///Oh dear! It looks like I'm goi g to have to ease up on you again.
Whatever you say Stranger.
Jan.
It is accurate & if you cannot see it, that is your problem.
You should ease up on yourself.
<>
///Oh dear! It looks like I'm goi g to have to ease up on you again.
Whatever you say Stranger.
Jan.
Here is the reality. Do you agree?
Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.
Well, strictly "God Is" according to your interpretation of reality. Fortunately your interpretation is not the arbiter of everyone else's.What does it matter what I'm concerned with.
God Is, according to reality.
Something we agree on.I believe in God, you don't.
I certainly get the question begging that you undertake. I certainly get the insistence on your view of reality as being everyone's reality. I get your insistence that God Is. But your insistence isn't all that important to an argument. It is not what you say but in your justification for it. Simply asserting repeatedly your view that "God Is" is not an argument but mere opinion, and we all have those.But if God Is, as according to reality. Atheism is only a temporary manifestation, due to the choice of the adherent.
It cannot exist, in reality. Because God Is.
Do you get it yet.
Similarly all you have done is provide reasons why you are a theist. You mainly start with "God Is" and really don't add much beyond that, and simply expect people to accept the veracity of it.All you have done is present a reason as to why you are an atheist.
That means squat, in reality.
If I profess to be an atheist tomorrow, it changes nothing. Because atheism exists only in the mind.
No, without theism, atheism doesn't exist. Without the idea of the reality of God, theism doesn't exist.Without the reality of God, atheism doesn't exist.
And metaphysical beliefs are not necessarily reality. They are merely ones interpretations of reality. Beliefs of any description can influence and inform ones practical reality, with religion being the most obvious means of doing so for theism. But the influence it can have is not an indicator of veracity of that belief.Atheism exists, just like cream cakes exist, but it is temporary, and fleeting.
From a metaphysical standpoint, it has no bearing.
No, I don't agree. I think the common denominator is not "God" but "belief in God".
I certainly get the question begging that you undertake.
God Is" is not an argument but mere opinion, and we all have those.
"But if God Isn't, as according to reality. Theism is only a temporary manifestation, to the choice of the adherent.
It cannot exist, in reality. Because God Isn't."
Do you get it yet?
So really the argument relies on the initial premise, which seems to be mere opinion: in this instance, to utilise this argument, either one thinks God Is, or thinks God Isn't, and depending on which they opt for they can show, through question begging, whatever they want.
Similarly all you have done is provide reasons why you are a theist.
Without the idea of the reality of God, theism doesn't exist.
But until you can learn when you are not simply begging the question in debate, your arguments are as pale as the strawman you so often employ.
Perhaps it's up to us to parse out the truth from adulterations///
No. I cannot choose what to accept. If I am convinced of something, I must accept it. If I am not convinced, I cannot accept it.
I have no reason to be theist. THAT is the point you cannot handle.
According to the bible does not mean anything. The bible is nonsense.
<>
Because the positions themselves are not arbiters of God's existence or not, but are rather just labels for our ontological position, I.e. our positions with regard belief in God (or not).Why?
Sure. As soon as you start with the premise "God Is" and conclude "God Is" or anything that can otherwise be reframed as "God Is" you are begging the question.Can you explain the question begging?
I fail to see what you are attempting with this. Are you seriously suggesting that because you think the common denominator of theism and atheism is God that this somehow proves that "God Is"? Otherwise all you have done is restate your initial comment without actually addressing the point I made.Let's see how that looks..
Theist - believe in God
Atheist - doesn't believe in God.
Common denominator - God
It doesn't seem to work.
Reality is neutral to everything until we place upon it our interpretation. Your interpretation is that God Is. It forms the a priori assumption of all your arguments. You can not seem to comprehend, even intellectually unfortunately, any argument that does not hold God Is as a premise.There is no argument. The reality is how we found it.
No, they are in relation to belief in God. But, even if one accepts that they are in relation to God, are you somehow asserting that this is proof of the existence of God???There are atheists, and there are theists. Both position are in relation to God.
It will indeed continue, whether that is with or without God.We haven't reached the point of argument as yet. More importantly arguments only emphasises theistic, or atheistic belief. Which of no real consequence because reality will simply continue.
And similarly any idea is a common denominator of two opposing positions with regard that idea. So what? What importance are you pinning to God being what you see as the denominator? That the idea exists? If so all you are doing is arguing that the idea, the notion, of God exists. Well we all know that. Anyone who has a notion of God can tell you that the notion exists.Exactly. But, God is the common denominator. Despite our leanings.
Sure, and there is, as a result, theism. Based on the idea of God.Fortunately there is the idea of God.
In fact, it's all about God.
So you believe, at least. Your belief is not the arbiter of reality.God Is, regardless of debate.
It really is telling how you don't bold "believe in God" as the common denominator.If I become an atheist tomorrow, nothing changes.
Theist - believe in God
Atheist - doesn't believe in God.
Common denominator - God
Here is the reality. Do you agree?
Theist - believes in God
Atheist - does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.
What does it matter what I'm concerned with.
God Is, according to reality.
Anything that is subservient to the foundations of empiricism, so it seems .... hence the analogy of locating complex or conceptual number on a tape measure .. of course if one began at the point of learning about the position of God at the onset, it would be apparent.Nope. Just take that tape measure (or anything really) and give us something you can prove. Anything.
Well, on that authority, I guess we can safely dismiss W4U's rambling about uncontrolled hallucinations.Yes, evidence. Something that is required in the real world to substantiate belief.
I agree. Calling upon the belief that Cthulu will stop the Earth's rotation is remarkably similar to citing empirical authority to discredit the position of God.There are plenty of valid beliefs. You may believe that the sun will rise tomorrow; there is plenty of evidence to support that. You may believe that Cthulu will stop the Earth's rotation at midnight. Is that an "uncontrolled hallucination?" That's a matter of opinion. Is it supported by evidence? No.
Or calling on God to ease your suffering.I agree. Calling upon the belief that Cthulu will stop the Earth's rotation is remarkably similar to citing empirical authority to discredit the position of God.
Child - believes in the Easter Bunny.Let's see how that looks..
Theist - believe in God
Atheist - doesn't believe in God.
Common denominator - God
Because the positions themselves are not arbiters of God's existence or not, but are rather just labels for our ontological position, I.e. our positions with regard belief in God (or not).
Thus, quite clearly, the denominator is belief in God, and not God.
Of course it was. Every depiction of God we have was written by men - and most of them conflict.As far as we know, God, or the notion of God, was not invented.
Nope. Plenty of those countless scriptures and testaments talk about many Gods, each with his/her/its own powers and realms.As far as we know, there are countless scriptures, edifices, and testament to God, throughout history.
As far as we know, there has always been an understanding that God is the one Supreme Being
That is correct! And even if every single theologian, philosopher and reality TV star in the world agreed that the Easter Bunny was real, it would not make it so.IOW if there was a world Cup of debates, including all the leading scientists, philosophers, and theologians, andthe outcome was God does not exist. It would have no effect on whether or not God exists.
You attempted to deflect from the title to the OP, to pretend that instead of a falsehood you had posted an invitation to honest discussion. That has proven typical of your explicitly theistic posting here.The title does not suggest that atheists do not exist, but they might not exist, due to the findings of scientists.
My posting directly states that the theists who post like that are either dishonest or uncomprehending or both, and queries their motives in repeatedly posting what is either offensively rank dishonesty or puzzlingly stubborn incomprehension on a science forum.I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain what you mean by "typically theistic misrepresentation of scientific research," It smacks of prejudice, and implies that theist can't do, or even comprehend, science.
I could have done that, Jan, you are right. But I have chosen to be a tad more specific and identify the exact belief.If that was the case, why include God?
Why not just say belief, period.
Indeed.God is the subject of belief.
So you believe.God stands outside of belief.
As far as we know we can't say whether it was invented or not.As far as we know, God, or the notion of God, was not invented.
So what? Language was invented, and there are countless uses of language throughout history. Throughout the entire history of written and oral language, in fact. No, Jan, all you can illicit from the history of reference to God is that it is at least an idea that has lasted a few thousand years. It speaks in no way to the veracity or otherwise of God's reality.As far as we know, there are countless scriptures, edifices, and testament to God, throughout history.
Are you trying to claim that longevity of an idea equates to veracity of the idea?As far as we know, there has always been an understanding that God is the one Supreme Being, that is the origin of, not only the material world, but all of its biological structures, and abilities.
So you believe. So most theists possibly believe. But belief doesn't determine reality, other than one's subjective reality. Is that all you think God is, a subjective reality?God isn't just an idea, and is beyond belief, or lack of belief.
And once again you come up with an argument that has an exact mirror, yet you focus on one side alone.IOW if there was a world Cup of debates, including all the leading scientists, philosophers, and theologians, andthe outcome was God does not exist. It would have no effect on whether or not God exists. All anyone can do, is deny, and/or reject God.
I have never said that belief is what drives the reality of God. Put your strawman down, Jan.So I have to disagree that "belief" is what drives the reality of God. It is God that drives the reality of belief.
If an ontological position doesn't have any discernible qualifiers at the point of behaviour, there is nothing to discuss. We are not discussing where some people like blue while others like green. We are discussing core aspects of reality that contextualize one's perception of self.It doesn't become a non-discussion point at all. That you see it does may speak to your purpose for discussion, but you do not speak for everyone. Some people believe in God, others do not. What is there not to discuss in that difference, whether that difference ultimately leads to differences in lifestyle or not?
I'm not even sure how you can discuss theism as arising separate from religion .... although I suspect you may be using these words unconventionally. Religion is the cultural baggage that surrounds theism, much like language is the baggage that surrounds thought (you can argue that they influence each other but its not practical to examine them as distinct, unless one is brought up in solitute on a deserted island or something).Yes, as said, theism often leads to religion and, in my view, that is where the lifestyle differences arise.
As you find exemplified through any religious tradition you care to mention.But in theism itself? I'm still waiting for you to example any differences.
What would be the purpose in making such a distinction between religion and theism?"Will of God"? What exactly is the will of God, from a purely theistic point of view, as opposed to the will that one might claim it to be due to whichever religion they follow.
It's not clear how an atheist can hope or would even move in the direction of wanting to approach their behaviour in terms of piety/sin, the world as owned by God, their existence as being maintained by God etc. ... and all those other prescriptive behaviours that define and distinguish the a/theists from each other.And yes, no doubt theism does lead to ideas of piety v sin, liberation v bondage etc, but unless those things have a discernible lifestyle difference upon that person compared to that of an atheist, you're left simply describing aspects of what you consider to be an "automatic non-discussion point".
What do you think an atheist is prone to be bound by?So again, please provide examples to support your position. You don't seem to think that the atheist can have ideas of liberation v bondage,
They lack any sense of it in relationship to God. They don't view this world in terms of proprietorship or maintenance by God, hence different prescriptive behaviours manifest on account of the different ideals.and perhaps you think atheists lack any sense of good v evil?
You cannot meaninfully discuss theism distinct from religion any more than you can discuss thought distinct from language.I am talking about theism v atheism. Not religion.
One can quite capably be a theist and refrain from identifying with a religious institution.... its just the point of arriving at the point of being theist in a manner that isn't a consequence of the cultural influence of religion(s) where things become thoroughly incapable.Given that one is quite capable of being a theist without adopting a religion,
Technically not possible.and being religious without being theistic, it seems honest to keep the discussion to that which was raised, notably theism and atheism, as well as agnosticism. Not religion.
On the contrary, that position will require considerable support from you. Having formative experiences across several cultures, its plainly obvious to me that most people on this site provide atheist arguments from the exclusive vantage of contemporary, western christianity. IOW what to speak of arriving at the position of theism devoid of the cultural influence of religion ... it seems even to get to such a position within atheism requires a painstaking degree of philosophical fortitude that most people cannot apparently afford.If you wish to claim that one can not be theistic without adopting a religion... that will take some considerable support from you.
Yes and no.You provided an example where agnostic theism promoted atheism??
Why?"Fully fledged atheism"??? You are being fairly derogatory with your terminology.
I gather that.I am a fully fledged atheist.
Unless you can provide distinguishing activities/behaviours of a hard atheist (aside from the tendency to make absolute negative arguments that are philosophically indefensible), the distinction is purely academic. IOW the whole point of identifying as an agnostic atheist, doesn't appear to establish any distinguishing behavior.I lack belief in God. That is all there is to the label. If what you mean by that term is "strong atheism" please have the decency to use it.
Yes, what may or may not influence one's values is a separate topic.I also disagree that someone simply decides to move into any theistic position, whether it be atheism or theism. I can not become a "fully fledged atheist" simply by choice.
That is precisely my point.Furthermore, moving to "fully fledged theism" would not provide any new incumbent behaviours either.
If you arrive from a position of thinking something is up for grabs to a position of understanding to whom something belongs, you don't think that brings with it any new behaviours?One is either a theist (they believe in God) or they are not, whether they are agnostic about it or not. How does moving to knowing about God necessarily change one's behaviour?
It defaults to it.And you think agnostic theism promotes this?
More than my fair share.Do you know any agnostic theists, perchance?
An atheist may believe the world belongs to nobody, but if they arrive at the point of believing it belongs to God (and they display behaviours congruent to that belief), it might be time to drop the "a" ... and if a theist doesn't have the said belief and behaviours, it may be time to add it.One does not need to be a theist to have this worldview, nor do theists necessarily have to have this worldview.
Its not much whether it is core or not but whether it has any associated behaviours. If you were to drop the "agnostic" and remain unable to offer any new behaviours that would arise, it is simply window dressing.Who said agnosticism is a core element? It certainly isn't mine, and likely not many agnostics. It is simply the result of the way one thinks about things.
If it determines the length and breadth of your activities and behaviour, regardless whether you tag an "agnostic" in there or not, how is it not core?And who said atheism is a core element?
This doesn't make sense.Sure, some people's theism is core to them, but once again not to every theist, and those for who it is, the behaviour seems to be driven mostly by the religion they are part of.
We may encounter benevolent pharmacists, but the notion of being "eased from suffering" is not an experience this world affords easily.Or calling on God to ease your suffering.
Agreed. Yet many pray for it, confident that their prayers are being heard.We may encounter benevolent pharmacists, but the notion of being "eased from suffering" is not an experience this world affords easily.
If the world rarely affords such experiences of ease, the successful granting of such a prayer will very likely simply establish a further chapter of suffering.Agreed. Yet many pray for it, confident that their prayers are being heard.
While praying will not ease your physical pain (nor will calling on Cthulu stop the Earth's rotation) there are fortunately many options that WILL ease your pain, from chiropracty to physical therapy to surgery to drugs to implants. Unfortunately many think prayer is a valid replacement for those things.If the world rarely affords such experiences of ease, the successful granting of such a prayer will very likely simply establish a further chapter of suffering.
No, we are discussing core aspects of belief that may or may not lead people to certain practices. Theism - belief; Atheism - lack of that belief.If an ontological position doesn't have any discernible qualifiers at the point of behaviour, there is nothing to discuss. We are not discussing where some people like blue while others like green. We are discussing core aspects of reality that contextualize one's perception of self.
I am not using them unconventionally at all. I fully agree that most people's theism is surrounded by religion but the two are distinct and should be treated as such. If you can accept that one can be a theist without being part of any religion, then I can't see your issue. If you don't accept it then I suggest you get out more.I'm not even sure how you can discuss theism as arising separate from religion .... although I suspect you may be using these words unconventionally. Religion is the cultural baggage that surrounds theism, much like language is the baggage that surrounds thought (you can argue that they influence each other but its not practical to examine them as distinct, unless one is brought up in solitute on a deserted island or something).
That is a difference between atheism and religion. Religions can be atheistic. I'm asking you about the difference that theism itself, not the religion one cares to adopt, might give rise to. If your difference relies on a particular religion then it fails.As you find exemplified through any religious tradition you care to mention.
No, simply that not all theists require religion, abide by religion, need religion, etc. Such people still believe that God exists. They are still theist, compared to the atheist that lacks that belief. So tell me, what is the difference that that belief results in?What would be the purpose in making such a distinction between religion and theism?
That all religions are necessarily false and are not unified by any common themes?
They wouldn't approach their behaviour in those terms, but those terms are purely labels we apply, and I am asking about practical differences.It's not clear how an atheist can hope or would even move in the direction of wanting to approach their behaviour in terms of piety/sin, the world as owned by God, their existence as being maintained by God etc. ... and all those other prescriptive behaviours that define and distinguish the a/theists from each other.
Many thing: guilt, responsibility, desires, the worldview that they may have.What do you think an atheist is prone to be bound by?
For many it might be nothing, for others it could be reformed behaviour so as to avoid whatever it was that bound them in the first instance.Upon being liberated by whatever binds them, what special activities/behaviours do they manifest in a liberated state?
Such as? You speak lots but say very little of any importance with regard the question I asked. Please, again, detail some actual concrete examples?They lack any sense of it in relationship to God. They don't view this world in terms of proprietorship or maintenance by God, hence different prescriptive behaviours manifest on account of the different ideals.
You mean you can't.You cannot meaninfully discuss theism distinct from religion any more than you can discuss thought distinct from language.
Be that as it may, it still remains the case that unless you can identify a practical distinction between all theists and all atheists then you are not describing a practical difference that the belief in God actually gives someone. Whether theism is arrived at through religion or not is irrelevant.One can quite capably be a theist and refrain from identifying with a religious institution.... its just the point of arriving at the point of being theist in a manner that isn't a consequence of the cultural influence of religion(s) where things become thoroughly incapable.
Sorry, you think it technically impossible to be religious without being theistic? Or do you mean that it's not technically possible for you to keep the discussion to that which was raised?Technically not possible.
I guess its a recurring theme of atheism to allude to a state of purity where one is not contaminated by culture.
Not really. All it takes is belief in God and to not be religious. Voila. One doesn't need to be devout, to be particularly knowledgeable, one simply needs to believe in God - one that interacts/interacted with human affairs (so as to distinguish it from deism) but not be interested in any religion whatsoever. Of course, the overwhelming majority are indeed religious, but not all. My step-sister is not. My ex-wife wasn't. Neither were brought up in the Western Christian tradition. Neither are religious, both believe in God - the "cause of all" etc.On the contrary, that position will require considerable support from you.
Ignored for irrelevancy.Having formative ... [snip] ... apparently afford.
So you didn't provide an example, then. You just alluded to there being an example.Yes and no.
To the degree behaviour does or doesn't culminate on some level at the point of God being the maintainer/proprietor then to that degree it does or doesnt fall in a spectrum indistinguishable from atheism.
It is derogatory because you are asserting a meaning of "atheism" that belittles the position of a vast number of atheists. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. One can not have a stronger or weaker absence of belief. What you are referring to is the holding of a suplementary belief or not, namely the belief that God does not exist. But I assure you that my lack of belief that God exists is exactly the same lack that every other atheist has. I just happen to not share another belief that others might hold. To refer to me as somehow being not "fully fledged" is derogatory.Why?
Isn't a stronger belief associated with a more determined position, characterized by different behaviour?
Yes. Whenever a range of intellectual positions filter into a binary practical position, you will get the same. Doubt is intellectual, activity is practical. Many intellectual positions can lead to the same practical activity.Can I actually say I am imbibing a position of "doubt" in regards to something if there are no identifiable added cautionary or hesitating elements to my behaviour?
Yes, from a practical point of view. There is no need to suggest it - I have never denied it (with the exception of discussions on the matter) and have more than once explicitly stated as much. But according to you there is nothing to discuss between agnostic atheists and strong atheists, right? If no practical difference, what can they possibly discuss, right? They must have the same worldview, right, even though one actually believes God to not exist, and the other thinks the position unknown/unknowable.I gather that.
That is why I am suggesting your agnosticism doesn't provide any distinguishing behaviours. You say you simply lack belief in God, but, as far as your activities and behaviour goes, they act for all intents and purposes as if God does not exist.
I've never said it does. Where do you think I have said it does? Can you point it out to me?Unless you can provide distinguishing activities/behaviours of a hard atheist (aside from the tendency to make absolute negative arguments that are philosophically indefensible), the distinction is purely academic. IOW the whole point of identifying as an agnostic atheist, doesn't appear to establish any distinguishing behavior.
What distinct behaviours? I've been asking more times than I care to for you to actually post a concrete example, and still you haven't. You've tried to link it to religion, yet you get atheistic religions. You can't accept that there are non-religious theists. But still you haven't provided an example.Yes, what may or may not influence one's values is a separate topic.
My point is that even if you were to remove whatever "doubt" you associate with agnosticism in your atheism, your behaviour would not change any (since for all intents and purposes, you live your life as if you believe god doesn't exist).
This is distinct from the agnostic theist. The tangible element of their doubt in God provides distinct behaviours .... as does anticipating in what ways those behaviours would change when that doubt is removed.
(Yet again) example, please?That is precisely my point.
The doubt associated with agnosticism, in the case of atheism, has no incumbent behaviours and hence no value outside of cerebral parrying. The same is not true of theism.
Not necessarily, no. It might just be a matter of "oh, that's nice to know" but with no other changes. That's certainly how my non-religious theistic relatives see it.If you arrive from a position of thinking something is up for grabs to a position of understanding to whom something belongs, you don't think that brings with it any new behaviours?
No, it just takes stronger faith.It defaults to it.
Belief without intact knowledge equals unsatisfactory performance.
What's a fair share in knowing agnostic theists?More than my fair share.
Why? Because they don't conform to your notions? As soon as an atheist arrives at the point of believing the world belongs to God, they should drop the "a", irrespective of any behaviours they might or might not display. Similarly, as soon as a theist doesn't have the said belief, they should add the "a", irrespective of any behaviours they might or might not display.An atheist may believe the world belongs to nobody, but if they arrive at the point of believing it belongs to God (and they display behaviours congruent to that belief), it might be time to drop the "a" ... and if a theist doesn't have the said belief and behaviours, it may be time to add it.
Many intellectual considerations are when practice is fairly binary.Its not much whether it is core or not but whether it has any associated behaviours. If you were to drop the "agnostic" and remain unable to offer any new behaviours that would arise, it is simply window dressing.
And you are simply assuming that knowing would change behaviour. So what behaviour, exactly, would change?The same would not be true of agnostic theism, where the agnosticism is the active element that prevents properly developed knowledge.
Who said it determines the length and breadth of my activities?? You once again seem to be begging the question.If it determines the length and breadth of your activities and behaviour, regardless whether you tag an "agnostic" in there or not, how is it not core?
No, I guess it wouldn't make sense to you. It's really not that difficult: theism is not at the core of every theist's being. Believing in God does not define every believer.This doesn't make sense.