Are there any differences between having a religion and going to church, to a cult?

Oldtree

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Can you repeat that in English?

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you, sorry.

DickSwiveller

Oldtree wrote: »

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you, sorry.

reminds me of the pseudo intellectual crap I had to read when I took sociology in University.

Anyway, you're post makes no sense. A belief does not require proof. Do you believe in concepts like love, friendship etc.

Oldtree

DickSwiveller wrote: »

reminds me of the pseudo intellectual crap I had to read when I took sociology in University.

Anyway, you're post makes no sense. A belief does not require proof. Do you believe in concepts like love, friendship etc.

You are abuseing linguistic semantics, perhaps after overdoing it with the sociology.

The concepts of human emotions and feelings you mention have little to do with a belief system.

I expect your next post to go metaphysical and posit a statment like, "do you believe you are actually here?" and then "prove it".

endacl

Oldtree wrote: »

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you, sorry.

Shorter words and more pictures. Primary colours.

Oh, and type slowly so he can keep up.

pauldla

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You seem to be hoping that I will posit a Christian rather than Atheistic solution. And then you can have a swipe at the Christian position.
The problem is that I didn’t.
I have stated that neither religion or science can explain why the Universe exists.
And yes, there must be a why.

Well there isn't really much 'seem' about it, I explicitly stated that I presumed you to hold a Christian viewpoint. I was asking you to explain why a 'no why' universe is more absurd than a universe created by God, with the presumption (I'm stating it again, no need for 'seem') that you hold a Christian viewpoint.

I note that you didn't posit a Christian solution. You didn't post any solution. You stated that 'the alternative would be absurd', which is what I was asking you to explain. You still haven't explained the point, though you have restated it ('And yes, there must be a why').

So, to give my question in simpler terms, in the hope of engagement, why is the statement 'The universe just is (as in, there is no 'why')' more absurd than any alternative?

Deusexmachina

Oldtree wrote: »

It's only unsatisfactory if you need, want or are seeking a reason, stemming from a belief system, so of course it dosn't mean somthing to you.

Does it not strike you as egocentric that there would be a reason for you, and you alone in this vast universe?

I never siad that. I said there must be a reason for the Universe, for existence.

Oldtree

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Oldtree wrote: »

It's only unsatisfactory if you need, want or are seeking a reason, stemming from a belief system, so of course it dosn't mean somthing to you.

Does it not strike you as egocentric that there would be a reason for you, and you alone in this vast universe?

I never siad that. I said there must be a reason for the Universe, for existence.

If you are saying there must be a reason for the universe, then you are saying there must be a reason for you, unless you are not part of the universe!

So you did say that!

Deusexmachina

pauldla wrote: »

Well there isn't really much 'seem' about it, I explicitly stated that I presumed you to hold a Christian viewpoint. I was asking you to explain why a 'no why' universe is more absurd than a universe created by God, with the presumption (I'm stating it again, no need for 'seem') that you hold a Christian viewpoint.

I note that you didn't posit a Christian solution. You didn't post any solution. You stated that 'the alternative would be absurd', which is what I was asking you to explain. You still haven't explained the point, though you have restated it ('And yes, there must be a why').

So, to give my question in simpler terms, in the hope of engagement, why is the statement 'The universe just is (as in, there is no 'why')' more absurd than any alternative?

I think we need to consider the idea that the Universe 'just happened for no reason'. Billions of galaxies, trillions of planets and solar systems, unimaginable vastness and complexity.

Fully accepting the big bang theory, this arose 13 billion years ago from an infinitesimally dense and tiny singularity - in microseconds. It sounds totally absurd, completely and utterly impossible - but we now know thats is probably what happened.

Why can accept this but not that there might be a reason for it, a purpose, even an intelligence?

The answer is we dont know. We will probably never know. To me, the idea that this 'event' occurred from nothing, from nowhere, for no reason, also seems absurd.

The 'life force' that animates all living things is also a mystery to us. I think it is a complete cop out to say 'we dont why - so therefore there must be no reason'.

I am not arguing for the existance of a deity. I am suggesting that there is no certainty - so the concept of an intelligent force behind existence cannot be dismissed.

Deusexmachina

Oldtree wrote: »

If you are saying there must be a reason for the universe, then you are saying there must be a reason for you, unless you are not part of the universe!

So you did say that!

Selective editing. I said there must be a reason for the Universe (i.e. all things).

You called that egocentric - that I am seeking a reason for my existence alone. I never said that.

I am delighted to engage with you and no problem with being challenged at all. But please stick to challenging positions or opinions that I actually post.

Grayson

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Can you repeat that in English?

two things, the word belief is used in different ways and has different meanings.

You can believe that the sun will set tonight. That is based on evidence. You know about astronomy plus it's happened loads of times before so you can even use inductive reasoning.

You believe in God. In that case the word is used as an expression of faith. For example a child can be raised to believe in God. That child has no rational arguments to support the belief, they just believe. I'm using a child as an example because although adults will employ philosophical or theological principles in a discussion a child knows none of that and it's just faith.

Atheists and Agnostics and even Deists/Theists can use the word belief in the first example. For example belief in climate change.
Only the religious or superstitious can use it in the second sense.


To put it a different way. You tend to see atheism as a belief. It's not. If you imagine that for every religion there's a name for their believers. Atheist is just the name for someone who didn't pick any of them.

Deusexmachina

Grayson wrote: »

two things, the word belief is used in different ways and has different meanings.

You can believe that the sun will set tonight. That is based on evidence. You know about astronomy plus it's happened loads of times before so you can even use inductive reasoning.

You believe in God. In that case the word is used as an expression of faith. For example a child can be raised to believe in God. That child has no rational arguments to support the belief, they just believe. I'm using a child as an example because although adults will employ philosophical or theological principles in a discussion a child knows none of that and it's just faith.

Atheists and Agnostics and even Deists/Theists can use the word belief in the first example. For example belief in climate change.
Only the religious or superstitious can use it in the second sense.


To put it a different way. You tend to see atheism as a belief. It's not. If you imagine that for every religion there's a name for their believers. Atheist is just the name for someone who didn't pick any of them.

I think that's mainly fair. I would take issue with the idea that 'Atheist is just the name for someone who didn't pick any of them'.
Isnt it fair to say that an atheist is someone who believes there is no God?
That also relies on 'belief' in the second sense you stipulated above.
If the atheist cannot explian why the Universe exists or how the life force exists then they have to rely on 'belief' to categorically believe that there is no intelligent force behind them.

ohnonotgmail

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I think that's mainly fair. I would take issue with the idea that 'Atheist is just the name for someone who didn't pick any of them'.
Isnt it fair to say that an atheist is someone who believes there is no God?
That also relies on 'belief' in the second sense you stipulated above.
If the atheist cannot explian why the Universe exists or how the life force exists then they have to rely on 'belief' to categorically believe that there is no intelligent force behind them.

well if you change that to "doesnt believe in a god" it is easier to understand.

the purple tin

Cults don't get tax-free status.

Hotblack Desiato

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Isnt it fair to say that an atheist is someone who believes there is no God?

No.

Lack of belief in a thing is not the same as belief in the non-existence of that thing.

One must always try to remain open to evidence.

The big problem with the theist position is that there is NO evidence whatsoever to support it.

Oldtree

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Selective editing. I said there must be a reason for the Universe (i.e. all things).

You called that egocentric - that I am seeking a reason for my existence alone. I never said that.

I am delighted to engage with you and no problem with being challenged at all. But please stick to challenging positions or opinions that I actually post.

To again challenge your post, I presume when you say 'all things', that includes yourself. Why would you look for a reason for the existence of yer man over there and not yourself? Looking for a reason for existence is inherently egocentric.

So again you did post that, unintentionally or otherwise.

Charmeleon

Grayson wrote: »

two things, the word belief is used in different ways and has different meanings.

You can believe that the sun will set tonight. That is based on evidence. You know about astronomy plus it's happened loads of times before so you can even use inductive reasoning.

You believe in God. In that case the word is used as an expression of faith. For example a child can be raised to believe in God. That child has no rational arguments to support the belief, they just believe. I'm using a child as an example because although adults will employ philosophical or theological principles in a discussion a child knows none of that and it's just faith.

Atheists and Agnostics and even Deists/Theists can use the word belief in the first example. For example belief in climate change.
Only the religious or superstitious can use it in the second sense.


To put it a different way. You tend to see atheism as a belief. It's not. If you imagine that for every religion there's a name for their believers. Atheist is just the name for someone who didn't pick any of them.

That's all fair enough. However, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. go on to make specific claims about the nature of religion that are conjecture and opinion, most of their supporters make the same claims about religion. That is what constitutes a belief system or a way of analysing the world, which brings it into territory where cults can arise.

I'm sure there are many atheists who just have a stance on the single proposition of whether god exists or not, but most that we hear from who argue from an atheist perspective make far more broader claims about religion, religious people, religion and morality, religion and the state etc. and in this sense it has all the components of a cult.

Deusexmachina

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No.

Lack of belief in a thing is not the same as belief in the non-existence of that thing.

One must always try to remain open to evidence.

The big problem with the theist position is that there is NO evidence whatsoever to support it.

I did not say they were the same. I said that each requires 'belief'.

A belief in the non-existence of a creator or intelligent purpose requires us to accept that the Universe happened spontaneously, from nothing and for no reason. That's a big thing to believe. It requires belief without evidence. The wondrous magnitude and complexity of the Universe belies it.

Deusexmachina

Oldtree wrote: »

To again challenge your post, I presume when you say 'all things', that includes yourself. Why would you look for a reason for the existence of yer man over there and not yourself? Looking for a reason for existence is inherently egocentric.

So again you did post that, unintentionally or otherwise.

Looking for a reason for the existence of all things is patently not the same as looking for the reason of my own existence in isolation.

You are labouring the point at this stage.

ohnonotgmail

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I did not say they were the same. I said that each requires 'belief'.

A belief in the non-existence of a creator or intelligent purpose requires us to accept that the Universe happened spontaneously, from nothing and for no reason. That's a big thing to believe. It requires belief without evidence. The wondrous magnitude and complexity of the Universe belies it.

Atheism is not a belief. It does not require one to believe in anything.

Deusexmachina

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Atheism is not a belief. It does not require one to believe in anything.

So you say. But I dont agree. It requires a belief in a purposeless Universe.

Hotblack Desiato

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I did not say they were the same. I said that each requires 'belief'.

Ludicrous. Non-belief cannot require belief.

A belief in the non-existence of a creator or intelligent purpose requires us to accept that the Universe happened spontaneously, from nothing and for no reason. That's a big thing to believe. It requires belief without evidence. The wondrous magnitude and complexity of the Universe belies it.

You say you did not say they were the same, but here you are equating non-belief in existence with belief in non-existence.

Non-belief in existence of X is not a positive claim. It requires no proof. It is not a belief.

Belief in the non-existence of X is a positive claim, it requires proof, it is a belief.

Deusexmachina

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ludicrous. Non-belief cannot require belief.




You say you did not say they were the same, but here you are equating non-belief in existence with belief in non-existence.

Non-belief in existence of X is not a positive claim. It requires no proof. It is not a belief.

Belief in the non-existence of X is a positive claim, it requires proof, it is a belief.

Semantics. You either believe the Universe was created for a reason and purpose or you believe it arose for no reason, no purpose. Either way, there is no evidence.
You therefore choose which to believe. Both are equally valid.

Hotblack Desiato

Semantics you say? Well sometimes semantics matter. I've repeatedly pointed out how you are twisting words to make them mean what you want them to mean. You are still doing it.

And can't anyone be neutral on the question, as in "We have no evidence, so I don't know, but I'd be interested to see any evidence either way"? If not why not?

pauldla

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I think we need to consider the idea that the Universe 'just happened for no reason'. Billions of galaxies, trillions of planets and solar systems, unimaginable vastness and complexity.

Fully accepting the big bang theory, this arose 13 billion years ago from an infinitesimally dense and tiny singularity - in microseconds. It sounds totally absurd, completely and utterly impossible - but we now know thats is probably what happened.

Why can accept this but not that there might be a reason for it, a purpose, even an intelligence?

The answer is we dont know. We will probably never know. To me, the idea that this 'event' occurred from nothing, from nowhere, for no reason, also seems absurd.

But you contradict yourself. As far as I am aware, the argument that the universe came from nothing is a religious one (Genesis 1.1 can be interpreted to mean that God created the heavens and the earth from nothing. 'Bara' is the Hebrew term used, which means to create from nothing). But our understanding of the origin of the universe is not that it came from nothing; as you mention earlier in your post above, it is referred to as a singularity, which is not the same as 'nothing'. So to say that this 'event' occurred from nothing, from nowhere, for no reason, is not an argument that is put forward by anybody (though please correct me if I am wrong). Hence my statement that you are contradicting yourself; you suggest a singularity, but then change that to 'nothing'.

The 'life force' that animates all living things is also a mystery to us. I think it is a complete cop out to say 'we dont why - so therefore there must be no reason'.

I am not arguing for the existance of a deity. I am suggesting that there is no certainty - so the concept of an intelligent force behind existence cannot be dismissed.

But who is saying that 'we don't know why, therefore there must be no reason'? If we do not yet fully understand the origins of life, or abiogenesis, can we therefore say 'ah, it must be god'? Is this not merely the 'god of the gaps'? To me, this line of thinking is truly absurd. If you wish to posit an intelligent force behind existence, you will need a stronger argument than the discomfort you apparently feel at the notion of a universe without a creator.

Note, incidentally, that the questions you ask of the existence of the universe can also be asked of the existence of a creator (Why is there a god? Where did god come from? What is the purpose of god?).

Deusexmachina

pauldla wrote: »

But you contradict yourself. As far as I am aware, the argument that the universe came from nothing is a religious one (Genesis 1.1 can be interpreted to mean that God created the heavens and the earth from nothing. 'Bara' is the Hebrew term used, which means to create from nothing). But our understanding of the origin of the universe is not that it came from nothing; as you mention earlier in your post above, it is referred to as a singularity, which is not the same as 'nothing'. So to say that this 'event' occurred from nothing, from nowhere, for no reason, is not an argument that is put forward by anybody (though please correct me if I am wrong). Hence my statement that you are contradicting yourself; you suggest a singularity, but then change that to 'nothing'.


Ah stop. There is no contradiction. Where did the singularity come from then? The same reasoning applies.


But who is saying that 'we don't know why, therefore there must be no reason'? If we do not yet fully understand the origins of life, or abiogenesis, can we therefore say 'ah, it must be god'? Is this not merely the 'god of the gaps'? To me, this line of thinking is truly absurd. If you wish to posit an intelligent force behind existence, you will need a stronger argument than the discomfort you apparently feel at the notion of a universe without a creator.

Note, incidentally, that the questions you ask of the existence of the universe can also be asked of the existence of a creator (Why is there a god? Where did god come from? What is the purpose of god?).

I have only ever argued that we don’t know. You are insisting that I am arguing for the existence of a God. I am not.

I am, however, arguing that it cannot be dismissed.

Yout call for evidence to support a creator can be equally applied to the argument for no creator.

I am not saying ‘we don’t know, so there must be a God’ I am saying ‘we don’t know, so we can’t dismiss it’.

pauldla

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Ah stop. There is no contradiction. Where did the singularity come from then? The same reasoning applies.

In your post you stated that the universe came from a singularity. Later in that post you argued that it came from nothing. A singularity is not nothing. This is the contradiction I referred to.

I have only ever argued that we don’t know. You are insisting that I am arguing for the existence of a God. I am not.

I am, however, arguing that it cannot be dismissed.

Yout call for evidence to support a creator can be equally applied to the argument for no creator.

I am not saying ‘we don’t know, so there must be a God’ I am saying ‘we don’t know, so we can’t dismiss it’.

Well what brought me into this thread was your statement (post #123) that 'the alternative is absurd', meaning the alternative to a creator (i.e. a universe with no 'why') is absurd, is it not? Or have I missed my mark? You certainly seem to be bringing the tools of the believer to the discussion, so perhaps I can be forgiven if I am being overly presumptive.

It seems to me that the existence of God cannot be dismissed out of hand (there may well be a god, though there has been nothing presented on this thread to give pause on the question), but that if one is to argue the case, one needs something a bit stronger than the teleological argument. I don’t recall calling for evidence, but the point is valid; if one is going to present the argument for a creator, one needs evidence to support that claim. As others have pointed out, the atheist viewpoint being presented on this thread is not that ‘there is no creator’but is better rendered as ‘given the evidence available, I do not believe there is a creator’. Asking for me to provide evidence for there being no creator is irrelevant; that point is not being argued by me (and I am not such a fool as to attempt to prove the negative. Can one prove that there are no vampires? If not, does this mean there are vampires? You’ve surely heard of Russell’s Teapot?). If you wish to argue for the possibility of a creator, it is to you to support that argument, but you’ll need something stronger than your own discomfort at the idea of a ‘purposeless universe’and the ‘god of the gaps’.

B.A._Baracus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Atheism is not a belief. It does not require one to believe in anything.

Yet majority just moan about the church over here and if the church disbanded tomorrow you'd be all moaning about the church of England.

Oldtree

Logic would dictate thar somthing cannot come out of nothing.

ohnonotgmail

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Yet majority just moan about the church over here and if the church disbanded tomorrow you'd be all moaning about the church of England.

Do you always feel this persecuted?

Deusexmachina

Oldtree wrote: »

Logic would dictate thar somthing cannot come out of nothing.

Indeed. So how did it happen?