A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

Status
Not open for further replies.
quinnsong said:
So if I believe you don't, know either, would that make me a believer in your quasi nonbelief? Wouldn't I then be an agnostic once removed and therefore if there just per chance was an angry spiteful god you would get spanked harder than I?
Click to expand...


Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Atheist: a person who does not believe in God or gods
 
leopold said:
maybe i missed something.
how does the evidence you presented negate the possibility of a god the creator of life and the universe?
Click to expand...

I asked you which creator-god you meant, and you did not furnish that information. So I said I would pick one, and I picked Tiamat. If you want to discuss the evidence disproving any other god, you would need to tell me which other god you have in mind.

Tiamat does not exist. The evidence for this is found in the 7 Creation Tablets which I have been discussing here. From only a cursory reading of the text of Tablet 1, we find primae facie evidence that the text relates the rhetoric properly classified as myth. In the beginning, the god Tiamat, who is personified as a supernatural being which manifests herself first as an Ocean, and then as an anthropomorphic monster, gives birth to several other gods, and then for reasons unknown (portions of the text were broken away) she becomes violent against them. One of them, Marduke, who personifies the Wind, goes to battle with her, slays her, and strews her body parts across the sky, creating the universe.

This evidence, taken prima facie, tells us that Tiamat is created in a myth. The universe was not actually created by the scattered fragments of a monster. It is purely fiction. Therefore Tiamat does not exist.

This negates the possibility that Tiamat exists.

This negates the possibility that this creator-god exists.
 
Enmos said:
That's not the basis of atheism. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in the existence of god(s).
Not sharing the belief in the existence of god(s) is not the same as believing they don't exist.
Click to expand...

I prefer to define 'atheist' as someone who believes in the non-existence of god(s).

I'm less comfortable including people who have no opinion on the question of god(s), or who (as in the case of infants) may not have even heard of the concept, as default atheists.

So, you say you are neither a believer nor a non-believer... What the heck are you then?
Click to expand...

I guess that he's a believer in the possibility of deities existing, but he isn't a believer in their existence. And simultaneously, he's a believer in the possibility of deities not existing, but he isn't a believer in their nonexistence. He apparently thinks that there isn't sufficient information to make a final judgement on their existence one way or the other.

I think that's a legitimate position to take. I'm inclined that way myself, in some of my moods. (It tends to depend on how the word 'god' is defined.)
 
leopold said:
given the evidence i currently have, i cannot state with certainty whether god exists or not.
what do you call that enmos?
Click to expand...

That sounds to me like a pretty good capsule summary of what Thomas Huxley meant when he coined the word 'agnostic'.

In the essay in which he introduced the word, Huxley complained that other people around him all insisted that they possessed knowledge of matters that Huxley found very mysterious and about which he doubted that sufficient information even existed from which to form conclusions. So 'in order to have a tail like the other foxes', Huxley gave his own view a name: 'agnosticism' - from the Greek 'a-' (not) and 'gnosis' (knowledge').
 
Yazata said:
That sounds to me like a pretty good capsule summary of what Thomas Huxley meant when he coined the word 'agnostic'.

In the essay in which he introduced the word, Huxley complained that other people around him all insisted that they possessed knowledge of matters that Huxley found very mysterious and about which he doubted that sufficient information even existed from which to form conclusions. So 'in order to have a tail like the other foxes', Huxley gave his own view a name: 'agnosticism' - from the Greek 'a-' (not) and 'gnosis' (knowledge').
Click to expand...

A brilliant commentator, too, Yazata.


Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.​

By this definition we might include just about all people with common sense.
 
Yazata said:
I prefer to define 'atheist' as someone who believes in the non-existence of god(s).

I'm less comfortable including people who have no opinion on the question of god(s), or who (as in the case of infants) may not have even heard of the concept, as default atheists.
Click to expand...
You're talking about strong atheism (former) vs. weak atheism (latter).
Both weak and strong atheists don't believe in god or gods, but strong atheists go a step further and believe that gods don't exist.

Yazata said:
I guess that he's a believer in the possibility of deities existing, but he isn't a believer in their existence. And simultaneously, he's a believer in the possibility of deities not existing, but he isn't a believer in their nonexistence. He apparently thinks that there isn't sufficient information to make a final judgement on their existence one way or the other.

I think that's a legitimate position to take. I'm inclined that way myself, in some of my moods. (It tends to depend on how the word 'god' is defined.)
Click to expand...

Well, if he does not believe in their existence that's case closed in my book. He's an atheist.
 
quinnsong said:
So if I believe you don't, know either, would that make me a believer in your quasi nonbelief? Wouldn't I then be an agnostic once removed and therefore if there just per chance was an angry spiteful god you would get spanked harder than I?
Click to expand...

Go to bed.
 
Enmos said:
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Atheist: a person who does not believe in God or gods
Click to expand...

You didn't take me serious, did you?
 
From Tiassa Post #1 (Directed to atheists):
Alright, I'm calling you all out.

Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting atheism as a brainless cult?
Click to expand...
From Tiassa Post #3:
It would be one thing to simply live without God and so on. But evangelical atheists remind constantly that their hatred of religion leads to or is the result of extraordinary ignorance of history, psychology, anthropology, and art.

Once upon a time, evangelical atheists were proud to boast of their intelligence; but once society obliged and paid attention, they proved themsleves as stupid as the religious people they hate with such focused passion. It would be nice to think that atheism is something legitimate, but considering the behavior of the atheists I know in my real life circles, here at Sciforums, and otherwise through the virtual extension to the rest of humanity, such a belief would be an utter and decrepit lie.

I would like to think atheists are all they claim to be, but they're not, and that would be okay except they are apparently incapable of recognizing their limitations. And, yes, that makes them as dangerous as the religious megalomaniacs.
Click to expand...
From Tiassa Post#5:
What I'm after here is an attitude problem I've noted for years. Unfortunately, "atheism" in our contemporary period has become nothing more than another version of supremacism.

I'm tired of people claiming "atheism" as an identity behaving as if they are ignorant, religious sluts.
Click to expand...
From Tiassa Post #7:
It's now pretty much a matter of politics; I would support the atheistic cause if it was something more than a supremacist movement.
Click to expand...
Tiassa: From your remarks, I surmise that the atheists you know are unlike me or any of the atheists I have known in my life time.


Evangelistic atheists??? The semantics of the term are clear, but neither I nor any atheists I know qualify. I only argue with theists when they attempt to convert me or express a desire to advocate their views via the political and/or legal system.

. . . . Hatred of religion? Neither I nor the atheists I know hate religion. Amused by some of the theology & beliefs, but not hatred.

. . . . .extraordinary ignorance of history, psychology, anthropology, and art: I and all the atheists I know are well educated. Due to attending private schools run by Quakers for 16 years and being a computer geek starting in the early 1950's, most of the people I know (theists & atheists) are well educated. Even my dumb jock teammates were well educated: The college I attended did not give athletic scholarships.

. . . . as dangerous as the religious megalomaniacs? I and the atheists I know are not dangerous. We do not advocate violence. The USSR claimed to be atheist & killed off millions, but I think that was more due to politics than their professed atheism.
​

I wonder where you meet the atheists you refer to in your Posts.

BTW: I often avoid arguments with theists due to being afraid that they need their belief to comfort them for fears relating to their mortality. It took me much thought & a lot of anguish to make peace with the knowledge that I would someday cease to exist. My Catholic mother often indicated that her belief in the hereafter was very comforting (I hid my atheist POV from her & her family).

I envy the theists being able to remark with confidence (paraphrase, not a quote):
In the hereafter, I will be able to tell you “I told you so.”
Click to expand...
Of course, I do not expect them to say that to me or anyone else.

BTW: I have often wondered about the theist view of where the mind exists & how it functions. I believe that my mind is due to the activity of a small mass contained in my skull. If there is a hereafter, will I be aware of it without my brain?

I was on the road to atheism when I was circa 8-10 years old due to the stories of Abraham/Isaac & Job. The thought of requesting a father to kill his son appalled me. When the Sunday school teacher tried to justify the request, I began to question religious beliefs. I later had an argument about god’s treatment of Job, which I considered to be unfair to one of his prized believers.

BTW: The story of Job indicates that the Old Testament authors viewed a man’s family as possessions. The story implies that killing off his original family & later giving him a new one was no harm done, no foul committed..
 
leopold said:
why do you suppose that is aqueous?
are you prepared to accuse humanity of being imbeciles and/ or morons?
Click to expand...

I think Men in Black summed my response to this up perfectly:
MIB said:
Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Humanity follows alpha-dominance leadership and pack mentality just like many other animals... the problem is, sometimes those leaders impart ideals that are not good... but because they are respected/feared, those ideals are allowed to propagate to the point that, even when that leader is deposed, those ideals have permeated the community as a whole and become a cultural norm... case in point, stoning an adulterer (see Afghanistan, where such a thing is currently at risk of being written into law...)

The ironic thing is, in the sense of reproduction, adultery makes no sense... that is a religious construct. Am I saying it's "right" to sleep around, especially when married? Hell no, I could never IMAGINE being unfaithful to my wife! Yet in some cultures, polygamy is normal as well!
 
leopold said:
As I said every cult has its own creator-god or -gods.
Click to expand...

why do you suppose that is aqueous? are you prepared to accuse humanity of being imbeciles and/ or morons?
Click to expand...

How does my statement every cult has its own creator-god or -gods lead to suggesting I'm prepared to accuse humanity of being imbeciles and/ or morons? :bugeye:

So far all I have said is that science has proved that God does not exist. I have further qualified this to mean science has proved that all of the known gods do not exist. You asked for proof that the creator-god does not exist, and I asked you "which one, there are many?" You wouldn't say so I picked the oldest known text, the 7 Tablets of Creation, which describes mother of creation, Tiamat. I went on to prove that the story is myth, that Tiamat is a fictitious invention, therefore Tiamat does not exist. I explained that this process can be repeated over all the other gods and one by one they will be rejected. That leaves the conclusion that no god exists. Therefore God does not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top