Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Status
Not open for further replies.
Musika said:
Interesting.
If you perceive there is not much of a prescriptive difference between being a theist, agnostic or atheist, it's difficult to understand why you would even bother to come forward in this subforum.
Click to expand...
You yet again seem to see an agnostic as separate from atheism when there is considerable overlap between the ontological matter of a/theism and the epistemological issue of a/gnosticism. It is not, as you seem to be implying, the mid-way point between theism and atheism.
Second, why is it so difficult to understand? Some people watch Love Island, others don't, yet their lifestyles might be similar. Is it a mystery to you that some might seek to examine why people might like the show and others not? Of those theists I know, it is their religion and not theism per se that drives lifestyle differences. So maybe being part of a religion is one such example, but it is not a necessary example, and there are atheistic religions that can drive lifestyle choices. But as said, some theist friends are not religious at all, and live pretty much the same lifestyle that I do.
Third, it hasn't gone unnoticed that you seem to have ignored the questions I asked of you. Namely: Do you (see some noticeable differences in the lifestyles of atheists and theists, agnostic or otherwise)? If so, please can you example some. It should have been obvious that these were not rhetorical, so I would appreciate an answer from you on these.
 
Sarkus said:
You yet again seem to see an agnostic as separate from atheism when there is considerable overlap between the ontological matter of a/theism and the epistemological issue of a/gnosticism. It is not, as you seem to be implying, the mid-way point between theism and atheism.
Second, why is it so difficult to understand? Some people watch Love Island, others don't, yet their lifestyles might be similar. Is it a mystery to you that some might seek to examine why people might like the show and others not? Of those theists I know, it is their religion and not theism per se that drives lifestyle differences. So maybe being part of a religion is one such example, but it is not a necessary example, and there are atheistic religions that can drive lifestyle choices. But as said, some theist friends are not religious at all, and live pretty much the same lifestyle that I do.
Third, it hasn't gone unnoticed that you seem to have ignored the questions I asked of you. Namely: Do you (see some noticeable differences in the lifestyles of atheists and theists, agnostic or otherwise)? If so, please can you example some. It should have been obvious that these were not rhetorical, so I would appreciate an answer from you on these.
Click to expand...
You are talking exclusively about agnostic atheism, but you can just as easily contextualize agnostic approaches under theism. ... for eg, theoretically accepting this world as a temporary realm of fleeting pleasures that pale in contrast to the eternal fulfillment of spiritual existence under God begs the question of what one really accepts. A lack of full or proper conviction leads to a type of life where the prescriptive ideals of theism are not participated in for whatever reason, despite whatever one may externally affiliate with. IOW agnostic theism promotes a lifestyle that is, for most intents and purposes, identical to a life dedicated to worldly pursuits.

The prescriptive differences between theism and atheism seem obviously apparent to any investigation that goes beyond scratching the surface. It seems agnosticism is just a title of convenience when categorizing things in a very superficial manner, with the prescriptive values in our life being self evident indicators of what is really going on
 
Musika said:
You are talking exclusively about agnostic atheism, but you can just as easily contextualize agnostic approaches under theism.
Click to expand...
I specifically said that there is "considerable overlap between the ontological matter of a/theism and the epistemological issue of a/gnosticism." So why are you now trying to state the same thing to me?
Sure, my perspective is one of an agnostic atheist, and when I speak of my own position I am of course speaking exclusively about myself as an agnostic atheist. Would you expect it to be any different? But as also said, my view of the theist mindset, whether agnostic or not, is not something I find easy, if possible, to put myself into to be able to state what lifestyle changes there might be. I thought I made all that quite clear.
... for eg, theoretically accepting this world as a temporary realm of fleeting pleasures that pale in contrast to the eternal fulfillment of spiritual existence under God begs the question of what one really accepts. A lack of full or proper conviction leads to a type of life where the prescriptive ideals of theism are not participated in for whatever reason, despite whatever one may externally affiliate with. IOW agnostic theism promotes a lifestyle that is, for most intents and purposes, identical to a life dedicated to worldly pursuits.
Click to expand...
Theism doesn't necessitate the belief in an eternal existence under God. Many branches do, sure, but it is not necessary to be a theist. Whether the theist does or not seems to be related to the religion they follow, not theism per se.
As to what you think agnostic theism promotes - what do you mean by "dedicated to worldly pursuits"? And what do you consider to be the "prescriptive ideals of theism"?
The prescriptive differences between theism and atheism seem obviously apparent to any investigation that goes beyond scratching the surface.
Click to expand...
Are you going to actually example any? Or is this simply another case where you say "it's obvious" but never actually provide an answer? It does seem the nature of theists, at least on this forum, to simply seek to dismiss alternative viewpoints with no actual substantive argument.
Please, provide concrete examples, as asked (three times now.
It seems agnosticism is just a title of convenience when categorizing things in a very superficial manner, with the prescriptive values in our life being self evident indicators of what is really going on
Click to expand...
Then I would say your understanding of agnosticism seems rather naive, or perhaps merely warped by your theistic perspective.
 
Jan Ardena said:
What am I being e
vasive about?
Click to expand...
You're being evasive about the difference between gods and gods.

In message #1465 you said that belief in God is natural.

In message #1466 I said that non-belief in gods is natural.

In message #1467 you said that you weren't talking about gods.

In message #1468 I said that you hadn't explained the difference between God and gods sufficiently.

In message #1469 you were "fairly certain" that I know the difference.

In message #1471 you claimed to "know" that I know the difference. (I don't know what changed from message #1469.)

If there is a difference, just explain what it is, if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of some poor lurker who hasn't figured out yet whether you're a smart crook or an honest fool.
 
sideshowbob said:
You're being evasive about the difference between gods and gods.

In message #1465 you said that belief in God is natural.

In message #1466 I said that non-belief in gods is natural.

In message #1467 you said that you weren't talking about gods.

In message #1468 I said that you hadn't explained the difference between God and gods sufficiently.

In message #1469 you were "fairly certain" that I know the difference.

In message #1471 you claimed to "know" that I know the difference. (I don't know what changed from message #1469.)

If there is a difference, just explain what it is, if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of some poor lurker who hasn't figured out yet whether you're a smart crook or an honest fool.
Click to expand...
Given that it seems polytheism, etc seems to only ever get introduced in these threads to slight monotheism and given that monotheism is the only serious contender in terms of offering persistent, influential philosophical traditions in contemporary society, is it not obvious?
 
Musika said:
Given that it seems polytheism, etc seems to only ever get introduced in these threads to slight monotheism and given that monotheism is the only serious contender in terms of offering persistent, influential philosophical traditions in contemporary society, is it not obvious?
Click to expand...
Given that the thread is about atheism and theism, the number of gods and/or Gods doesn't seem relevant at all. It's a question of zero and non-zero.
 
Musika said:
Given that it seems polytheism, etc seems to only ever get introduced in these threads to slight monotheism
Click to expand...

I don't think that's always true. Atheists often write "God or gods" in pursuit of completeness, trying to encompass all of the personalized supernatural powers that religious believers have over time insisted are relevant to human life.

and given that monotheism is the only serious contender in terms of offering persistent, influential philosophical traditions in contemporary society, is it not obvious?
Click to expand...

I think that the idea that monotheism is somehow superior to polytheism is an artifact of history. It's the result of the hugely outsized influence that Judaism, and its subsequent offspring Christianity and Islam, have had on intellectual history. Since I'm not a monotheist, I have no interest in defending the honor of monotheism against any association with polytheism.

I kind of like polytheism for intellectual reasons, even though I don't literally believe that it's true. In polytheism, the various gods and goddesses often seem to serve as personifications of various principles that people perceived as being at work in the world. We have storm deities and war deities and fertility deities, Apollonian gods of dispassionate reason and Dionysian gods of pleasure and ecstatic abandon.

The thing is that in real life, principles like these often do seem to work in contradiction to each other. A monotheist can always fall back on the rather lame excuse that 'God works in mysterious ways', but it's easier and more straight-forward to just say that different cosmic principles sometimes work at cross-purposes.
 
sideshowbob said:
The dictionary defines god as, "the one Supreme Being," and also as, "one of several deities," so there's no help for you there. Give us your explanation.
Click to expand...

"the one Supreme Being,"
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Well done.

The One Supreme Being.

Thats better.

Jan.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top