DEFINING Atheism.

[AlAyeti]

Is it not fair to say that atheism thought of in terms of mathematics is:

0 x 1 = trillions x trillions x trilloins x trillions?

Something from nothing.

The zero, denoting nothing, and the one, being the person who states they are an "Atheist."

Where did the individual believer come from?

[FreddieFreeloader]

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), nothing more. That doesn't imply that atheists believe "something comes from nothing", only that "nothing comes from god". Claiming otherwise is misrepresentation.

[Cathar1950]

ST88 wrote:

The nature of X would depend on the equation you are trying to solve for. But if you don't know what the equation is, how can you know the solution

Doesn't a solution imply a problem?
Is an equation a solution and a problem?
It all seems circular and self referencing. Which also seem reasonable and important. Is it the journey or the destination?
I tend to like the journey as the destination.
I find to spell check to be fascinating. And our ability to go beyond
and push Science and Mathematics. But I wonder if it is discorvery or invention or some of both.
But as prof of God I see more desperation.

[AlAyeti]

ST88 wrote: "You're assuming that the universe started with a 0, when there is really no need for that. It is possible that there was an existing pre-universe condition, of which we might know absolutely nothing. You're also assuming that this generation of the universe from the pre-universe required some kind of intelligence to make the transition. There is no need for this, either. "

AlAyeti: That is not what I assume. The universe started the way you explain it below. The pre-universe condition was "the Word." I am not "assuming" that an intelligence started the universe, because of the order I see all around. And what I can deduce from what I can observe.

Yes, AlAyeti wrote:
0 x 1 = 0.

"Trillions," is the metaphor.

We see far more than "trillions" of things all around us. And even more numbers unseen.

ST88 wrote:

"What makes you think this transaction should be multiplication? The singularity at the moment of conception, if you will, should at least be a 1. After this, everything else came from that sigularity, therefore the correct transaction should be division. If the universe = 1, then everything in it should be somewhat less than 1 -- and all of it adding up to 1."

Entropy shows this very presentation. Multiplication in reverse so to speak.

But all things divide when growing. That makes the assumption part come into play. I'll give you that. But conception by the very word carries with it order and reason. That multiplication happens after conception is also observable.

Now, it seems that Atheists are playing with semantics. Let's call the starter of it all, "blugglezich."

If we don't call the prime mover "God" then we can do away with somethingness from nothingness. Because that is what you have if nothing started all of what we currently dwell amongst.

Bringing up pre-universe conditions is ad infinitum logic. Then we would have to bring up the pre-pre-universe condition, which in turn brings up pre-pre-pre-universe condition, which then brings us to . . . ah, add the "pre's" yourself. If, you have sixty trillion (or more) years you don't know what to do with!

I'll be "kicking it" with the Logos outside of time and space and will have a good perspective to watch you counting up all of those "pre's." Then, since it won't take up any of my time, I'm going to find Jonathan Livingston Seagull and we're going to race. I'm hoping that book wasn't fiction.

Gotta lighten up sometime.

[bernee51]

Now, it seems that Atheists are playing with semantics. Let's call the starter of it all, "blugglezich."

A rose by any other name...

Why do you have to assume a 'starter'

If we don't call the prime mover "God" then we can do away with somethingness from nothingness.

Who is claiming "somethingness from nothingness"

Because that is what you have if nothing started all of what we currently dwell amongst.

Again you are assuming a 'starter'. You have no evidence that anything 'started'

Bringing up pre-universe conditions is ad infinitum logic.
Then we would have to bring up the pre-pre-universe condition, which in turn brings up pre-pre-pre-universe condition, which then brings us to . . . ah, add the "pre's" yourself.

Is your 'god' pre-universe?

Who (or what) started your 'god'?

[Cephus]

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), nothing more. That doesn't imply that atheists believe "something comes from nothing", only that "nothing comes from god". Claiming otherwise is misrepresentation.

You need to tell that to Harvey, who is over in another thread jousting at windmills. He's defined atheism falsely and when he's corrected on his strawman, he simply declares you not to be an atheist because you're not what he wants you to be and then declares personal victory because nobody can defend his ridiculous 'atheist' idea.

Of course not, because he's set up a strawman only to knock it down again. It has absolutely no bearing on reality.

Unfortunately, that seems pretty typical of a lot of Christian apologists who can't fight the reality, they have to invent a flimsy fantasy to throw rocks at.

[AlAyeti]

Bernee,

What are we "in" then? You seem to be implying we "are." Where did are come from?

Do you believe in "classic" evolution.

Where did the chemicals come from. Where did the solution the chemicals bounced around in come from?

As is observable, if I am to believe science (which I do), is that everything in the Universe is moving. But NOT randomly. Even things alive are not put together with random processes keeping them going. Going somewhere means it came from somewhere.

If blugglezich started everything or managed everything, wouldn't "time" have started as well?

The best any of us can do is build our own straw men the best we can because no one knows what came before everything we can see.

Atheism is the belief that all things came from nothing or it is another form of deism. Defining Atheism would then be "those that just don't want to call the beginning by a proper name."

You have admitted that you, an Atheist, are not defined accurately as someone that believes something can come from nothing. Than what do you call "the something?"

Is it not fair to say that an Atheist then, is someone that just doesn't care?

Is that a better definition? If it is, than why care if others want to call the condition of the beginning anything or anybody they wish? They have exactly the same perceptoin by their position in everything, so to speak.

I certainly have been guilty of building strawmen, only because I cannot get an Atheist to say what they believe "in."

I can see what gravity "is" because it was explained to me.

Atheists seem to be saying that they don't believe in "god" in any sense of the word whether a person or thing or concept.

Than why is it not fair to label an Atheist? They won't provide a clear defintion but some vague non-godian way at best.

Then, it is far more important to ask an Atheist the question of origin than an adherent of some explanation.

Otherwise it is something from nothing.

0 x 1 equaling the complexity we observe all around us and literally in us.

It obviously doesn't add up.

Is not time a sort of primordial soup, where everything started "in?" Where all of what we observe came from, as in started.

Then of course my Strawman exists outside of time and is the prime mover.

Yes, I recognize my handi-work with plants.

But I feel that I have done at good job of defining Atheism as it can be observed "to mean."

[AlAyeti]

Is it fair to ask what was before God, by those that don't believe in a personal God?

Asking what was before God would validate a, or, the God existing.

It is more accurate to ask a non-god believer "how" everything started. If they respond by saying "nothing" started "it."

We "assume a starter" because that is how everything in our observable world "works." Baby ducks come from other ducks. Otherwise baby ducks just happen. Before science, people thought rain came from dancing and prayers. We know that there is order to rain and even exact order in what water "is." Mathematics proves water. One plus two. And within the "one" and the "two's" (which are actually two one's) are even further mathematically observable processes.

Then you logically arrive at "something," in fact "all things," from nothing if you deny the complex nature of our observable environment, just happening by random chance. (Which may or may not be a strawman of an Atheist.)

Even evolution does not discard the abilty of the question of pre-creation being a personal thing.

Does Atheism then find a better definition in "I don't care." Since, Atheists will not build an observable or defined strawman.

Can an Atheist believe in anything then?

[bernee51]

Is it fair to ask what was before God, by those that don't believe in a personal God?

I don't see whyt not. BTW 'Fair' or not is not the issue?

Asking what was before God would validate a, or, the God existing.

Not at all does it validate a god existing...you are making th eclaim that god exists, I am asking you what made your god, did it come from nothing?

It is more accurate to ask a non-god believer "how" everything started. If they respond by saying "nothing" started "it."

Why do you keep assuming something 'started'...you are quite happy (I assume) to allow for the fact that nothing started your god

We "assume a starter" because that is how everything in our observable world "works."

To the best of our observations of the observable universe

Before science, people thought rain came from dancing and prayers.

Science to date has a theory as to the 'beginniings' of the 'observed' universe. That theory has deveoloped and changed over the millennia. Do you want to guewss what the 'observations' will reveal over the next millenni?

..., just happening by random chance. (Which may or may not be a strawman of an Atheist.)

You keep mentioning random chance, I don't

Even evolution does not discard the abilty of the question of pre-creation being a personal thing.

At last..you are beginning to understand what atheism is - it has nothing to do with a belief in evolution..see the value of education.

Does Atheism then find a better definition in "I don't care."

"I don't know" may be where I am. Caring or not has not been discussed.

Can an Atheist believe in anything then?

It is up to the individual atheist - unlike you I am not told what to believe.

Let's start with...

The ultimate goodness of humanity.

Religious identity can never improve on human identity.

[ST88]

ST88 wrote:

The nature of X would depend on the equation you are trying to solve for. But if you don't know what the equation is, how can you know the solution

Doesn't a solution imply a problem?
Is an equation a solution and a problem?

The equation contains X, but the solution defines X.

It all seems circular and self referencing. Which also seem reasonable and important. Is it the journey or the destination?
I tend to like the journey as the destination.
I find to spell check to be fascinating. And our ability to go beyond
and push Science and Mathematics. But I wonder if it is discorvery or invention or some of both.
But as prof of God I see more desperation.

So you see desperation as the proof of God? Or is that that you see desperation in the attempts to prove God?

[bernee51]

Bernee,
What are we "in" then? You seem to be implying we "are." Where did are come from?

Why does it matter?

Do you believe in "classic" evolution.

That depends on how you define 'classic' evolution?

Where did the chemicals come from. Where did the solution the chemicals bounced around in come from?

Nothing can be destroyed or created - it just changes in form.

Going somewhere means it came from somewhere.

Came from somewhere does not mean it had a begininng.

If blugglezich started everything or managed everything, wouldn't "time" have started as well?

You keep assuming a 'start' - that is not a given, or a proven. It is an assumed on your part.

Atheism is the belief that all things came from nothing or it is another form of deism.

For the nth time...atheism is a non-belief in god(s).

Atheism per se says nothing about origins - other than (by default) a non--belief in a deistic origin.

How is it another form of deism?

You have admitted that you, an Atheist, are not defined accurately as someone that believes something can come from nothing. Than what do you call "the something?"

"The something" is the manifest universe.

What do you call 'the something"?

Is it not fair to say that an Atheist then, is someone that just doesn't care?

Some atheists may not care...some may. I cannot answer for all atheists only for myself.

Caring or not is not an issue.

I certainly have been guilty of building strawmen, only because I cannot get an Atheist to say what they believe "in."

It is beeter to ask an atheist what they do not believe...that way you will get a definitive answer.

When an atheist says in answer to your question..."how did the universe come about?" and they answer "I don't know", you don't like it. You immediately jump in and yell "goddidit". The god of the gaps is a poor excuse for belief in a deity.

Atheists seem to be saying that they don't believe in "god" in any sense of the word whether a person or thing or concept.

That is my position.

Than why is it not fair to label an Atheist?

They do have a label..'atheist'

Then, it is far more important to ask an Atheist the question of origin than an adherent of some explanation.

That doesn't follow.

Otherwise it is something from nothing.

No it isn''t

Is not time a sort of primordial soup, where everything started "in?" Where all of what we observe came from, as in started.

Are you talking this earth (as in prmordial soup) or the universe in general (where all we observe started}. You seem to be mixing to issues here.

Then of course my Strawman exists outside of time and is the prime mover.

we all exist outside of time. Time is only measureable in the past. We exist in the now which is outside time. How big is 'now' - infinitely large or infinitely small? If it is infintely anything it is outside time.

But I feel that I have done at good job of defining Atheism as it can be observed "to mean."

In terms of your definition of atheism you could have stopped at..."Atheists seem to be saying that they don't believe in "god" in any sense of the word whether a person or thing or concept.

All the rest had nothing to do with atheism.