"Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?"

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And your belief system is based on the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.

Suppose there was no intelligence behi ...[text shortened]... n God, I can't believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. - C.S. Lewis

Do you not read my posts? I don't believe anything of the sort. I don't have anything like enough information to even begin to guess how the universe, how life, how intelligent life began. None of us do. I do retain enough rational thought to reject the sort of nonsense you pin your flag to though.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Do you not read my posts? I don't believe anything of the sort. I don't have anything like enough information to even begin to guess how the universe, how life, how intelligent life began. None of us do. I do retain enough rational thought to reject the sort of nonsense you pin your flag to though.

So you can reject my theory but you can't offer a better alternative? If you don't have enough information to guess how life began, what makes you think you can know for sure no one can know? You are claiming ignorance and knowledge about the same thing at the same time. How can you call that rational thought?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Suppose there was no intelligence behind the universe, .... In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. ... when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call 'thought'. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be ...[text shortened]... n God, I can't believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. - C.S. Lewis

Doesn't the rather clumsy circular logic underpinning this C.S. Lewis quote bother you even just a little bit?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Do you not read my posts? I don't believe anything of the sort. I don't have anything like enough information to even begin to guess how the universe, how life, how intelligent life began. None of us do. I do retain enough rational thought to reject the sort of nonsense you pin your flag to though.

If you don't have a clue how it started than you really don't know the why and how all of
the processes you see around are doing what they are doing. You may see them in action
but that context alone doesn't give you the how and why without the cause.

If the universe was here because something outside of the universe created it, than
looking at the universe will only give you questions which is all you have. The answers
will never be found by looking at the processes you see around, the source is missing
from your view point.

Originally posted by FMF
Doesn't the rather clumsy circular logic underpinning this C.S. Lewis quote bother you even just a little bit?

It probably would bother me if you were able point it out to me.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you can reject my theory but you can't offer a better alternative? If you don't have enough information to guess how life began, what makes you think you can know for sure no one can know? You are claiming ignorance and knowledge about the same thing at the same time. How can you call that rational thought?

Firstly, let's not lose sight of the fact that your theory is the collected wisdom of scientifically illiterate bronze age politicians. Secondly, pretty much any theory which is even slightly based in science is a better alternative than that. Thirdly, yes you are right, I don't know that nobody else knows. I'm pretty confident that nobody here does though. Yourself included.

Now, rather than trying to pick holes in every alternative position, try to make a cogent argument as to how your preferred collection of ancient stories reveals the true nature of the universe. Surely you must see how unsupportable that claim is?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you don't have a clue how it started than you really don't know the why and how all of
the processes you see around are doing what they are doing. You may see them in action
but that context alone doesn't give you the how and why without the cause.

If the universe was here because something outside of the universe created it, than
looking at the un ...[text shortened]... e found by looking at the processes you see around, the source is missing
from your view point.

If i understand you correctly, then yes, that's right. There are competing theories regarding the creation of the universe, and I think I'm right in saying that nobody really knows which, if any, are right. Picking a book which offers an answer and deciding to believe it would make no difference to that. I'm not saying that there isn't a god you know. Maybe there is. Did he appear to Moses as a burning bush? Now that's an easier question to answer.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
If i understand you correctly, then yes, that's right. There are competing theories regarding the creation of the universe, and I think I'm right in saying that nobody really knows which, if any, are right. Picking a book which offers an answer and deciding to believe it would make no difference to that. I'm not saying that there isn't a god you know ...[text shortened]... ybe there is. Did he appear to Moses as a burning bush? Now that's an easier question to answer.

Why would you think it be easier?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Firstly, let's not lose sight of the fact that your theory is the collected wisdom of [b]scientifically illiterate bronze age politicians. Secondly, pretty much any theory which is even slightly based in science is a better alternative than that. Thirdly, yes you are right, I don't know that nobody else knows. I'm pretty confident that nob ...[text shortened]... es reveals the true nature of the universe. Surely you must see how unsupportable that claim is?[/b]

Upon what do you base your confidence? Your lack of knowledge?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you don't have a clue how it started than you really don't know the why and how all of
the processes you see around are doing what they are doing. You may see them in action
but that context alone doesn't give you the how and why without the cause.

That is clearly not true in the slightest. You are essentially claiming that one can know nothing about anything without knowing how it all started. That is blatantly false and you know it, and you don't believe it for a moment. If I asked you for example how a computer works or why it works you would be able to give at least a partial answer without 'knowing how it all started'. The company that made the computer would be able to give a much more detailed answer and the proof that they do know how and why it works is that it works as intended. If they didn't know, it wouldn't work.

Now you may, in your rather vague way of posting, have been saying that we cannot know everything, or the 'how and why' of every thing, but then that observation would be somewhat trivial given that nobody here claims to be omniscient.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It probably would bother me if you were able point it out to me.

You should be more bothered by the fact that you need it pointed out to you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You should be more bothered by the fact that you need it pointed out to you.

Then it should be very easy for you to point it out instead of making unsupported claims.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Upon what do you base your confidence? Your lack of knowledge?

I read it in an old book, and the old book said it was true.

FMF: Doesn't the rather clumsy circular logic underpinning this C.S. Lewis quote bother you even just a little bit?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It probably would bother me if you were able point it out to me.

What C.S. Lewis was saying boils down to this: the ability to think is God given so people thinking that God doesn't exist are ~ by thinking ~ proving that He does exist.

It continues to baffle me as to why some Christians quote C.S. Lewis. Much of what is quoted is pitched at being bumper-sticker level 'wisdom' ~ and that's putting it kindly ~ and it always just seems like little more than rather trite preaching-to-the-choir type stuff that never withstands scrutiny. But of course, those who are impressed by him are not inclined to scrutinize what he said.

Even when I was a Christian I found it a bit embarrassing when fellow Christians resorted to quoting him.

Originally posted by FMF
What C.S. Lewis was saying boils down to this: the ability to think is God given so people thinking that God doesn't exist are ~ by thinking ~ proving that He does exist.

It continues to baffle me as to why some Christians quote C.S. Lewis. Much of what is quoted is pitched at being bumper-sticker level 'wisdom' ~ and that's putting it kindly ~ and it always ...[text shortened]... I was a Christian I found it a bit embarrassing when fellow Christians resorted to quoting him.

He is not saying that this proves God's existence. He is just saying that atheism/materialism gives you no ground to trust your own thinking. However, Christianity/theism (if true) would give you that grounding to trust your thinking, as God has created you to be a rational, thinking being.

When would we have a better basis to trust our reasoning? If it is the product of blind chance or if God created it with the purpose of being rational?