Theism? Seriously? EVERYTHING from NOTHING?

[Waiting4evidence]

In a recent post, a theist grossly mischaracterized the atheist position.

Instead of accepting the simple definition that an atheist is one who does not believe in deities, he just made up the definition that an atheist is one who believes that the entire universe came from nothing.

We do not know how the universe came into existence, and we don't even know if the universe ever came into existence.

We make NO conclusion based on our ignorance of the universe's origin.

We do NOT, as per the theist's allegation, say "We don't know, therefore nothing did it". We just say "We don't know, therefore let's not pretend we know, but rather let's try to find out".

So, I am hoping we can put that bogus accusation to rest.


But there is another ramification of the theist's absurd accusation.

He (rightly) claims that it's wronng - given our current knowledge - to hold the dogmatic belief that the universe came from nothing.

At the same time, he believes that an entity much more complex than the universe exists.

So I can't help but ask. If it's absurd to think that something as complex as the universe can come into existence from nothing, then how do you account for the existence of something even more complex than the universe?

How did God come into existence? "You don't know therefore nothing did it"?

Do you see the absurdity of your position, given that you accuse atheists of holding a fatal flaw in their belief, while in reality they do not hold that belief, but you do?

[catalyst]

Have you heard of Panentheism? I find it the most coherent concept of God I've ever encountered, and it coincides with my personal experience of God.

Hey Kayky,

Yes I have heard and know of both Pantheism and Panentheism. I reckon Panentheism is pretty cool and a reasonable approach to a "god" concept and I can understand perhaps WHY it resonates with you so well, given your own personal experience as to the perception of what a "god" allegedly is.

By the same token, I hope you appreciate that through my own life experiences, even that concept falls short. Perhaps strange to you given your position, but none the less true for me.

For this same reason, I have never been one to diss other's "personal experiences" of what they perceive to be a "god experience" and what is NOT a "god experience". I DO have the mentality of what every floats someone's boat and it works for them, then they should go for it. In fact I am happy for you that you have found something in Panentheism that DOES work for you.

That said, IF someone claims their "TRUTH" IS an absolute to which I MUST comply... then... that's when my "inner bitch" comes out. (actually I have outer bitch too but she's not quite as blunt as the inner-bitch! lol) The fact is though and many people should perhaps start realising it, or at least try to understand it. In many cases there is no "NEED" to find a god concept to FIT "into". I personally am past the "need" to FIND a "god" explanation that's "right" for me. It really DOESN'T matter... again.. could have much to do with MY life experiences that have brought me to this place. I am comfy in my own skin and as such, I don't worry about my "eternity" and "like" things anymore.

I am though happy to explore anything others send my way as to what they perceive as right for them.

I hope that explanation made sense, Kayky.

Cat..xxx

[kayky]

I am agnostic when it comes to the afterlife. I think you will find that I am not the typical theist. If you're going to debate with me, you'll have to up your game.

Apparently so. To debate with you I would first have to find something we disagree on, since you don't seem to give the Bible much credit for viability either. And in that case, there's really not much point. In what way do you define yourself as a Christian? Just curious. Being from Kentucky it must be convenient to at least pretend to be one.

Wow. I'd love to know what that Kentucky comment is all about. But then we Kentuckians are used to bigoted stereotypes.

I love the Bible. I just see more metaphor and symbolism than some Christians do. I'm an Episcopalian by the way. I think you'll find our recent history most interesting, especially the work of our bishop, John Shelby Spong.

[kayky]

Hey Kayky,

Yes I have heard and know of both Pantheism and Panentheism. I reckon Panentheism is pretty cool and a reasonable approach to a "god" concept and I can understand perhaps WHY it resonates with you so well, given your own personal experience as to the perception of what a "god" allegedly is.

By the same token, I hope you appreciate that through my own life experiences, even that concept falls short. Perhaps strange to you given your position, but none the less true for me.

For this same reason, I have never been one to diss other's "personal experiences" of what they perceive to be a "god experience" and what is NOT a "god experience". I DO have the mentality of what every floats someone's boat and it works for them, then they should go for it. In fact I am happy for you that you have found something in Panentheism that DOES work for you.

That said, IF someone claims their "TRUTH" IS an absolute to which I MUST comply... then... that's when my "inner bitch" comes out. (actually I have outer bitch too but she's not quite as blunt as the inner-bitch! lol) The fact is though and many people should perhaps start realising it, or at least try to understand it. In many cases there is no "NEED" to find a god concept to FIT "into". I personally am past the "need" to FIND a "god" explanation that's "right" for me. It really DOESN'T matter... again.. could have much to do with MY life experiences that have brought me to this place. I am comfy in my own skin and as such, I don't worry about my "eternity" and "like" things anymore.

I am though happy to explore anything others send my way as to what they perceive as right for them.

I hope that explanation made sense, Kayky.

Cat..xxx

I think everyone must follow his or her own truth. As a matter of fact, I think everyone has his or her own path to walk. I think it can be dangerous to interfere with that.

It might help you to know that my best friend's husband is an atheist, and he is one of the best people I've ever known.

[Flail]

There are more ideas of religion than colors of the rainbow, so I recognize the danger in painting all religion with the same brush. I do respect Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism and other conceptual, philosophical concepts. But I wonder if perhaps we are so accustomed to and reliant upon science and evidentialism to provide us with reliable information that when it comes to speculative concepts like Gods and Devils where there are no answers, we opt too quickly for the traditional and common instead of exhibiting patience and keeping open minds. Opting for superstitious ideas about 'Gods' is really deficient and dangerously credulous IMO.

OR we have become so enthralled with science that we have come to believe it is the end-all of everything. It isn't. Can't. Never will be. Theory of everything? It will take both science and spiritual understanding to make that happen.

Oops sorry. I didn't realize you had a conversation with Cat so I will butt out.

But the thing about science is that it admits, freely admits, that its theories and hypotheses are just that and does not pretend to be the end all like Christianity for instance. Christianity is quite arrogant with all its supposed knowledge of supernatural beings and judgment of others based upon little more than first century speculation and the storytelling of illiterates.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Wow. I'd love to know what that Kentucky comment is all about. But then we Kentuckians are used to bigoted stereotypes.

I don't believe that it is bigoted to observe that Kentucky is part of the so-called Bible belt. I'm from California and as a result I can feel free to be open about my atheism without running the risk of being publicly ostracized or abused. Which is not necessarily true in the Bible belt. Being openly atheistic in the Bible belt is much like being openly gay in the Bible belt. It brings with it risks of open hostility and the possibility of physical attack.

[cnorman18]

Oh? Tell me, how can a collection of oral traditions and legends, which often conflict to the point of being mutually exclusive, and that are from wildly differing sources with wildly differing agendas and approaches and attitudes, and which has not been read literally or slavishly obeyed for at least two thousand years (if ever), be "all about controlling the masses"? How can that be its "raison d'être"? How were "the masses" "controlled" by it, and who, specifically, was using it to "control" them? What is your historical and literary evidence for this? Can't wait to see it...

I like to stay close to the Bible in my religious discussions. Whether you consider that historical evidence or not depends I suppose. 2 Chronicles 34:14 and 2 Kings 22:8 tell of the "discovery" by the Levite priests of a Book of the Law in the Temple at Jerusalem. The Book of the Law which was "discovered" was Deuteronomy. This "discovery" of Deuteronomy, the existence of which was heretofore UNKNOWN, occurred in 621 B.C. during the reign of King Josiah (640-609 BC).

Book of Deuteronomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

Perhaps you ought to read a little beyond Wikipedia. The Torah (which was the subject of your comment, not Deuteronomy) is thought by scholars to have four major sources; the J, or Yahwist source; the E, or Elohist source; the P, or Priestly source; and D, the "Deuteronomist." This last, as you say, is thought to date from the time of King Josiah -- but the J source, the oldest, probably has its origins as early as the tenth century BCE. If you want to make your case about Deuteronomy alone, I'll concede that you probably have a point; but that's not what you said.

There are also fragments from much earlier times, thought to be such because of their peculiarly archaic Hebrew; the best known is the "Song of the Sea," which may well date from the time of the Exodus. And, yes, as I've also posted often enough, those narratives clearly contain real memories of real people about real events, though that is not to say that the accounts are literally accurate or anything like it. Suffice it to say that these old documents are neither straight-up fabrications nor objective historical reporting. They are oral traditions, as I said.

Anyway, all that aside, all of these four major sources and the many smaller ones had different agendas; yes, the P source was most interested in establishing the power of the hereditary priesthood, and the D source was interested in establishing the power of the hereditary kings. But the others had differing agendas, and if you're going to go to Chronicles and Kings, then I get to go to the prophets, who very often had little good to say about either the Temple priests OR the kings. The Hebrew Bible is a hodgepodge of conflicting documents which includes many types of literature besides pseudohistorical accounts and legislation, and that is true of much of the Torah too.

Like I said; conflicting agendas, conflicting narratives, conflicting sources. Anyone who says that the Bible is "all about" any one thing just doesn't know much about it. Sorry, but them's the facts. It's not even one book in the first place -- it's a collection of books that developed more or less organically and on its own, over the course of centuries.

Oh, and as far as people still buying into it; you must be talking about Christians again. The Temple has been gone for two thousand years, the hereditary priesthood no longer exists, and the Kings -- well, now, they seem to be gone too, and I doubt that the Knesset is considering restoring the Davidic Monarchy anytime soon. This is just a collection of old books now, and if anyone ever did concoct the whole thing out of whole cloth -- a concept than any legitimate Bible scholar would find laughable -- simply to "control the masses," it didn't work very well or for very long, now did it?

[catalyst]

Hey Kayky,

Yes I have heard and know of both Pantheism and Panentheism. I reckon Panentheism is pretty cool and a reasonable approach to a "god" concept and I can understand perhaps WHY it resonates with you so well, given your own personal experience as to the perception of what a "god" allegedly is.

By the same token, I hope you appreciate that through my own life experiences, even that concept falls short. Perhaps strange to you given your position, but none the less true for me.

For this same reason, I have never been one to diss other's "personal experiences" of what they perceive to be a "god experience" and what is NOT a "god experience". I DO have the mentality of what every floats someone's boat and it works for them, then they should go for it. In fact I am happy for you that you have found something in Panentheism that DOES work for you.

That said, IF someone claims their "TRUTH" IS an absolute to which I MUST comply... then... that's when my "inner bitch" comes out. (actually I have outer bitch too but she's not quite as blunt as the inner-bitch! lol) The fact is though and many people should perhaps start realising it, or at least try to understand it. In many cases there is no "NEED" to find a god concept to FIT "into". I personally am past the "need" to FIND a "god" explanation that's "right" for me. It really DOESN'T matter... again.. could have much to do with MY life experiences that have brought me to this place. I am comfy in my own skin and as such, I don't worry about my "eternity" and "like" things anymore.

I am though happy to explore anything others send my way as to what they perceive as right for them.

I hope that explanation made sense, Kayky.

Cat..xxx

I think everyone must follow his or her own truth. As a matter of fact, I think everyone has his or her own path to walk. I think it can be dangerous to interfere with that.

I agree with you but it seems that in many cases, things that the he or she adopt AS a "truth" is a suggested truth of anothers and not that of their OWN finding. As you stated it can be dangerous but also damaging and also confining for the person NOT being allowed to recognise their OWN truth - whether it be of self or of religious belief, or not.. if and when they eventually find it.

It might help you to know that my best friend's husband is an atheist, and he is one of the best people I've ever known.

It doesn't help me to know that to be honest with you Kayky as there are many "best people" I know too that are not atheists and some that are atheists too. The label though is irrelevant as they are GOOD, sweet kind...etc.. people regardless. I just tire of some supposed "god" belief or lack of "god" believe, being the thing that supposedly "defines" what is a nice/decent person.... and as such, you sharing with me that an atheist (of all things...shock ...horror) is one of the best people you have known... I read at least that it is some sort of element of surprise to you...that an atheist COULD be in your "best" category. If that was not what I was supposed to read from the comment, or perhaps not what you intended, could you perhaps tell me what I was supposed to read from it?



Cat.

[JoeyKnothead]

Wow. I'd love to know what that Kentucky comment is all about. But then we Kentuckians are used to bigoted stereotypes.

I don't believe that it is bigoted to observe that Kentucky is part of the so-called Bible belt. I'm from California and as a result I can feel free to be open about my atheism without running the risk of being publicly ostracized or abused. Which is not necessarily true in the Bible belt. Being openly atheistic in the Bible belt is much like being openly gay in the Bible belt. It brings with it risks of open hostility and the possibility of physical attack.

Unfortunately, stereotypes have a certain ring of truth to 'em, whether we hillbillies like the ones about us or not. I don't get upset about the ones I'm proud of, but become enraged when I don't belong to the one I'm being got onto about.

So, to Miss kayky, whom I respect and admire, I'd allow that Kentucky, where the state has thrown tax dollars at a religious outreach deal there - that whole Creation Museum Building an Ark deal - well, sometimes we're stuck with the short end of the stereotyping stick.

Thankfully, Miss kayky shows in her posts that she is not a 'typical' theist (however defined), nor a 'typical Kentuckian' (however defined) and that she seeks, through her posts and actions, to ensure that not all Kentuckians are as >insert derogatory term as example only< as some of us Georgians may think. And really, who from Georgia, or California, is so proud they'd down the folks from any other state in the Union? And dangit, it ain't a Union if we're still a-fightin' to be shed of it

I must say, having worked across Kentucky, they have their goofy'ns and their fat-brains, much like any community one may consider.

And they breed them some of the prettiest womenfolk this planet has to offer!

(clarificational edit)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Perhaps you ought to read a little beyond Wikipedia. The Torah (which was the subject of your comment, not Deuteronomy) is thought by scholars to have four major sources; the J, or Yahwist source; the E, or Elohist source; the P, or Priestly source; and D, the "Deuteronomist." This last, as you say, is thought to date from the time of King Josiah -- but the J source, the oldest, probably has its origins as early as the tenth century BCE. If you want to make your case about Deuteronomy alone, I'll concede that you probably have a point; but that's not what you said.

I fully understand about the J, E, P and D sources, and I am not arguing against them. Genesis and Exodus are concerned with Jewish tribal history, their national identity, and their national deity. Leviticus details the fealty of the Jewish nation to their God and his commands, the various sacrifices that are required, and the requirements and position of the Levites in the rituals and within Jewish society as a whole. Numbers essentially finishes the story of the Exodus, defines the relationship between God and his chosen people, and specifies how to divide up the conquered lands amongst the tribes. The Levites, as the priestly class, are excluded from acting as soldiers, given no inheritance of lands to work, but instead are put in charge of the Tabernacle (Numbers 4: 2-4), and accorded wealth:

Num.31:
1. And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.
2. Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.

The Levites have no inheritance of lands to work but are instead given cities to reside in:

Num.35:
1. Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them.
2. And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about.
3. And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities.
4. So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs.
5. And the cities which ye shall give shall be of the possession of the children of Israel: from them that have many ye shall give many; but from them that have few ye shall give few: every one shall give of his cities unto the Levites according to his inheritance which he inheriteth.

Leviticus makes it even better for the Levites.

Lev.25
1. Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time.
2. And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubile: for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel.

A very sweet deal for the Levites all in all. Coincidentally, the P or priestly source can be discerned wending it's way through all of the first four books of the law.

And then there is Deuteronomy, the "D" source. Deuteronomy disallows the practice of making sacrifices "in high places" other than the place which God has chosen. By the time Deuteronomy was "discovered," some 600 or 700 years after the time of Moses, the place which God has chosen was the temple in Jerusalem. Now everyone is required to trek to Jerusalem to make their sacrifices, bringing with them the very finest which they have produced. And once the goods have been consecrated they become the property of the Levites. Again, a remarkably sweet deal for the priests. Deuteronomy also sanctifies the position of King, a position which had never existed amongst the Israelites during Moses' time or before, and establishes that the King is the chosen of God. Quite a boon for the king.

My original point was that the Torah ABSOLUTELY IS all about the priests controlling the masses. If that is not clear enough in the first four books, it becomes blatantly clear in Deuteronomy.

Oh, and as far as people still buying into it; you must be talking about Christians again. The Temple has been gone for two thousand years, the hereditary priesthood no longer exists, and the Kings -- well, now, they seem to be gone too, and I doubt that the Knesset is considering restoring the Davidic Monarchy anytime soon. This is just a collection of old books now, and if anyone ever did concoct the whole thing out of whole cloth -- a concept than any legitimate Bible scholar would find laughable -- simply to "control the masses," it didn't work very well or for very long, now did it?

Christians are certainly buying into it by the hundreds of millions, I agree. Muslims too, for that matter. But not the Jews? Is that your position? That's going to come as something of a shock for all of the Hasidim and the Haredi and the rest of the ulta-orthodox Jews to discover. They still seem to be still buying into the "teaching," the Torah Shebichtav, quite fiercely.

[alive]

Waiting4evidence;

Your statement is not entirely true, for the Atheist has made up their mind that there is no god, which is to me, as absurd as someone making up their mind there is one.

Agnosticism is our better choice, I simply admit that I do not know whether there is or is not a god. I weigh the data before me, have my personal ideas and hopes, but at the end of the day I know that I do not really know.

False. The atheist has NOT made up his mind that God doesn't exist. The atheist has just made up his mind that the evidence presented to him thus far is insufficient to determine that God exists. If new evidence is discovered, we'd be happy to look at it and change our opinion on the existence of God.

Thats my thought process...There may very well be something we could all consider a God...Im just 100% sure its none of the Gods humans talk about now in their palces of worship or in their holy books exist or ever have... If Any of those gods existed we all would know and faith would not be required...A all powerful god that created all would never require a faith for its existance... It would just be...