You believe in a ultimate cause, just not a personal God, but logically they are the same thing and serve the same purpose,or fill the same position in a rational system. Except we give it more detail, we go further and say that this cause is not just some random act of conglomerate power and mass. We say you do not go back far enough, you have stopped at an unexplained ,another natural in need of a cause, whereas we go to the final definiton of what must be. Which must by logical necessity be Something as ridiculous and absurd as a God existing forever, so that we might as well accept that it IS GOD.
Is this a fair analysis to you?
2006-12-25 13:20:48 · 15 answers · asked by Socinian F 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The question is implying that atheists believe in something equivalent to God but just don't call it God.They believe in ultimate causes, which is the logic that leads to belief in a uncaused cause or ultimate cause, call it what you will, supernatural or natural.So really in terms of logic they believe exactly as not only we do but as all men do. Say something created us, call it God, or a conglomerate of mass and energy. They just do not go as far as we do. But is is wrong to say that what we believe is illogical, it is just more confident. We accept as much as them plus more, which they consider to be unprovable. They seem to have great antipathy towards the suggestion of any personal aspects in a ultimate cause. Get it now or not? Is this fair to them?
2006-12-25 13:22:16 · update #1
Honestly, you atheists are too slow to see it or are dishonest.The point is not to hide behind a denial of intelligence,or causes, but intelligence or not, causes or not, the human mind works one way and one way only, it posits causes period. Therefore can I have some intelligent athiests answer this question please, not gnat brained ones.
2006-12-25 13:31:49 · update #2
I honestly think based on the replies here that most of those who call themselves atheists, dont know what the heck they are talking about. O they know the definiton of atheism, and so do I, but they do not know how to think outside of definitions. This shows that they have not arrived at thier position through thoughtful analysis but simle adoption. They uncritically accept the deluded and pretentious notion
that if they call themselves atheists they adopt a position that is intellectually unassailable and so do not know how to defend it, except by repeating what the definiton of an atheist is. They are atheists not because of but regardless of their actual intelligence. Any atheist who can actually address my statements specifically?
2006-12-25 13:49:32 · update #3
No. Atheists reject any supernatural explanation for the formation of the universe, and as such, we reject the idea of a god.
Even if we accept that a god was required to start the universe in motion, there's no way of knowing which god it was. Whether it's Zeus or Allah or YHWH or Cthulhu, since a creator god has left no other evidence of his existence, has not told us how we should worship him, or even if he wants to be worshipped, there's no reason to accept any religion.
Xians claim that Jesus is the way, Jews claim that the Messiah has not yet come, and Muslims claim that Islam is the way to God. As far as Atheists are concerned, none of these religions have any better evidence in their favor than the others, and no better evidence of the thousands of other gods worshipped throughout human history.
2006-12-25 13:31:03 · answer #1 · answered by MacAulay 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you're touching on pantheism there.
Einstein for example, when said he wanted to 'understand the mind of God' - he wasn't refering to God. He was refering rather in a more poetic sense to the way the universe works. We know he didn't believe in God because he is quoted in a paper to have said:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
If you feel that all you are doing is taking an atheist's view on the universe (A huge, and quite frankly amazing, body of matter that was created on a natural level - by natural causes) - and expanding on it, by giving it a name - God. Then this is Pantheism.
Although, the other bits that people made up to go with it - e.g. The commandments and god being an actual entity, and hell being real so as you'll keep paying your money to the church - place you in between religious and a pantheist.
2006-12-25 22:30:38 · answer #2 · answered by Adam L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I don't believe in a prima causa. Even if I did, the prima causa could very easily bt a natural law and not an intelligent being, therefore, it would not be a god.
No, it is not a fair analysis.
----
Oh, I believe in causes, of course. But not a PRIMA causa. That's the big difference. I do not posit the existence of a first cause. No such thing is needed.
One example of not needing a prima causa is circular causation -- A causes B, B causes C, C causes A. All are causes, all are effects, but none is the prima causa.
-----
I have addressed every point you have made, it is you who are blinded.
Further, it occurs to me -- you claim that human minds must operate on causation, but yet you admit that you reach your god and admit it is uncaused. You negate your own premise.
2006-12-25 21:23:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would make you a Deist not an Atheist. I really believe there is no god. I also figure the Universe always existed in some form. I don't know what form, but it was always here. I don't figure I have to have all the answers. I just have to look for them.
2006-12-25 21:26:46 · answer #4 · answered by Alex 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your question is too long and too pretentious. Atheists do not believe in a god of any type. Just because you do not understand the beginning of things and so attribute some supernatural power to it doest not make it godlike.
Where did god come from?
2006-12-25 21:29:49 · answer #5 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Generally people who have the same theory as you have mentioned are referred to as agnostics, not aetheists. Aetheists tend to just not get the concept of God, or that need for an explanation doesn't bother them. Also consider an upbringing empty of religion but full of being nice to people purely because it makes them happy. God is never an issue for them.
2006-12-25 21:25:24 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's go back far enough.
The human animal has one basic reason for existence.To gain pleasure while avoiding unpleasure.
The only basic difference between a human who believes in your god,and one who does not,is the coping mechanisms which each of them employ.
The absolute fact,that exists seperately from your opinion or perception,is this:
THE ONLY GOD THAT EXISTS IS IN YOUR HEAD...
2006-12-25 21:31:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If atheists believed in something equivalent to God, then they wouldn't be atheists.
What you're describing reflects my personal beliefs, but I'm not an atheist. I consider myself a theist.
2006-12-25 21:27:41 · answer #8 · answered by Lunarsight 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You obviously are clueless as to the meaning of atheist. Check it out before posing questions like this, your ignorance is showing (and I am being polite!).
2006-12-25 21:26:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You're speaking of deists or agnostics.
2006-12-25 21:24:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋