Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
StormanNorman

Don't Bring An Atheist Home To Mom & Dad

Recommended Posts

It's good to know our respective definitions of a few words.

 

Atheist: generally, one who does not posit a God or gods;

 

Types:

 

1) those who assert that God does not exist,

2) those who assert that God is not necessary,

3) those in whom a belief in God is absent.

4) those who adduce conclusive evidence of the non-existence of God; I call them "Proofers"; These last are a sad lot,

 

Of course, "posit" implies that someone has been asked to account for Existence.

 

 

Agnostic: one who responds, "I don't know" when asked whether a God or gods exist.

 

Schera Do, is a belief in God absent in your personal belief system, as an agnostic?

Do you consider the label atheistic agnostic a contradiction, or rather a specification?

 

Would you mind explaining the 'who assert that God is not necessary' a bit further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once something exists, its cause is no longer necessary. Similarly, once a car has been brought into existence the manufacturin function for that car is no longer neessary

 

The Christian description of God claims that God has always existed and is the essence of life. Furthermore God never says in the bible that He created life but is life and gives and shares it with whom He pleases.

 

Much human terminology does not apply to God because He is without cause.

 

PS:

Even though you ignore me as if I didn't exist, I continue to exist rendering you claim to having control over another's existence null. smile.png

Note what agnostic means: It is a claim that one can make of themselves that he or she does not know or even may not want to know something. That, however, does not stop someone else knowing what the agnostic does not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri, on 22 Oct 2014 - 03:13 AM, asked:

Schera Do, is a belief in God absent in your personal belief system, as an agnostic?

Do you consider the label atheistic agnostic a contradiction, or rather a specification?

Would you mind explaining the 'who assert that God is not necessary' a bit further?

So many questions! Thanks for asking, seriously, as I, for the first time, included the entry about absence of belief--number 3, "those in whom a belief in God is absent"--and your question does identify a problem: "I don't know" is equivalent to "absence of belief".

The reason I added this "type" is that I had been encountering many people who declare "a lack of belief in God", about which I posted:

"lack of belief in God" is passive, the absence of an acceptance of God's existence. (I once suggested to someone that "lack" implies something missing, which did not go over well...)

I found the exchange; it went thus:

I asked for a poster's definition of "Atheist" and got this: "A person who lacks a belief in a god."

I replied: "If I lack something, then something is missing."

Clearly, if "I don't know" concerning God, then within me the belief is absent. I must remove that entry from my list or defend this position as a stance. Thank you.

Is "I don't know" distinct from "absent of belief"?

The guy to whom I intimated that "something is missing", he became offended and thought, apparently, I was implying that a belief in God is "something necessary". My motivation was to suggest he rethink using "lack": People may go through life and not contemplate any of the questions some of us treat as profound; I thought "lack" to be suggestive of that and sought a neutral word and settled on "absent".

What if one dedicates a life to suspending judgements? An Ephectic is one who is "given to suspense of judgment". I first encountered this idea in Friedrich Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals, #9.

About "...explaining the 'who assert that God is not necessary' a bit further". This entry is for those who subscribe to Stephen Hawkins' interpretation:

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." (Source)

Some Scientists assert that the "Big Bang", for example, could have occurred without God, but deny that it implies that God does not exist. This requires a conception of God who did not create or cause such a bang.

Moral of the story? If I give the time of day to an Atheist, I risk shooting myself in the foot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri, on 22 Oct 2014 - 03:13 AM, asked:

... Do you consider the label atheistic agnostic a contradiction, or rather a specification? ...

 

I forgot this question.

Last year, I learned of the term "agnostic atheist". (I presume it to be equivalent to "atheistic agnostic".)

I was horrified when I learned of it as I had been, for a long time, attempting to distance myself from the "Proofer" Atheists by my "I don't know" narrow definition of Agnostic. (My reason for seeking this distance was that I had been associating for decades with a group whose members conflated, sometimes, "atheist" and "agnostic". Recently, I read a quote attributed to Carl Sagan in which he distanced himself from what I term the "Proofer" Atheist and found that funny.)

I no longer grab for the duct tape to wrap around my head when I read "agnostic atheist", but I do not accept that formulation: at the very least, I believe that it is not conducive of easy discussion of the several terms ascribed to religious belief.

I recognize that, to some or many, "agnostic atheist" is a "specification" for a type of Atheist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your answers.

Sorry, one more question in reply: Do you think it matters if a theist, an atheist or an agnostic is the one making a statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your answers.

Sorry, one more question in reply: Do you think it matters if a theist, an atheist or an agnostic is the one making a statement?

 

I'm not smart enough to be able to use those categories to evaluate the validity of a statement. Does that answer this question?

 

My question for you is, you are of what "type" of Atheist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not smart enough to be able to use those categories to evaluate the validity of a statement. Does that answer this question?

 

My question for you is, you are of what "type" of Atheist?

You should get smart enough to not use those categories to evaluate the validity of any statement. :)

A statement can be true or false or unknown regardless of the person making it.

 

I like to think I'm type 3 of your list.

3) those in whom a belief in God is absent.
Maybe type 2 might also suffice.
2) those who assert that God is not necessary. (but not impossible)

 

Using my own labels I would be able to use both agnost and atheist. I am using the atheistic label because I think this lack of believe is more 'important' to me in discussions here then the acknowledgment that I could very well be very wrong in not believing (this statement can be twisted in so many ways, but I couldn't find a good way to put it). If you catch my meaning.

 

Many atheists use the labels in the matter that I do now. The label is just a label, it is how we act that matters.

And that brings us back to an earlier question: (which went unanswered)

Are you aware of any guidelines in atheism (or even agnosticism) for our conduct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do beliefs come to exist? At least two ways.
The "rational" way is to observe one's self and surrounding envionments internal and external as an effect. Then the would be believer formulates a cause nd effect scenario (hypothesis). The "belief" is then validated one way or the other based on the resultant effect of the propsed cause. Yes or no.

The second method is to formulte a belief arbitrarily and often without evidence. The latter is purely hypothetical or imaginary as there is no evidence to support it. Said belief can not be historically supported by observation. There is simply no evidence for it and properly viewed is the essennce of a created "belief."

As it turns out humans are adept at both of these processes. What categgory does atheim belong in?
Most assuredly it is a created belief. The alleged atheist claims no evidence for his or her belief and since observarion of an effect is necessary to be considered scientific, Atheism is purely sspeculative--an arrogant assumption. All it has as evidence is the arbitrary belief of its creator. That creator usually trys to "sell" his idea to others with varying degrees of success. If anyone does not buy it, the alleged atheist can create the "belief" he or she is being discriminated against --something that someone who claims no standard for such a calaim but then makes the claim when he or she supposedly "believes" in survival of the fittest implying its ok to discriminate when it wil help one survive. Such are the claims of alleged athists.

Add to that the syntax of the statement, "There is no God" and one "sees" another isssue with the atheism idea. The genral symantasist argue quite effectively tht any use of of the verb to be in reference to humans implies the static state or stasis. Thus the statement, "He is a failure" would imply an agreement between the subjext and the predicate and impy that "the failure" (I) would fail at every task he or she attempted. This is an unrealistic assumption especially since the so called "failure" would have failed to ssurvive any length of time. We observe no such catostrophic failure behavior from humans.

Lofically no one "is" an atheistt but rather a human being telling himself who can't exist. Smlarly a statement, "I am a tiba does" not turn me into a tiba but rather I exisr as a human being telling myself I = a tuba.'


Since the core idea of atheism is that non existence of a "specific being" is possible, what are we to do with all the "specific beings" that do exist--over several billion "specifi beings" on planet earth let alone others that possibly might exist in the vastness of the universe?

The core idea of atheism is that speific existene is not possible What we observe is all kinds of specific existence arround us. The speciific sentance ,"There is no God" is a classic contradiction-- illgical. First, specific existence is claimed in the form of God and then it is denied.

Most of us "believe" we exist and that makes the claim of non existence hiighly problematic. Since we claim and experiene individuality, specific existence seems a realistic claim also. Conclusion: both existence and speific existence are possible (factual).

Nevertheless, the alleged atheist holds on to his created idea--and idea that only an omnicient being could hold--God. However not even God claims the "kind" of omnicient knowledge the alleged atheists claims. For God claims all things are possible. Furthermore, God claims we were created by Him and made in His image. Therefore, we also have creative abilitiies. Sin is an abuse of our inate creative abilities and implys creating something thatnwould interefere unecessarilly with what anther creato that exists or what that person has creted (deemed harmless by God) but done just becaause he or she has the creative aiity to d so. This puts atheism in tainted light. One may ask what are the benefits f the alleged atheism. Usually there is sience when such questins ae asked.

Scratching the surface of what the word creator we find the underlying sublty which implies all things createable have not benn created. Thus it implies a nuance level mening to the words omnicient and omnipotent. What it does not mean is that everything createable has been created.

Brnging an alleged atheist home implies conflict most assuredly will follow. His or her claims of who can't exist are similar to what despots have made thrughout human history. You and I are but a few connective words away fron being declared non valid--unfit from the position of his or her self-declared biggotted point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Summers, on 23 Oct 2014 - 1:49 PM, wrote:

Thus the statement, "He is a failure" would imply an agreement between the subjext and the predicate and impy that "the failure" (I) would fail at every task he or she attempted. This is an unrealistic assumption especially since the so called "failure" would have failed to ssurvive any length of time.

 

This "especially since" is false exactly for anyone who is supported fully without the least responsibility. Good luck arguing that this person suceeded in staying alive by failing to get run over by a bus, for example.

In the same post, he wrote:

The core idea of atheism is that speific existene is not possible What we observe is all kinds of specific existence arround us. The speciific sentance ,"There is no God" is a classic contradiction-- illgical. First, specific existence is claimed in the form of God and then it is denied.

 

I'm tempted to declare this preposterous.

In the declarative statement, "There is no God", there is no "claim" of the noun's existence. Are we going to discuss the difference between abstractions and physical referents? I'd prefer not discuss the obvious.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schera Do said:

I'm tempted to declare this preposterous.

Go ahead because you already have. It's an historical fact that you said it. Most people will edit your statement, "I am tempted..." and conclude that you have declared it preposterous. However, since you claim you do not "know" one way or another, assuming your claim of agnosticism, your dichotomous view is problematic. You, like Fjuri, draw from a finite source of information. Nevertheless, Fjuri claims to "know" (a belief that originated in one of two ways--see my previous post) a specific being does not exist. You are a specific being are you not? According to Fjuri logic you don't exist or at the least only he can determine whether you exist or not.

In the declarative statement, "There is no God", there is no "claim" of the noun's existence. Are we going to discuss the difference between abstractions and physical referents? I'd prefer not discuss the obvious.

The sentence is a paradox like , "Please don't read this sentence." A noun is the name of persson place or thing. Is God a noun? Yes. Do nouns exist? Yes!! The senteence, "God does not exist" is pardocical because it implies God both exists and yet does not exist. The essence of humor is the paradox. Is Fjuri or you joking?

 

To bad you have to think that there is something real and yet claim unreal exxists also. I say thoughts are real (real and unreal are paradoxical when they apply to the same noun).). What say you?

This "especially since" is false exactly for anyone who is supported fully without the least responsibility. Good luck arguing that this person suceeded in staying alive by failing to get run over by a bus, for example

To be declared reasonble your idea would have to be demonstated by a being that is totally non-decision making--one that does not think. Do you know of any such people? smile.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The senteence, "God does not exist" is pardocical because it implies God both exists and yet does not exist.

 

You must explain this sentence. Please. I'm not going to get my hopes up, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ye of little faith.

 

First consider the paradox:

"Please don't read this sign." and another common one: "If you can read this sign, you are to close." These are paradoxes because you would have to do what the request says not to do to comply. Similarly one acknowledges the possibility of a specific being by name(God) who is then claimed not to exist. This is easy to do. You could say for example, there is no Mike Summers. That will however not cause me to step out of existence.

 

If you were somehow intuitively able to know what the sign said then you might be able to comply but that would take mental abilities we don't seem to manifest.

 

Your claim as an agnostic is valid because we don't seem able to know everything. The alleged atheis is claiming more knowledge base than he can pull from his finite mind.

 

Moreover, our thinking is not sacrosanct. Jesus said it this way: "Which one of you taking thought can add one cubit (eighteen inches) to his stature (height)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly which sentence I would choose as the "winner"?

I, I, I,....eyeCarumba...the competition was fierce; Perhaps this:

Your claim as an agnostic is valid because we don't seem able to know everything. The alleged atheis is claiming more knowledge base than he can pull from his finite mind.


Can, will anyone decipher that for me.?

coconts_zpsd763929d.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating the idea that we know who can't exist is not mentally healthy especially if we want non adversarial relationships with others. How would you like someone telling you you don't exist? Isn't that what hate is?

 

It's easy to draw the conclusion: "Shoot if the alleged atheist "feels" like that about a significant being such as God, how will we fair?" And after all the claim is that there is no God. So who can they be talking to but us? To understand this requires that we consider the ultimate outcome of such a claim (atheism). The alleged atheists message can only be aimed at another being that exists. Who does the atheist claim atheism to but his fellow existent beings? The atheist is essentially saying, "I am the sole determiner of who can and can't exist." Now, that is arrogance par excellence. How does it play in your mind? Do you "feel" you have to answer to your fellow man for your existence?

 

How would you like having a son or daughter that is so bigoted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating the idea that we know who can't exist is not mentally healthy especially if we want non adversarial relationships with others. How would you like someone telling you you don't exist? Isn't that what hate is?

 

It's easy to draw the conclusion: "Shoot if the alleged atheist "feels" like that about a significant being such as God, how will we fair?" And after all the claim is that there is no God. So who can they be talking to but us? To understand this requires that we consider the ultimate outcome of such a claim (atheism). The alleged atheists message can only be aimed at another being that exists. Who does the atheist claim atheism to but his fellow existent beings? The atheist is essentially saying, "I am the sole determiner of who can and can't exist." Now, that is arrogance par excellence. How does it play in your mind? Do you "feel" you have to answer to your fellow man for your existence?

 

How would you like having a son or daughter that is so bigoted?

I don't understand how any of the above pertains to anything that precedes it that I wrote--unless you don't understand the meaning of, "I don't know."

 

You wouldn't be the first. I may have never met anyone who did, perhaps.

 

 

...

To be declared reasonble your idea would have to be demonstated by a being that is totally non-decision making--one that does not think. Do you know of any such people? smile.png

One who does not have to think; is not required to think: "anyone who is supported fully without the least responsibility".

 

Your, "fail at every task requirement can't mean the person failed to succeed to use the proper number of tissues while wiping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stormannorman said:

Makes sense to me. Most such people acknowledge the existence of other races as humans. Atheism is a claim that one specific being does not exist. Athism is discriminitory.

 

I wouldn't say one specific being ... atheism doesn't believe any gods exist whether it be Zeus, the Christian God, Allah, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say one specific being ... atheism doesn't believe any gods exist whether it be Zeus, the Christian God, Allah, etc.

The point is that an alleged atheist is not all knowing. Atheism is an effect of mental activity. The cause is the person constructing the idea from his imagination rather than sound observation and logical reasoning.

 

Five years ago I did not know that you existed. I did not, however, go around telling myself or others that you specifically by name did not exist.

 

I fail to understand how you can't understand that because I have reasoning ability and conclude when someone is claiming to :know something which would require them to have characteristics of the being he claims does not exist."

 

Alleged atheists do not appear to be either omnipotent or omniscient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how any of the above pertains to anything that precedes it that I wrote--unless you don't understand the meaning of, "I don't know."

 

You wouldn't be the first. I may have never met anyone who did, perhaps.

{/quote]

You may be right. You do use a lot of statement with unclear antecedents.

 

 

 

One who does not have to think; is not required to think: "anyone who is supported fully without the least responsibility".

 

 

I asked for an example. People that do not think are either dead or in a coma.

 

Your, "fail at every task requirement can't mean the person failed to succeed to use the proper number of tissues while wiping.

If one fails at one or several tasks, the point is that no one alive fails at every task they attempt. This is called dichotomous reasoning

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You may be right. You do use a lot of statement with unclear antecedents.

 

Yup, up to the point where it seems you don't even care the things the rest of us write and just "lecture" on. :-)

And that is for me a reason to ignore you. It is not my 'attempt to make you inexistant'. Your arrogance in pretending to know what another person is thinking knows no bounderies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't understand how any of the above pertains to anything that precedes it that I wrote--unless you don't understand the meaning of, "I don't know."

 

You wouldn't be the first. I may have never met anyone who did, perhaps.

{/quote]

You may be right. You do use a lot of statement with unclear antecedents.

 

 

One who does not have to think; is not required to think: "anyone who is supported fully without the least responsibility".

 

 

I asked for an example. People that do not think are either dead or in a coma.

 

Your, "fail at every task requirement can't mean the person failed to succeed to use the proper number of tissues while wiping.

If one fails at one or several tasks, the point is that no one alive fails at every task they attempt. This is called dichotomous reasoning

 

 

Will you please disentangle quotations you made here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Summers, on 25 Oct 2014 - 12:35 AM, wrote:

...
[1] Five years ago I did not know that you existed. I did not, however, go around telling myself or others that you specifically by name did not exist.

[2] I fail to understand how you can't understand that because I have reasoning ability and conclude when someone is claiming to :know something which would require them to have characteristics of the being he claims does not exist."

[3] Alleged atheists do not appear to be either omnipotent or omniscient.

 

On 1: If StormanNorman's age is > 5 years, then five years ago he existed; at that time, you "did not know that" and you never declared "that [stormanNorman] specifically by name did not exist". How is this different from your statement?

Let's establish one thing: You--"Mike Summers'"--might believe in a God or gods; If you do, then the factual, actual existence of it or them is independent of your thought processes. Second: If you never conceived or learned of THE CONCEPT of a God or gods, then, STILL, the factual, actual existence of it or them is independent of your LACK of thought processes.

On 2: When is it "required" that the "someone ... claiming to know" MUST possess the "characteristics of the being he claims does not exist"?

When that person was created in the image of a Creator of that person. Whether or not "Mike Summers" asserts this, the factual, actual truth of it is independent of anything "Mike Summers" asserts or does not assert--assuming "Mike" is not God.

What MUST be true about anyone's claims of any being? One of two things MUST be true at the point when we don't know the content of the claim: That person either conceived it or learned it. (The latter includes "revelation".)

On 3: Five millenia, five years and five minutes ago, an omnipotent and/or omniscient being was not established as fact. All and every persons, alleged and actual, do not possess omnipotence or omniscience--I'm operating under that assumption as though it were factual.

All non-human entities are confined to the realm of abstraction. This remains true until any further notice, the meaning of which is obvious. If you disagree with this, then you have reason to be on this forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. We are the owners of our definitions. The alleged atheist defines the possibility of God out of possible existence (at least in his mind). That's self-deception as he or she does not seem to effect whether God continues to exist in my mind. .

 

Most of us agree that thinking someone in or out of existence will have no bearing on whether that someone will comply. Why go around claiming and inferring that we have all knowledge and know who can not exist. As I said agnosticism reflects this reality: "I don't know one way or another." Of course the statement of agnosticism may be motivated by, "I don't want to know whether there is a God or not" (itself a bias). Atheism infers a knowledge base we don't have: there can be no God (past, present or future)..

 

Atheism extrapolated infers anti-creativity. If we say something does not exist, it's easy to conclude it can not be created. Consider the implications.

 

Our thinking makes our mind. Our mind creates our reality. We use an abstract mind to perceive our external reality (making "it" an abstraction ( with observer bias).

 

I seem to detect some materialistic leanings. Here is something to think about: How are you going to validate the word "reality." Be sure to see Gilbo's post on Quantum Physics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, up to the point where it seems you don't even care the things the rest of us write and just "lecture" on. :-)

And that is for me a reason to ignore you. It is not my 'attempt to make you inexistant'. Your arrogance in pretending to know what another person is thinking knows no bounderies.

 

Ignoring someone is the same thing as attempting to make them inexistent. Your statement "your " arrogance is of your perception. Same with your "lecture" comment which is the same thing you do except that you "seem not to recognize it. We are salesmen of our ideas. That's the human condition..

 

My argument with you is that you make claims which would require you be god to justify. Also even though you acknowledge you are creative you infer other's creative effects are nullified by yours playing into your "survival of the fittest headset. As a contrast I think there is room for just about anything except anti-creationism and anti the beings that do the creating ( demonstrated by your alleged atheism).

 

Bro, if I did not care about you, I would consider my comments to you a waste of time. I am glad you exist so I can enjoy what you create. I believe the way to do that is not to claim non existence of creators. Essentially by claiming who or what can't exist, you are deciding what can be can not exist or be created. I consider that arrogant wouldn't you? smile.png I am only asking you to give up being anti-creator.

 

PS: Our software does not allow us to delete the files that represent other beings. these files are read only append only files. Atheism is an attempt to delete such a file. Apparently your delete button does not function as you keep "knowing" who is not suppose to exist (in your case God). lol smile.png If you choose to ignore me, all I know so far I have not ceased to exist. Keep trying though. smile.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Summers, on 25 Oct 2014 - 1:46 PM, asked:

... I seem to detect some materialistic leanings. Here is something to think about: How are you going to validate the word "reality."? ...

I would understand if you asked me to define the word; "validate", I will pass as I don't know exactly how to validate a word. Perhaps the post by Gilbo will shed some light...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Summers, on 25 Oct 2014 - 1:46 PM, asked:

I would understand if you asked me to define the word; "validate", I will pass as I don't know exactly how to validate a word. Perhaps the post by Gilbo will shed some light...

Hope so.

 

Some people seem to think our thoughts are not real. This problematic because our thoughts are a part of the whole of reality. They "create" our view of external reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms