Rise Of Atheism

Provita said:
Until you can prove there is no God, i dont see the explanation of Athiesm... most Theists BELIEVE in a god... they dont KNOW he/she/it/x/y/z exists...

On the contrary, Athiests somehow KNOW a god or gods dont exist... care to share your amazing revelation from... well... obviously not god... and common sense isnt a proof either... just to tell you all!
Click to expand...

It's a logical impossibility to prove a negative. I can't prove that 'God' doesn't exist any more than the Easter Bunny. What I can do is invalidate specific claims of 'God'. Take the 5 most popular religions on Earth and their claims of 'God'. What do we know about 'them'?:

* They have been claimed for thousands of years (and longer).
* There is not one shred of evidence that any of them exist.
* Scientific discoveries (i.e. reality) repeatedly contradict their existence.

In other words, absence of supportive evidence and presence of contradictive evidence over long periods of time equates to a false assertion.

Provita said:
Many things just dont make sense... as proof to that, just look into astrology and quantum physics and learn some more about black holes and antimatter and all that cool stuff!
Click to expand...

We'll, I don't think I would cover astrology (maybe astronomoy) :). Lack of knowledge or understanding doesn't leave a void to be filled in with a 'God' substitute.
 
Provita said:
On the contrary, Athiests somehow KNOW a god or gods dont exist...
Click to expand...

You have the wrong definition of atheism, I'm afraid. Atheists simply don't believe in any deities. Atheism is not belief in the lack of, but is rather, a lack of belief in . The distinction is very important!

I don't like the term 'atheist' being pulled towards the notion that 'strong atheists' believe that god doen't exist. That is a corruption of the etymology of the word. There is a good construct for such a belief, it is 'anti-theist'.

I'm also not fond of the rather conciliatory word 'agnostic'. Agnostics are functionally, atheists. It's simple, if you understand set theory. Believers are a subset of everybody that exists. You are either in this set, or you aren't. Some sets can overlap, but what you cannot have, is uncertainty. If you aren't sure, you don't actually believe. Agnosticism is an apologetic term, and I dislike apologetics as much as I dislike fundamentalists. Apologetics are the henchmen of the master criminals, as it were.
 
phlogistician said:
Agnostics are functionally, atheists.
Click to expand...
You can have agnostic theists: people who accept that the question of God's existence (or non-existence), and also of God's very nature, is unknowable - yet they still believe.
 
Sarkus said:
You can have agnostic theists: people who accept that the question of God's existence (or non-existence), and also of God's very nature, is unknowable - yet they still believe.
Click to expand...

That's too much of a stretch. Agnostics think that to know either way is too much, and therefore do no commit to believing either way. You only take half the definition of the word for convenience.
 
Off topic, but interesting nonetheless:
I like the title. Reminds me of the "Rise of the Empire" campaign from SWBF2. :D
 
I do too; although, I have two conflicting visions... one of a rising empire and the other of rising bread.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
It's a logical impossibility to prove a negative. I can't prove that 'God' doesn't exist any more than the Easter Bunny. What I can do is invalidate specific claims of 'God'. Take the 5 most popular religions on Earth and their claims of 'God'. What do we know about 'them'?:

* They have been claimed for thousands of years (and longer).
* There is not one shred of evidence that any of them exist.
* Scientific discoveries (i.e. reality) repeatedly contradict their existence.

In other words, absence of supportive evidence and presence of contradictive evidence over long periods of time equates to a false assertion.



We'll, I don't think I would cover astrology (maybe astronomoy) :). Lack of knowledge or understanding doesn't leave a void to be filled in with a 'God' substitute.
Click to expand...

My my, silly me accidentally put astrology *blames MW* :p

I agree, what is unknown should not be replaced by "God" or anything else... and I think disproving the easter bunny is pretty easy since bunnies dont lay eggs... and we could video tape the suspected area and see that its [SPOILER ALERT] really the parents doing it!!!!

But I see your point... yea, we cant prove God exists, and we cannot prove God doesnt exist... I dont mind people saying they dont believe God exists.. but to say they know... personally I just dont see that word as fitting into the equation ... but thats just me...

And although many many many religions claim they know about God, i think they only know a finite, modified-to-fit-their-needs-and-civilization version of God, since God is infinite (according to my belief atleast, some acctually say God is finite... so i cant comment on them really)

I believe God exists... and God revealed parts of God (trying deeply to avoid a pronoun) to humans and they interpreted and edited those revelations to fit their particular surroundings... but thats just me....

Now bring on the criticisms!!! :D
 
Crunchy Cat said:
I do too; although, I have two conflicting visions... one of a rising empire and the other of rising bread.
Click to expand...

Raise the bread with wheat on your way into the last city on earth as your empire expands too all four corners of the globe!!!
 
How about an empire rising on rising bread?
Like so:
rising.png


EDIT- damn, someone already got there! :p
 
Last edited:
Provita said:
My my, silly me accidentally put astrology *blames MW* :p
Click to expand...

hhahahhahah!

Provita said:
I agree, what is unknown should not be replaced by "God" or anything else... and I think disproving the easter bunny is pretty easy since bunnies dont lay eggs... and we could video tape the suspected area and see that its [SPOILER ALERT] really the parents doing it!!!!
Click to expand...

Glad you agree. Regarding the example, maybe the easter bunny wasn't the best (I should have used the 'zaboombafoo dimension' instead). What I can say is that I could probably adapt the easter bunny idea to evade any detection of it's falsity for a while.

Provita said:
But I see your point... yea, we cant prove God exists, and we cannot prove God doesnt exist... I dont mind people saying they dont believe God exists.. but to say they know... personally I just dont see that word as fitting into the equation ... but thats just me...
Click to expand...

Yep, basically anyone can claim an number of things which have no known supportive / contradictory evidence. To make matters stickier, specific claims of 'God' are in a category with contradictory evidence (and no supportive evidence). To alot of people this contradicts the assertion of 'God' and makes it false (that's why someone might say I know that Jehova doesn't exist).

Provita said:
And although many many many religions claim they know about God, i think they only know a finite, modified-to-fit-their-needs-and-civilization version of God, since God is infinite (according to my belief atleast, some acctually say God is finite... so i cant comment on them really)

I believe God exists... and God revealed parts of God (trying deeply to avoid a pronoun) to humans and they interpreted and edited those revelations to fit their particular surroundings... but thats just me....

Now bring on the criticisms!!! :D
Click to expand...

It's certainly an interesting idea. I would pose the question, how did you personally come the conclusion that 'God' exists (not any specific one)?
 
Crunchy Cat said:
It's certainly an interesting idea. I would pose the question, how did you personally come the conclusion that 'God' exists (not any specific one)?
Click to expand...

To tell you the truth... it just makes sense to me
 
Provita said:
To tell you the truth... it just makes sense to me
Click to expand...

+10 points for honesty. Tell me more about what you think 'God' is. Take it down to the nittiest and grittiest detail you can. :)
 
Last edited:
phlogistician said:
That's too much of a stretch. Agnostics think that to know either way is too much, and therefore do no commit to believing either way. You only take half the definition of the word for convenience.
Click to expand...
It is YOU who is making the grand assumption with regard to Agnostics.

Agnosticism has absolutely diddly-squat to do with BELIEF - or lack thereof.
It is purely your stance on the knowledge - your epistemological stance on a subject.
This may lead to atheism, but the two are very different.

And it certainly isn't too much of a stretch to be an Agnostic Theist.
I know many people who are exactly that - people who believe that there is a God, but that God is unknowable.
 
Atheism was born out of secularism. Secularism turned into strong secularism, which was combated by fundamentalism in the 1920s. fundamentalism grew into evangelicalism while strong secularism(Scopes trial evolution vs. creation) grew out of free scientific inquiry. since there is no place for god in science, god died to the educated.

This is just the history of modern athiesm, there have always been athiests throughout history, just like there has always been idiots. It is commonly refered to as the village athiest in the world of religious studies.
 
on a definition of athiesm, it is someone whose worldview does not encompass anything beyond the metaphysical world(the world of nature as we understand it).
 
Sarkus said:
Agnosticism has absolutely diddly-squat to do with BELIEF - or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

I think the answer lies in the dictionary;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic

Both refer to belief. Anyway, the position of 'agnostic theist' has been shown to contradictory by George H Smith, google for extracts from his book; "In Atheism: The Case Against God"

It is a horribly apologetic term, and I made my feelings about apologetics clear.
 
dexter said:
there have always been athiests throughout history, just like there has always been idiots.
Click to expand...

I don't think it does anything for the cause of theism to call atheists idiots. If anything, it only reinforces whatever prejudices they may already have.

People only get out of atheism when they find it cannot account for the totality of human experience. There have always been atheists because there have always been people who have been spared certain human experiences. (all the same, some people are stuck to a narrow religious mindset precisely for the same reason)
 
Confutatis said:
People only get out of atheism when they find it cannot account for the totality of human experience. There have always been atheists because there have always been people who have been spared certain human experiences.
Click to expand...

That is of course a myth. Atheists understand the totality of human experience, which can only be attributed to nature - theists simply don't want to accept that and imagine those experiences as something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top