Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I didn't, I just don't know him to discuss these kind of things.
Full born atheism is anti-intellectual
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
I didn't, I just don't know him to discuss these kind of things.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Are you asking me ?
Sure. Spoken rightly.
That is precisely the point. I am not arguing against atheism so to speak but the atheism, my friend, that declares that God does not exist.
It is this form of atheism that I am detesting.
And that is exactly correct. Spoken like a .... man.
sisyphus,
Now whether there are some advanced races and beings in existence that are so beyond us that they might appear godlike is another issue. Perhaps to the same extent that an ant might perceive us then these beings might appear that way to us.
But would these beings be gods? That doesn't seem to meet the usual sense of what it means to be a god.
Let's face it the current evolved concept of a mono-theist god is simply one that includes all the super superlatives imaginable and asserted as fact. It is an absurd and stupid construct and fulfills no purpose or need.
At what point does one stop and simply agree that a concept so idiotic simply won't map to any meaningful reality.
Definitions of gods are entirely man made but are so extremely fantastic and extraordinary and lack any credibility. So its a pretty safe bet that there are no actual gods that precisely meet the fantasy criteria created by men.
Now whether there are some advanced races and beings in existence that are so beyond us that they might appear godlike is another issue. Perhaps to the same extent that an ant might perceive us then these beings might appear that way to us.
But would these beings be gods? That doesn't seem to meet the usual sense of what it means to be a god.
Let's face it the current evolved concept of a mono-theist god is simply one that includes all the super superlatives imaginable and asserted as fact. It is an absurd and stupid construct and fulfills no purpose or need.
At what point does one stop and simply agree that a concept so idiotic simply won't map to any meaningful reality.
Hah. Finally I catch a fish.
Cris:
Nice post!!!!
I would enjoy hearing how you would discount this no purpose and no need.
That is the only thing lacking in your post.
Firstly t hey fufill a need because we don't know if God is the universe.
So eat that drivel as is called by everyone else and then let's see how we progress.
Sure. Spoken rightly.
That is precisely the point. I am not arguing against atheism so to speak but the atheism, my friend, that declares that God does not exist.
It is this form of atheism that I am detesting.
And that is exactly correct. Spoken like a .... man.
While I think I finally understand your position now, we've run into another problem: I've never ever, not here on these forums or elsewhere, ever run into a person, self proclaimed atheist or otherwise, who has claimed the concept of god doesn't exist. Ever. So, I understand the idea you're railing against. But who here has ever represented such a view?
The only thing that matters in your post doubting menace is this:
Answer:
Yes.
Infact the words atheism is a very good word to account for many of the beliefs held by the atheists or atheisms' etc.
So it isn't a foolish arguement either. My response to cris should show the dust created by it all. And my doubt, as you too, doubt,... is very valid and could use a forumula, or at least an explaination; (there never will be one, cris won't provide it).
pardon.
Answer:
Yes.
Infact the words atheism is a very good word to account for many of the beliefs held by the atheists or atheisms' etc.
So it isn't a foolish arguement either. My response to cris should show the dust created by it all. And my doubt, as you too, doubt,... is very valid and could use a forumula, or at least an explaination; (there never will be one, cris won't provide it).
pardon.
But that's incorrect use of the word atheism. It should only refer to one concept, and that is someone who does not believe in gods, either out of strong belief gods don't exist or out of disbelief in gods due to no evidence for them. Anything aside from that is not atheism.
sis,
We know infinity must exist and we have no indication that anything can ever be created from nothing. All our knowledge tells us is that energy and matter is never created or destroyed.
So from that we can eliminate any need or concept of a creator. A major blow to the need for a god.
Purpose is simply a man made desire to claim value. All we can see is that we exist and that there is no need for anything to have a purpose. Why should a god be any different? I.e. purpose of any type is not necessary.
If the universe is god then let's call it the universe and dispense with the unnecessary term of god. In this sense god does not exist.
We know infinity must exist and we have no indication that anything can ever be created from nothing. All our knowledge tells us is that energy and matter is never created or destroyed.
So from that we can eliminate any need or concept of a creator. A major blow to the need for a god.
Purpose is simply a man made desire to claim value. All we can see is that we exist and that there is no need for anything to have a purpose. Why should a god be any different? I.e. purpose of any type is not necessary.
This is the REASON atheism is a stupid word. You presume that it is a positive or affirmative belief in something. It isn't. It's a LACK of belief. The reason the word is confusing is that we don't normally have words for a LACK of belief. I'm not an afaeriest. I just don't believe in faeries.
If we hadn't invented this word describing a lack of belief, people like you would not confuse it for some manner of belief system.
It is a foolish argument, because you clearly don't understand what you're condemning.
Second, member I have favored, minus some of the rest of the JIBBERISH.
Anyway:
You are obviously taking my words out of context.
Cris said:
But I'll allow that, :
Exactly!
And that it changes.
Wrong.
And this is where you and I meet.
I wonder if you can see how?
Perhaps you have been searching for sisyphus for decades and never found him.
Here I am, claiming to God that God has a necessity in certain circumstances; and that once again the claim above is validated in my mind.
First I will give you congradulations for comprehending my meaning. Apparently you use this forum too suddenly and far too seriously. I can't manage to pull that off myself
Quit thinking I'm stupid you idiot.
Look.
Atheism has a positive value.
See?
What else would you like me to say?
Oh. Atheism is something that is lack of belief. Well, there are varying degrees of atheism and you can see from my post to cris that this is a very far reaching manner of debate as started in the opening post.
In other words it is very deep.
Okay?
I won't argue with the rest of your stuff.
But I doubt I am confusing anything.
Quit thinking I'm stupid you idiot.
Look.
Atheism has a positive value.
See?
What else would you like me to say?
Oh. Atheism is something that is lack of belief. Well, there are varying degrees of atheism and you can see from my post to cris that this is a very far reaching manner of debate as started in the opening post.
In other words it is very deep.
Okay?
I won't argue with the rest of your stuff.
But I doubt I am confusing anything.
...no. I don't 'see'. Atheism is a denial, not an affirmation.First I will give you congradulations for comprehending my meaning. Apparently you use this forum too suddenly and far too seriously. I can't manage to pull that off myself
Quit thinking I'm stupid you idiot.
Look.
Atheism has a positive value.
See?
What you are alluding to is normally referred to as "strong" atheism vs. "weak" atheism. The claim is that "weak" atheists take the position, "I do not believe in a god," whereas "strong" atheists take the position, "I am certain that no god can exist."
As far as I'm concerned, it's a false dichotomy precipitated by the original mistake of inventing a term for an absence of belief. The only purpose it serves is to allow baffled individuals like yourself to rail against atheism.
Buddy, confused is all you've got.
Doesn't look like Cris seems to have a need to respond... I wonder why?
Or MPS which you had already had said you had only seen in the sci-fi novels. Well, let's consider this God and call me an atheist who believes in God. That would be pretty atheistic don't you think? More like an agnostic. "Doesn't know." "Is confused." etc.
The one I am discussing with Cris.
I hope you like this one.
Atheism is useful. And can, in certain positions, be considered atheistic and yet not quite so. I would call this pantheism I guess.
Or MPS which you had already had said you had only seen in the sci-fi novels. Well, let's consider this God and call me an atheist who believes in God. That would be pretty atheistic don't you think? More like an agnostic. "Doesn't know." "Is confused." etc.
Certainly that is what I am doing! But think about it a little farther and consider it into it's rightful place, and you will see that an atheist can take the position that there is no God as we have thought him to be, and yet consider that God exists. This would just be a position which would be atheist I feel.
The one I am discussing with Cris.
lol.
I hope you like this one.
Even so, I've got a point.
Atheism can be considered atheistic and not atheistic? WHAT?Doesn't look like Cris seems to have a need to respond... I wonder why?
Atheism is useful. And can, in certain positions, be considered atheistic and yet not quite so. I would call this pantheism I guess.
Pantheistic solipsism is neither pantheism nor solipsism, but a poor label for the concept of movie characters walking out of the screen. I hope it's not what you really believe.
I'm running into your language barrier again.
Are you describing the notion that atheists can consider the possibility that god could exist, but don't believe he does?
Just say yes or no, don't try to elaborate, please.
sisy...,
If nothing needs to be created then there is no need of a creator. I.e. there is no need of a god in this respect. I can’t see why that is wrong.
Huh?
If nothing needs to be created then there is no need of a creator. I.e. there is no need of a god in this respect. I can’t see why that is wrong.
I have not been so searching.
I see no necessity for a god. What specifically did you have in mind?
sisy...,
The absence of a belief is not the same as a belief in the opposite.
Some atheists do take the extra step and assert that a god or gods do not exist. This is known as strong atheism.
The weak athiest position which is simply disbelief is also what most lay people consider agnosticsm.
I prefer to disassociate myself from the term atheism altogether because of the confused definitions and generally erroneous perceptions and simply accept the label of skeptic.
Atheism is defined as an absence of theist belief.
The absence of a belief is not the same as a belief in the opposite.
Some atheists do take the extra step and assert that a god or gods do not exist. This is known as strong atheism.
The weak athiest position which is simply disbelief is also what most lay people consider agnosticsm.
I prefer to disassociate myself from the term atheism altogether because of the confused definitions and generally erroneous perceptions and simply accept the label of skeptic.