Atheists and proof cont….

[Kdtym10]

A carry on from the previous thread

Well I think it is highly relevant

You know alchemy's bollocks, though, Kdtym? It comes from that pesky medley, religio-science, which was the only sort available for a long time. Newton should've known better, though.

I've no idea how you think this gave rise to his laws of motion
Tis true without lying, certain and most true. That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracle of one only thing. And as all things have been and arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth. Separate thou the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the earth to the heaven and again it descends to the earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations where of the means is here in this. Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.

You know what the wind "doth carry in its belly", brings life to earth, rises back up and falls again? Rain!

Well it’s my opinion and the right one for me.

Hopefully you have now seen the definition of mundane. Hope that clears that up. As explained, I tried using the word physical (although knowing it was too limited) yet that was criticised too. So I use mundane ad that is the most accurate to denote non- spiritual.

Why do you think the definition of God you use is the only definition. Several different definitions have been discussed (including why god allows “suffering”)

Can you accept the possibility of the existence of this sort of divinity?

So what is “soul” to you?

You’re entitled to your opinion. I’d be interested in your thought process behind it.

Oh you really really need to study Boehme. Newton did know better and that’s why he was such a fan of Boehme. People really need to start studying his work in this context.

oh and like most esoteric things - there’s a obvious superficial reading and more hidden meaning - you’re missing the different levels of understanding of the 4 classical elements. - really read Boehme

As I have posted more than once I do not believe in any god, higher power, anyone who should be worshipped. I don’t believe in any spiritual power and I won’t go to heaven or hell. There is no evidence my life would be better if I had a faith.

So is this an active belief, ie it arose from a source, or the absence of a belief, ie it is an original state of being that has not been created eg by weighing up evidence - as I said an important distinction

It isn’t an important distinction to me. The outcome is the same - no belief in any god.

Humour me!

No - I’ve explained my position- you have huge difficulty in accepting other people’s opinions.

A faith would not add anything positive to my life so why entertain it.

I don’t have issues accepting other peoples opinions. So your view is that there being no God is just an opinion (for avoidance of doubt, I accept that is your opinion which should be obvious)

So is this an active belief, ie it arose from a source, or the absence of a belief, ie it is an original state of being that has not been created eg by weighing up evidence - as I said an important distinction

What you seem to struggle to understand is that many people do not put as much thought into this as you have. An active belief doesn’t have to come from a source. Many religious people will say their belief comes from a feeling within them that a god exists, even if they have not personally seen a miracle or something they would define as God’s Hand at play, they just believe. Many atheists… just believe there are no deities.

You do have difficulty accepting other opinions - I’ve stated my position many times. There is no god, nothing to worship, how you behave in your life does not determine what happens to you when you die, there is no heaven or hell or sin to be punished for. The bible is a collection of stories written many many years after the purported events- many are myths and not true.

There is no evidence that life would be better if I had a faith.

I agree with @Parker231 that the distinction's of no importance. I think you asked a disingenuous question, anyway. All children believe in what might be termed higher powers and the supernatural. As we grow up and gain knowledge of the world, most of us start testing our beliefs. Finding no evidence of divinity, many of us decide it was a worthless belief and jettison it, alongside other received wisdom such as wet hair causing flu and babies being brought by storks.

The more this thread develops, the more I see the line between devotion (and spirituality) and mental illness blurring. Reading old books and hypothesising how that fits with an individual's feelings does not make anyone more enlightened apart from the reader. It just deepens and reinforces the delusion.

An active belief doesn’t have to come from a source

Exactly! Regardless of whether one believes in a god or whether one believes that god does not exist. We all have different reasons for our beliefs.

For me specifically, even as a child I didn't believe in the supernatural or higher powers etc, for example I never believed in Santa even though others around me did. I remember explaining to my (3 years older) sister that he wasn't real because I didn't understand why she couldn't see this

So whilst I am not trying to compare Santa to God in a religious sense, for me I don't believe in God in the same way. I just don't and can't despite being brought up in a faith and learning about others. I lack the fundamental ability to believe.

But as others have said, I don't feel like my life is lacking as a result of this.

@Kdtym10 Hopefully you have now seen the definition of mundane. Hope that clears that up. As explained, I tried using the word physical (although knowing it was too limited) yet that was criticised too. So I use mundane ad that is the most accurate to denote non- spiritual.

Why do you think the definition of God you use is the only definition. Several different definitions have been discussed (including why god allows “suffering”)

Can you accept the possibility of the existence of this sort of divinity?

So what is “soul” to you?

The 2nd definition of mundane isn't the typical use and the word does have negative connotation of dull or boring that I feel strongly don't describe my life, so no I don't really accept it.

So many of the modern religions align to a single all powerful deity that I choose not to believe in. I could accept (with appropriate proof) a neglectful deity similar to a child with an ant farm, proportionately super powered but unaware and uninterested in any individuals thoughts, feelings or behaviours.

I would also more willingly accept vengeful and petty gods such as the Greek and roman gods than accept that a benevolent god would choose to allow suffering.

As a parent you wouldn't let your child do something that would seriously harm them or others if you could prevent it, so I judge a deity that would do so as a neglectful and abhorrent 'parent', I can't see any situation that would allow children to suffer as they do in the world if I could prevent it, so no I don't accept any excuse for allowing suffering

A 'soul' for me is the essence that animates these 'meat bots' that are our bodies. Once we die that element is gone, the body is just left over clothes.

But I don’t think it’s disingenuous - it’s a distinction which has been pointed out by many atheists on previous threads (I’m pretty sure ones @Parker231 has been involved in) that this distinction is really important. If this distinction is not important now for atheists on this thread I defer to their opinion and it will be useful in future threads to understand that some atheists do not see this as an important distinction and they consider there is no difference between believing there is no God and the lack of belief in God.

I say for the millionth time - it is not important to anyone other than you. The outcome is the same. There is no god - full stop.

I was religious once, but watching the pettiness and unkind behaviours within my church made me question. Once I began exploring my thoughts and beliefs it became clear that the bible and other religious texts were the workings of petty men to control others.

they consider there is no difference between believing there is no God and the lack of belief in God

I do not think God exists. I do not think the tooth fairy exists. I believe there is no god nor a tooth fairy. I lack belief in god and the tooth fairy because they do not exist!

@Kdtym10 Do you now understand?

Yes I understand that you have actively chosen not to believe in God and therefore that is a belief. Is that correct?

What do you think the difference between the two phrases means?