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?

[Flail]

It's worth noting that I myself am a convert -- 30-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister -- and I converted for precisely the kind of reasons that Goat speaks of here. My conversion was intellectually based, not emotional.

This I find intensely interesting. Presumably as a Jewish convert you reached the conclusion that Jesus is not a deity. By process of elimination therefore you no longer believe in the resurrection. What led you, a former Christian minister, to reach such a conclusion? I only ask because I reached the same conclusion myself at about age 13. But I was never a minister.

My thinking was rather from the other direction. I had always been interested in the Jewish understanding of religious and other matters, even from childhood (I was told I had a "Jewish sense of humor" before I was twelve, and told that I had a "Talmudic mind" not long thereafter). It was clear to me pretty early on that Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah, and that Messiah and Christ were two very different offices -- just as Judaism and Christianity are two very different religions. We share a common historical heritage, in that Jesus and many early Christians were Jews; a largely common ethic; and of course we share a body of common literature, though we read it in very different and often mutually exclusive ways. But other than that, the two faiths have little in common. They have different goals, different priorities, and different attitudes and teachings about almost every matter of "religious concern" from the nature of God and the authority of Scripture to the nature (or existence) of an Afterlife.

I have embraced the Jewish community and the Jewish approach to life and religion. My opinion on the Resurrection is no longer of any particular importance, of course, but since you ask, it was not a factor in my leaving the Christian faith, and in fact has not changed. Very many liberal Christians, particularly those who have been seminary-educated and are familiar with modern Christian theology, no longer regard the Resurrection as necessarily an objectively factual and historical event. It is often said that the "Historical Jesus" if of minor importance to the Christian religion; it is the "Christ of faith" that matters. This is nothing new. Rudolf Bultmann spoke of "demythologizing" the New Testament in the 1920s. That's really pretty routine, among mainline Protestant ministers.

My conversion to Judaism, in short, did not entail a negation of Christianity; like most Jews, I do not regard Christianity (or Islam, or any other faith, for that matter) as a "false religion." I say that it is not MY religion, and that's about as far as I go.

We're speaking here of "doctrinal" matters, of course, those of "proper belief." Judaism has no prescribed "doctrines" or "beliefs," and regards that whole business as trivial, unimportant, and a matter of personal taste. As I have put it among my Jewish friends as well as on this forum (to appreciative laughter from both), "Your new wife doesn't believe in God? That's not a problem. She serves the gefilte fish hot?!? Oy! Let's talk..."

But when it comes to the practices of other religions or sects, we feel free to comment as we choose. Picketing funerals to serve an agenda of vicious homophobic bigotry, for instance, is clearly wrong; whether or not faith in Jesus can save Christians from their sins -- on that, I have no comment and no opinion. Not my business, not my concern. "Maybe." As with most other matters, we leave judgment to God.

Well stated. Because of your previous posts on this topic I have become more familiar with Judaism over the past year and am much impressed. I am continually amazed that most Christians here in the bible belt still adhere to the idea that the Resurrection and Virgin Birth are factual. Despite exhibiting a healthy skepticism in many other areas of their lives (buying a home, a car, or listening to Obama) they are apt to chop off your head if you so much as question their belief in anonymous religious propaganda from the first century.

[cnorman18]

Well stated. Because of your previous posts on this topic I have become more familiar with Judaism over the past year and am much impressed. I am continually amazed that most Christians here in the bible belt still adhere to the idea that the Resurrection and Virgin Birth are factual. Despite exhibiting a healthy skepticism in many other areas of their lives (buying a home, a car, or listening to Obama) they are apt to chop off your head if you so much as question their belief in anonymous religious propaganda from the first century.

Thanks very much. I suppose that what you say is true to a certain extent; on the other hand, as is also characteristic of many Jews, I can't say I think it matters very much. There was a time when I, too, believed in all those old legends, but I can't see that it affected my life in any significant way -- just my inner life, which is only important insofar as it affects the outer. I was just as committed to peace, justice, compassion, and allathat when I was a fundamentalist (a few months) as I was before and since.

I believe, and always have, that a person is a good person -- charitable, kind, positive, compassionate and desirous of making other feel good, as opposed to self-righteous, condemnatory and negative, focused on the SINS and FAULTS of others and ignoring their own -- whatever such good people choose to believe is OK with me. I have known a lot of Mormons; they hold some pretty bizarre beliefs, but so what? I've never known a Mormon who wasn't kind and good and dedicated to his or her family and to making this a better world. Their mental constructs about the nature of some hypothetical Heaven and their odd beliefs about stuff that supposedly happened a couple of millennia back don't strike me as particularly important. We may disagree on how to MAKE a better world -- that is, we may disagree politically -- but that's qualitatively different from the desire to force others to believe and practice as one does oneself.

Political agreement or disagreement is not guaranteed by belief either -- ANY belief. That well-known Pew survey proves that, and conclusively. Maybe that's not so important either; I know a lot of Jews, and humanists, whose beliefs are just as rational and balanced, in my view, as my own, and with whose political positions I largely agree -- but who still succeed in being pompous, self-absorbed, annoying jerks who leave a trail of negative energy and ill feeling behind them wherever they go. (For the record, I am sure there are Mormon jerks too. Just haven't met any myself.)

Which leads to this: I have to point out that all that about being "condemnatory and negative, focused on the SINS and FAULTS of others and ignoring their own" and having a "desire to force others to believe and practice as one does oneself" also include passing judgments on the immaterial and largely irrelevant things that others BELIEVE as well. To be honest, if an atheist is focused on beating up theists of WHATEVER variety just on the basis of their BELIEFS, I don't think that's any more admirable than fundamentalists beating up on others because of their differing beliefs, or lack of any beliefs at all. I'd rather have a beer with a personable Mormon than with a shrill, strident militant atheist.

Well, coffee then. Or a Coke. Okay, a nice lemonade...

As I've said for some years here: It's useful to distinguish between belief systems that tend to have toxic effects and those that don't, but attacking religious belief in general and per se seems to me rather pointless. Some varieties of religious belief are positive in every sense, and many are harmless. I kinda like my own, and have nothing to say about the beliefs of others. How they BEHAVE, yeah.

Someone once said that the Jewish religion boils down to "BE GOOD -- and you do, too, know what that means." Oh, and that has nothing to do with going to Heaven or helping others to go to Heaven. That whole business is best left to God. If I've been hired to make widgets, where they get shipped is above my pay grade.

[Flail]

Well stated. Because of your previous posts on this topic I have become more familiar with Judaism over the past year and am much impressed. I am continually amazed that most Christians here in the bible belt still adhere to the idea that the Resurrection and Virgin Birth are factual. Despite exhibiting a healthy skepticism in many other areas of their lives (buying a home, a car, or listening to Obama) they are apt to chop off your head if you so much as question their belief in anonymous religious propaganda from the first century.

Thanks very much. I suppose that what you say is true to a certain extent; on the other hand, as is also characteristic of many Jews, I can't say I think it matters very much. There was a time when I, too, believed in all those old legends, but I can't see that it affected my life in any significant way -- just my inner life, which is only important insofar as it affects the outer. I was just as committed to peace, justice, compassion, and allathat when I was a fundamentalist (a few months) as I was before and since.

I believe, and always have, that a person is a good person -- charitable, kind, positive, compassionate and desirous of making other feel good, as opposed to self-righteous, condemnatory and negative, focused on the SINS and FAULTS of others and ignoring their own -- whatever such good people choose to believe is OK with me. I have known a lot of Mormons; they hold some pretty bizarre beliefs, but so what? I've never known a Mormon who wasn't kind and good and dedicated to his or her family and to making this a better world. Their mental constructs about the nature of some hypothetical Heaven and their odd beliefs about stuff that supposedly happened a couple of millennia back don't strike me as particularly important. We may disagree on how to MAKE a better world -- that is, we may disagree politically -- but that's qualitatively different from the desire to force others to believe and practice as one does oneself.

Political agreement or disagreement is not guaranteed by belief either -- ANY belief. That well-known Pew survey proves that, and conclusively. Maybe that's not so important either; I know a lot of Jews, and humanists, whose beliefs are just as rational and balanced, in my view, as my own, and with whose political positions I largely agree -- but who still succeed in being pompous, self-absorbed, annoying jerks who leave a trail of negative energy and ill feeling behind them wherever they go. (For the record, I am sure there are Mormon jerks too. Just haven't met any myself.)

Which leads to this: I have to point out that all that about being "condemnatory and negative, focused on the SINS and FAULTS of others and ignoring their own" and having a "desire to force others to believe and practice as one does oneself" also include passing judgments on the immaterial and largely irrelevant things that others BELIEVE as well. To be honest, if an atheist is focused on beating up theists of WHATEVER variety just on the basis of their BELIEFS, I don't think that's any more admirable than fundamentalists beating up on others because of their differing beliefs, or lack of any beliefs at all. I'd rather have a beer with a personable Mormon than with a shrill, strident militant atheist.

Well, coffee then. Or a Coke. Okay, a nice lemonade...

As I've said for some years here: It's useful to distinguish between belief systems that tend to have toxic effects and those that don't, but attacking religious belief in general and per se seems to me rather pointless. Some varieties of religious belief are positive in every sense, and many are harmless. I kinda like my own, and have nothing to say about the beliefs of others. How they BEHAVE, yeah.

Someone once said that the Jewish religion boils down to "BE GOOD -- and you do, too, know what that means." Oh, and that has nothing to do with going to Heaven or helping others to go to Heaven. That whole business is best left to God. If I've been hired to make widgets, where they get shipped is above my pay grade.

I see your point of course, but I will not hesitate to rally against verse based fundamentalism wherever I meet it whether from Muslims or Christians. I respect most any belief that understands it as a philosophy or even a mystical, sacred experience, but I think it dangerous to train children to think that ancient scripture has anything to do with magical supernatural beings. It too easily sets them up to follow the dictates of weird holy men. It's just not good for the world. It's backwards and akin to witchcraft IMO. Such beliefs and their indoctrination into young minds have gotten a pass for far too long, which is why I think they persist.

I am sure you have observed otherwise good people in this forum who have judged total strangers as abominable and unworthy of 'God' by virtue of some trained superstition that is verse based. It's weird and I think it's got to stop at some point; and calling such beliefs irrelevant is a bad call IMO.

[cnorman18]

I see your point of course, but I will not hesitate to rally against verse based fundamentalism wherever I meet it whether from Muslims or Christians. I respect most any belief that understands it as a philosophy or even a mystical, sacred experience, but I think it dangerous to train children to think that ancient scripture has anything to do with magical supernatural beings. It too easily sets them up to follow the dictates of weird holy men. It's just not good for the world. It's backwards and akin to witchcraft IMO. Such beliefs and their indoctrination into young minds have gotten a pass for far too long, which is why I think they persist.

And I see YOUR point, but let's not overstate the case. We've discussed your, er, focus on the word "indoctrination" before, which I'll say again is just a negative buzzword that means "teaching something I don't like." Most parents simply share their own beliefs with their children, and that isn't going to stop, and shouldn't. Any cure for that "problem" will be orders of magnitude worse than the "disease."

Further, holding a belief that supernatural events once happened a long time ago but don't any more isn't mutually exclusive with critical thinking and common sense. That's a pretty common approach; "The age of the prophets is over" is even a formal teaching in most mainstream religious traditions. If someone is preaching miracles-for-cash and/or claiming to be a personal spokesman for God in the present day, that's quite another kettle of fish -- and you'll usually see all the negative traits I've mentioned in the same venue.

Like I said, speak out against toxic religion all you like; but don't assume that ALL religion, or even all "conservative" or "evangelical" religion, is necessarily toxic. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister.

I am sure you have observed otherwise good people in this forum who have judged total strangers as abominable and unworthy of 'God' by virtue of some trained superstition that is verse based. It's weird and I think it's got to stop at some point; and calling such beliefs irrelevant is a bad call IMO.

That's not the sort of belief that I was calling "irrelevant." That sounds rather more like being "self-righteous, condemnatory and negative, focused on the SINS and FAULTS of others and ignoring their own." And whenever you want to speak out against that sort of thing, you'll find me standing behind you.

[scourge99]

Who is this "we" you claim to speak for and categorically impugn?

I'm referring to the whole human race, myself included.

I am part if the human race and i explained how i do not believe that science is the "end all of everything." I'm curious what makes you think such a mentality is so widespread. If we were to query atheists and theists on this board how many would agree that science is the "end all of everything"? According to your statements, you believe most would agree. I think you are mistaken. Shall we put it to the test?

As for myself, i do not believe science is the end all of everything. I do KNOW that it is demonstrably THE most reliable tool for understanding and predicting the world we live in. And i know of no other tool that comes even close.

It absolutely is the best tool for understanding the physical universe. The mistake is made when it is assumed that it is the only way to know.

The only way to know "what" exactly? Your statement is suspiciously vague.

To some, the mind is not physical yet the scientific method is still applicable. For example, Psychology is grounded in the scientific method. So the science is not just applicable to the physical.

What other tools/methods do you propose for figuring out how things works? How does one verify the accuracy of these other tools/methods?

And in contrast to your beliefs, scientific studies have taught me that abnormal personal experiences should be treated with the upmost skepticism and suspicion. Not as some personal revelation of truth. Scientific investigation has demonstrated that abnormal personal experiences are almost always the product of a personal error of some sort.

Of course this is true. Such experiences should be approached with a great deal of study and discipline. But it would be wrong for you to say that there is no such thing as true spiritual experience.

"spiritual experience" is a term that, in my experience, means radically different things to different people such that it is nearly meaningless.

What is a "spiritual experience" to you exactly? How do I or you distinguish a spiritual experience from a non-spiritual experience? What is a"true spiritual experience"? Are there false spiritual experiences?

I have experienced sensations of awe, wonder, excitement, anxiety, bliss, etc. But i don't see what these have to do with a spirit or soul except in a metaphorical or non-literal sense.

You can reach a level of emotional and spiritual maturity in which such experiences can be trusted.

What is "emotional maturity"? Is it the recognition of one's emotions and the discipline to not be overwhelmed by them? How does emotional maturity support claims of "spiritual experiences?

What is "spiritual maturity"?

What you appear to be saying is that if you already believe in some particular woo-woo about spiritual experiences then when you have certain experiences you will attribute those experiences to whatever woo-woo you believe in. But how is a skeptic or non-believer supposed to arrive at these conclusions? Just believe or take it on faith? What made you so certain your experiences are "spiritual" and not just plain old experiences and emotions?

How does one get from "i had an emotional private experience in my head" to "therefore this must be or is probably associated with a particular god, other realm of existence, or "spiritual" beings?

visit to JREF website provides ample evidence of the mistakes and illusions many succumb to when they over rely on personal experiences about the REAL WORLD that cannot be corroborated.

And yet if you demand corroboration for every such experience, you cut yourself off from a great deal of human experience.

No. Not at all. Recognizing faulty conclusions and erroneous inferences about your experiences does not diminish the experiences. The "spiritual" experiences still happen whether your explanations about them are true or false.

E.G., if tomorrow we discover our ideas about gravity are wrong, that doesn't mean apples will start floating in mid-air.

The spiritual life is risky, but for me it has been well worth it.

What are you risking?

Care to explain how you KNOW this? Is it just a guess?

I find it unwise to predict what we may or may not discover in the future unless its grounded on solid reason and evidence. And i find no solid reason or evidence to suggest we will or will not find a "theory of everything".

It is more than a guess but not quite a prophecy either! If there is a spiritual aspect to the universe (and having experienced it personally on more than one occasion, I believe it to be so), science is not equipped to discover it.

Its not what you believe that is of importance here. Its why you believe it and how can any interested party verify it.

So far you have explained your beliefs but have yet to explain how anyone else can verify the truth of what you say. Furthermore, you have yet to explain why your personal experiences indicate any of this "spiritual" stuff in the first place.

[Flail]

I see your point of course, but I will not hesitate to rally against verse based fundamentalism wherever I meet it whether from Muslims or Christians. I respect most any belief that understands it as a philosophy or even a mystical, sacred experience, but I think it dangerous to train children to think that ancient scripture has anything to do with magical supernatural beings. It too easily sets them up to follow the dictates of weird holy men. It's just not good for the world. It's backwards and akin to witchcraft IMO. Such beliefs and their indoctrination into young minds have gotten a pass for far too long, which is why I think they persist.

And I see YOUR point, but let's not overstate the case. We've discussed your, er, focus on the word "indoctrination" before, which I'll say again is just a negative buzzword that means "teaching something I don't like." Most parents simply share their own beliefs with their children, and that isn't going to stop, and shouldn't. Any cure for that "problem" will be orders of magnitude worse than the "disease."

Further, holding a belief that supernatural events once happened a long time ago but don't any more isn't mutually exclusive with critical thinking and common sense. That's a pretty common approach; "The age of the prophets is over" is even a formal teaching in most mainstream religious traditions. If someone is preaching miracles-for-cash and/or claiming to be a personal spokesman for God in the present day, that's quite another kettle of fish -- and you'll usually see all the negative traits I've mentioned in the same venue.

Like I said, speak out against toxic religion all you like; but don't assume that ALL religion, or even all "conservative" or "evangelical" religion, is necessarily toxic. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister.

I am sure you have observed otherwise good people in this forum who have judged total strangers as abominable and unworthy of 'God' by virtue of some trained superstition that is verse based. It's weird and I think it's got to stop at some point; and calling such beliefs irrelevant is a bad call IMO.

That's not the sort of belief that I was calling "irrelevant." That sounds rather more like being "self-righteous, condemnatory and negative, focused on the SINS and FAULTS of others and ignoring their own." And whenever you want to speak out against that sort of thing, you'll find me standing behind you.

I don't believe I over state the case....I have before I admit...but I'm learning....as I stated, I respect all religions as philosophy or mystical unexplained experience with something other....but I WAS indoctrinated and I HAVE experienced indoctrination thru many, many other Christian men, women and children. It happens in Islam and in Christianity to a far greater degree than you might imagine. It occurs here in the bible belt every single Sunday in Church and in Sunday school and each summer in Bible school. It's insidious.

Indoctrination: to teach a set of un-evidenced beliefs and to require that they be accepted uncritically.

I don't have any better way to say it.

[cnorman18]

I don't believe I over state the case....I have before I admit...but I'm learning....as I stated, I respect all religions as philosophy or mystical unexplained experience with something other....but I WAS indoctrinated and I HAVE experienced indoctrination thru many, many other Christian men, women and children. It happens in Islam and in Christianity to a far greater degree than you might imagine. It occurs here in the bible belt every single Sunday in Church and in Sunday school and each summer in Bible school. It's insidious.

Hey, I grew up in a small town in Texas. You're not telling me anything I don't know. All I mean to say is that even Southern Baptists can be tolerant and reasonable people. I think that's truer of the SBs than of Pentecostals, but I never said that all religions were benign, either.

Indoctrination: to teach a set of un-evidenced beliefs...

Not to open another can of worms, but that would include a LOT of political, philosophical and social beliefs as well as religious ones. Religion isn't the only issue with those problems. It's no accident that Southern churches tend to be more toxic than Northern ones; it's as much a matter of the social milieu and the culture as of specific religious beliefs.

...and to require that they be accepted uncritically.

I don't have any better way to say it.

That way will do, and it's that last part that's the problem, in my opinion. But I'd add that once one passes the age of twelve or so, that "accepted uncritically" part can't be depended upon, and therefore "indoctrination" can't be blamed for toxic beliefs. When adults stay stupid, it's on them.

[catalyst]

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.

No, please read my comments again. I stated that I cannot do any evaluation on god models I don't know of. Don't know and don't know OF are completely different things. Those that have been presented to me however, I deny the actual existence of, because I HAVE come to the conclusion that they cannot exist in actuality. I don't even have "faith" that there MIGHT be some "god models" out there I have no information on or about at all. THAT is a bridge I will cross when/IF it ever happens. It has not as yet and I highly doubt it ever will.

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.

There are certain elements of Jungian psychology I see viability in, but the above however, is not the case... at least in the way you have presented the thought.

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?

I have no issue with stating that "gods" exist in the minds of some, but again, their ACTUAL... objective universal existence ?? NOPE. As such, I agree with your take in the above paragraph.

Thank you. It has been a pleasure interacting with you thus far.

Catalyst.

[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.

No, please read my comments again. I stated that I cannot do any evaluation on god models I don't know of. Don't know and don't know OF are completely different things. Those that have been presented to me however, I deny the actual existence of, because I HAVE come to the conclusion that they cannot exist in actuality. I don't even have "faith" that there MIGHT be some "god models" out there I have no information on or about at all. THAT is a bridge I will cross when/IF it ever happens. It has not as yet and I highly doubt it ever will.

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.

There are certain elements of Jungian psychology I see viability in, but the above however, is not the case... at least in the way you have presented the thought.

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?

I have no issue with stating that "gods" exist in the minds of some, but again, their ACTUAL... objective universal existence ?? NOPE. As such, I agree with your take in the above paragraph.

Thank you. It has been a pleasure interacting with you thus far.

Catalyst.

Excuse my short-sightedness, I realize I must have read your post incorrectly.
In this Light . . . you are an Atheist.

Let me ask you then . . . your statement "Don't know and don't know OF are completely different things". though technically true, still don't explain whether something exists or doesn't. KNOWING is the only way.

How then, do you conclude they don't exist?

[catalyst]

Hello Ankhape,

Thank you for your reply.


You wrote:

Excuse my short-sightedness, I realize I must have read your post incorrectly.
In this Light . . . you are an Atheist.

No need for that. All's good.

Let me ask you then . . . your statement "Don't know and don't know OF are completely different things". though technically true, still don't explain whether something exists or doesn't. KNOWING is the only way.

How then, do you conclude they don't exist?

That I cannot conclude, of those "god models" I don't know of. I may think they "may" exist in some form (whether in the mind of someone else.. or not). By the same token, I cannot be "up in the air" on something that has NOT been presented to me AS existing. Hence admittedly being agnostic in reference to that I don't know OF. That said, I am not arrogant enough to assume that the god models I DO know of, are the ONLY ones others minds have conjured. IF or when they are presented to me though, I can through researching any alleged background relating TO that "god model", the viability of it or not in ACTUALITY.

I have cast away multiple god models I know of through this process, and the thing is, the "believers" in the god models I HAVE researched are never able to back their "belief" up any further by giving more information out to explore. Again, I can ONLY go by the information provided ON the god model.

The closest thing I have ever got to a viable god model was that of Nummoh... (DOGON GODESS) and even she fell short of even the "believers" expectations of what and who she was. In all though, she was pretty fab, just not viable in objective actuality, which I suppose IS the cruncher.

I hope my waffle made sense to you.

Thank you for your time.

TC

Catalyst.