "atheist" is much like the word >>"non-Christian"... you start with the theist and work >>backward, and then you get someone who _doesn't_ have >>any religious beliefs. It seems that the person with >>no religious beliefs would be the default setting, but >>this shows the religious nature of our culture. Words >>we use every day without thinking about them are >>biased toward the idea that God's existence is >>rational). Anyway, my question is... what sort of >>universe does atheism predict? What would a >>non-orderly universe be like? In other words, please >>explain what one could expect to see based on the idea >>that there is no God. Since you feel that theism much >>better explains our orderly universe, show us what >>kind of universe could exist that atheism would better >>explain. > >Classical atheism holds to the idea of lots of stuff >happening via random chance, something that would more >straightforwardly imply a lack of such order that the >theists predicted. And herein lies the problem. You treat atheism as a belief system, and it need not be. A person can easily fall into the category of "atheist" by simply saying, "I see no reason to believe in God." This statement in itself does not imply an entire belief system, but just a person's feeling on a single issue. Therefore, in the future, to be intellectually honest, rather than saying, "Creation explains the order of the universe better than atheism," you need to say, "...better than classical atheism, which is an entire worldview unto itself." That would avoid such misunderstandings in the future. > What sort of universe would >atheism better explain? Again, you say "atheism", when what you mean is a specific kind of atheism called "classical atheism". I do not think it is fair for you to assume that people know what you mean by the word "atheist". Surely you must now admit that if I stand here and say, "I see no real reason to believe in God," this statement in itself does not cause me to think that the universe should be non-orderly. Only if I tell you I support the beliefs of classical atheism should you make this assumption (according to your definition of "classical atheism", which I am assuming is true). Again, the universe simply is what it is. We make sense of it by applying human terms like "orderly", but the universe just goes on, being itself. In many ways, I do not find the universe to be all that orderly. The clock-like universe of Newton's day has long since been rejected. Certainly, when people believed that the universe worked like a big clock, this supported many theists' belief that the universe _should_ be that way. Regardless, though, I do not feel that creation--a theory that involves an invisible, untestable being--in any way better explains the data than atheism--the belief that such an invisible being probably doesn't exist. Atheism is not an explanatory theory... it is just a way that theists label someone who doesn't share their belief. Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Fundamental beliefs. Wade A. Tisthammer 02/24/02 12:32pm Fundamental... ah, I can't think of any more -- Ben, 02/25/02 7:15pm A fundamental order to the universe. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/02 5:37pm You put the FUN in fundamental -- Ben, 03/20/02 10:43pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:43am You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:40pm Tying up. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:22pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:59am Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/28/02 10:12am Symbolilc Pitfall? -- Damoclese, 03/28/02 12:02pm Not yet. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/02 12:50pm How do you solve a problem like the God-a? -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:02pm Elucidation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 1:11pm There is no "why," there is only Zeul -- Ben, 04/15/02 5:13pm Huh? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:22am I'll tell you why you're wrong, why you're really really wrong -- Ben, 04/16/02 2:38pm Lol. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:50pm Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade) -- Ben, 04/20/02 4:34pm On bowing out. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:19pm Still a potential pitfall looms -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/02 10:45pm How so? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 2:15pm Like This -- Damoclese, 04/15/02 3:58pm Huh -- David, 04/16/02 2:12am A response. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:47am Christian God is greatest possible? -- David, 04/16/02 1:20pm Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm Not like that. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:39am Muddling a simple point -- Damoclese, 04/16/02 3:47pm Attempting to get a strait answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:14pm Trying to keep my patience -- Damoclese, 04/18/02 7:06pm I'll try to keep mine as well. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/24/02 11:59am Cutting to the chase -- Damoclese, 04/24/02 2:22pm What's the chase? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/02 11:05am Foxes -- Damoclese, 04/26/02 12:19pm Logical flaw perhaps -- David, 04/15/02 3:00am Continued -- David, 04/15/02 3:18am Please clarify. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 11:03am Hehe -- David, 04/16/02 1:16pm Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm *giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm Perhaps not. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:50am you now have a definition ........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 1:28pm not this again. .......... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 10:06am