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?

[bernee51]

Obviously the definition of Atheism is not understood here.
Greek (atheos), meaning "without god", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

Nor would it appear to be understood here. Rejection of god may be an aspect of some atheists but it is not a pre-requisite for atheism.

Simply put...

theists hold a belief in existence of god(s)
atheist do not hold a belief in the existence of god(s)

Atheists REJECT any & all Theism, IMO they are as guilty as Theists in rendering their conclusion based on Faith and not the Known.

Your straw man is noted.

I do not believe in god(s) because I know of no need or reason for, nor have i seen any evidence of, any god(s)

I do not claim to KNOW that gods do or do not exist. I do know that some god concepts are illogical and therefor cannot exist.

Where is the 'faith' in that?

If You have a skeptical uncertainty about Faith/Religion that does NOT make you an Atheist, for Atheists have decided there is no Faith/Religion, no gods.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it any more valid.

Those that question and are skeptical fall into what is defined as Agnostic.
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek (a), meaning "without", and (gn�sis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869.

Exactly. And I would warrant that many, if not all theists, are agnostic because, when push comes to shove every theist I have met, while they may hold a BELIEF in god they do not claim to KNOW with any certainty that their particular god exists as anything more than the concept that they hold.

I hope that clears things for you.

[Ankhhape]

Obviously the definition of Atheism is not understood here.
Greek (atheos), meaning "without god", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

Atheists REJECT any & all Theism, IMO they are as guilty as Theists in rendering their conclusion based on Faith and not the Known.

If You have a skeptical uncertainty about Faith/Religion that does NOT make you an Atheist, for Atheists have decided there is no Faith/Religion, no gods.

Those that question and are skeptical fall into what is defined as Agnostic.
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek (a), meaning "without", and (gn�sis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869.

Then by Huxley's definition, it could mean an agnostic can only be one who has not heard of ANY "god" model, whether it be the Abrahamic one or otherwise.

That is why I personally say that I AM agnostic, IN MY atheism, to those god models I know nothing about or nothing of. I cannot make ANY determining on something that I don't know to "exist" (even if that "existence" is originally in the minds of others and then forwarded on to me via oral or written example). It is only from the acknowledgement that OTHERS believe something, that I can then research and check it out and make an assessment as to whether it IS viable or not. IF someone... a believer IN some "god" wants to tackle me on their particular "chosen" god model as being the FAIR DINKS, then it is up to them to provide evidence to support that their "god" IS what they claim it is. I am open to new info... I have not seen ANY of them scurrying to show WHAT they believe IS right though.... purely because MANY of them actually don't research anything more than what they have been conditioned to believe... "is so".

I have though and with all confidence, I can say that the god models I HAVE been presented with, don't fill the bill of WHAT, even by the "believers" believe, FIT WHAT they WANT to believe IS "THE" god. he/she it... ALWAYS falls short, even of their OWN promotional material.

So, where do I "sit" in your conclusion Ankhhape as to this supposed "guilt" I am purported to be harbouring over the "unknown"? I accept that I don't know anything of the UNKNOWN.... of the "KNOWN" though... different story.

So....from YOUR observation, would I be "considered" an atheist or not?

I would also be interested in where you personally sit on this "label table" and WHY.

Thank you


Catalyst.

In my opinion, you are Agnostic. Because you admit that you "don't know". Because you have weighed the information presented to you and decided for yourself that the information is inconclusive does not make you an Atheist. An Atheist is as blind as his opponent the Theist, in that they have based their decision on Faith and not fact.

This all goes out the window of course when one puts into perspective the concept of gods, angels, demons, etc., from a Jungian psychological view and one of which much of the occult world understands and agrees with.

That gods, devils, angels, demons, etc., are archetypal images embedded deeply in the unconsciousness, they are thought-forms and memetic in nature. They are brought to our surface/consciousness through symbolism and desire.

In light of this viewpoint, one can readily accept the idea that a god indeed does exist, because archetypal structures exist, unlike the objective universe, full of limitations and finite physics, there are no limitations in our subjective universe, and all is infinite (unless desired to not be finite).

what the heck did I just say?

[Ankhhape]

Obviously the definition of Atheism is not understood here.
Greek (atheos), meaning "without god", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

Nor would it appear to be understood here. Rejection of god may be an aspect of some atheists but it is not a pre-requisite for atheism.

Simply put...

theists hold a belief in existence of god(s)
atheist do not hold a belief in the existence of god(s)

Atheists REJECT any & all Theism, IMO they are as guilty as Theists in rendering their conclusion based on Faith and not the Known.

Your straw man is noted.

I do not believe in god(s) because I know of no need or reason for, nor have i seen any evidence of, any god(s)

I do not claim to KNOW that gods do or do not exist. I do know that some god concepts are illogical and therefor cannot exist.

Where is the 'faith' in that?

If You have a skeptical uncertainty about Faith/Religion that does NOT make you an Atheist, for Atheists have decided there is no Faith/Religion, no gods.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it any more valid.

Those that question and are skeptical fall into what is defined as Agnostic.
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek (a), meaning "without", and (gn�sis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869.

Exactly. And I would warrant that many, if not all theists, are agnostic because, when push comes to shove every theist I have met, while they may hold a BELIEF in god they do not claim to KNOW with any certainty that their particular god exists as anything more than the concept that they hold.

I hope that clears things for you.

Being that you just reiterated what I was saying all along . . . yes, it helped 'clear things for me'

[Goat]

Funny how when differences in Christian belief arise, we hear that you therefore can't be sure which is correct. Wouldn't that also be true of the differing varieties of skeptism?

Who is saying which one is correct, or not correct? What the definitions show is merely a description of belief/disbelief and 'knowledge/lack of knowledge.' Your question is off base.

[bernee51]

Obviously the definition of Atheism is not understood here.
Greek (atheos), meaning "without god", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

Nor would it appear to be understood here. Rejection of god may be an aspect of some atheists but it is not a pre-requisite for atheism.

Simply put...

theists hold a belief in existence of god(s)
atheist do not hold a belief in the existence of god(s)

Atheists REJECT any & all Theism, IMO they are as guilty as Theists in rendering their conclusion based on Faith and not the Known.

Your straw man is noted.

I do not believe in god(s) because I know of no need or reason for, nor have i seen any evidence of, any god(s)

I do not claim to KNOW that gods do or do not exist. I do know that some god concepts are illogical and therefor cannot exist.

Where is the 'faith' in that?

If You have a skeptical uncertainty about Faith/Religion that does NOT make you an Atheist, for Atheists have decided there is no Faith/Religion, no gods.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it any more valid.

Those that question and are skeptical fall into what is defined as Agnostic.
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek (a), meaning "without", and (gn�sis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869.

Exactly. And I would warrant that many, if not all theists, are agnostic because, when push comes to shove every theist I have met, while they may hold a BELIEF in god they do not claim to KNOW with any certainty that their particular god exists as anything more than the concept that they hold.

I hope that clears things for you.

Being that you just reiterated what I was saying all along . . . yes, it helped 'clear things for me'

The first para of your response to Cat indicates that it is not clear to you...

You wrote: In my opinion, you are Agnostic. Because you admit that you "don't know". Because you have weighed the information presented to you and decided for yourself that the information is inconclusive does not make you an Atheist. An Atheist is as blind as his opponent the Theist, in that they have based their decision on Faith and not fact.

Cat, like myself, does not believe in god(s) - that makes us atheist. Neither of us admit to knowing that god does not exist, that makes us agnostic.

We are agnostic atheists.

Slopeshoulder, a theist on this forum, would admit that he believes god exists - that is why he is a theist. However I am pretty certain he does not claim to know that god exists. In this he is agnostic.

He is an agnostic theist.

Atheism and agnosticism are not on the same continuum.

I hope now you have some clarity.

[Ankhhape]

"bernee51
We are agnostic atheists.
I hope now you have some clarity.

That's very funny . . . problem is that you can't be both.

I don't care what YOUR definitions are, I will quote from a dictionary of scholar and deemed worthy.

Merriam Webster Dictionary (a division of the Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Definition of ATHEISM
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2) a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2) a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

At this point I really can't make it any clearer to you that you are either one or the other, or Theistic, you cannot be both, or all three.

[bernee51]

We are agnostic atheists.
I hope now you have some clarity.

That's very funny . . . problem is that you can't be both.

I can and I am...

I don't care what YOUR definitions are, I will quote from a dictionary of scholar and deemed worthy.

Which scholar? Deemed worthy? By whom?

Definition of ATHEISM
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2) a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2) a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

At this point I really can't make it any clearer to you that you are either one or the other, or Theistic, you cannot be both, or all three.

I beg to differ: from wiki

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. .... Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

And:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Do you belive god exists (other than as a human construct)? If not do you claim to KNOW that god does not exists (or otherwise)?

If the answer to the first question is no, then you are an atheist. If the answer to the second is also no then you are also an agnostic.

The first has to do with belief, the second with knowledge. As I stated in my previous post...the two, atheism and agnosticism, are not on the same continuum.

I also take issue with the 2b. of you definition of atheism. It is not a doctrine.

A doctrine is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.

The defintion of agnosticism you present is also fallacious in that it confuses knowledge and beleif.

[Ankhhape]

bernee51[/url]
Do you belive god exists (other than as a human construct)? If not do you claim to KNOW that god does not exists (or otherwise)?

a) No, I do not 'believe' god exists other than as a human construct.
b) I do not know.

If the answer to the first question is no, then you are an atheist. If the answer to the second is also no then you are also an agnostic.

I disagree, I am agnostic and I have my beliefs. I don't reject anything as an Atheist would.

I also take issue with the 2b. of you definition of atheism.

The defintion of agnosticism you present is also fallacious in that it confuses knowledge and beleif.

Well, you're not arguing with me really here, but rather with the Merriam Webster Dictionary which is a division of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

[bernee51]

bernee51[/url]
Do you believe god exists (other than as a human construct)? If not do you claim to KNOW that god does not exists (or otherwise)?

a) No, I do not 'believe' god exists other than as a human construct.
b) I do not know.

If the answer to the first question is no, then you are an atheist. If the answer to the second is also no then you are also an agnostic.

I disagree, I am agnostic and I have my beliefs. I don't reject anything as an Atheist would.

Above you claim to not believe in god - that makes you an atheist.

What 'beliefs' make you an agnostic?

Much as I hate risking a false dichotomy, either you have a belief in god or you do not, there is no middle path

The defintion of agnosticism you present is also fallacious in that it confuses knowledge and belief.

Well, you're not arguing with me really here, but rather with the Merriam Webster Dictionary which is a division of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

I prefer the Oxford Dictionary myself.

agnostic

atheist

here is another way of looking at it......

[Ankhhape]

bernee51[/url]
Do you believe god exists (other than as a human construct)? If not do you claim to KNOW that god does not exists (or otherwise)?

a) No, I do not 'believe' god exists other than as a human construct.
b) I do not know.

If the answer to the first question is no, then you are an atheist. If the answer to the second is also no then you are also an agnostic.

I disagree, I am agnostic and I have my beliefs. I don't reject anything as an Atheist would.

Above you claim to not believe in god - that makes you an atheist.

What 'beliefs' make you an agnostic?

Much as I hate risking a false dichotomy, either you have a belief in god or you do not, there is no middle path

The defintion of agnosticism you present is also fallacious in that it confuses knowledge and belief.

Well, you're not arguing with me really here, but rather with the Merriam Webster Dictionary which is a division of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

I prefer the Oxford Dictionary myself.

agnostic

atheist

here is another way of looking at it......

Very interesting, although you state that "you either believe in a god, or not" you then post information that grey-lines all the areas into partial beliefs.

I believe that some people believe there is a god, I believe that their belief in a god is nothing more than an archetypal structure and can very well exist to the person that believes in it (as do all archetypal images).

We are allowed our own paradigms, I just don't have to agree with them.
Does this make it any less or more real? What IS reality?