Who come first the theist or the atheist

[lightgigantic]

Yes. But consider this;

http://zarbi.posterous.com/god-and-evidence-a-strident-proposal

Good example how if one messes up at the point of theory there is no question of practical application (much less evidence)

And this by PZ Myers:

The nature of this god is always vague and undefined and most annoyingly, plastic — suggest a test and it is always redefined safely away from the risk. Furthermore, any evidence of a deity will be natural, repeatable, measurable, and even observable…properties which god is exempted from by the believers' own definitions, so there can be no evidence for it. And any being who did suddenly manifest in some way — a 900 foot tall Jesus, for instance — would not fit any existing theology, so such a creature would not fit the claims of any religion, but the existence of any phenomenon that science cannot explain would not discomfit science at all, since we know there is much we don't understand already, and adding one more mystery to the multitude will not faze us in the slightest.

So yes, I agree. There is no valid god hypothesis, so there can be no god evidence, so let's stop pretending the believers have a shot at persuading us.​

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/its_like_he_was_reading_my_min.php

ditto above

He doesn't even stop to ask himself whether empiricism is the best tool for the job.

he might as well be talking about the impossibility of getting accurate temperature readings from a tape measure.

:shrug:

But anyways, I think you have just recanted on your position that atheism is not a faith because it is open to the possibility of evidence to the contrary.

 

[universaldistress]

LG

But anyways, I think you have just recanted on your position that atheism is not a faith because it is open to the possibility of evidence to the contrary.

Faith in god is swayed/changed/lost everyday by people believing they have discovered evidence/proof to the contrary?

 

[ZAV]

Univ-

@ZAV and Aqueous ID

Lets take a look at an excerpt of the text:

"26, And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1poly94.html

If you follow the link you will find:



Source: Polytheism in Genesis:
Baal and Ashtoreth vs. Yahweh
by Sol Abrams

1994 / January-February


Incidentally, if you Google "genesis was written by polytheists" Abrams is first in the list, followed in second by this thread:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ge...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a


Additionally:

Source wiki

I am not sure if you have covered this ground already, as I haven't read the whole thread.

The "Us' has always been debared but, most jewish commentators think it meant Angels whilst some Christian oens say Angels and others the Trinity. Howevr, even Atheist scholars of Modern hebrew toss out the Polytheism rubbish because, as I said, Elohim is still used as a Singular.

Now, I said I'd get to the other poitns of his later asnd did stick to this on. All I am saying is, this text is not obviosuly Polytheistic. its, in fact, not Polytheistic at all. aside from the "Us" ther isn't even a hint of plurality.

 

[ZAV]

Univ-

We could also say that as Jesus is a separate entity to god, yet with godlike powers, the New Testament at least was written by polytheists? I would interpret it that way anyway.

We could also say that the man who reads anything in the bible, and takes it literally, is a fool.

I know the Trend has existed for Five or six years now but, its really irritating to see Modern Atheists spelling god in lower cases when they use it as a name. I know the excuses, but they don’t pan out. The word god is not capitalised only by Believers because they want to show reverence for their deity, and its not a Title, so saying you don’t believe in god so see no reason to venerate the Title is moot.


In the sentence above you identify a specific person, god, in contrast to Jesus. This is not some generic being that could be Thor, and even if it was, there is no a or thee in front of the word god. The word god clearly identifies a specific person. That makes the word god the name of said person in that sentence. It is irrelevant if god is the actual name of said person that is how the sentence is structured.

It also doesn’t matter if you believe in god or not, as I doubt you believe in peter pan or sherlock holmes. Even fictional names are properly capitalised.

So, if you are going to capitalise the name “Jesus”, why not capitalise the name “God”? Its not like capitalising the G means you believe in God, and its just poor English to leave it in lower case?

Your argument is also poor, as it ignores the whole Theology Christianity is based on, but I don’t feel like discussing it with another poster who can’t grasp that God is supposed to be capped irrespective of ones beliefs.

 

[michael_taylor]

It also doesn’t matter if you believe in god or not, as I doubt you believe in peter pan or sherlock holmes. Even fictional names are properly capitalised.

So, if you are going to capitalise the name “Jesus”, why not capitalise the name “God”? Its not like capitalising the G means you believe in God, and its just poor English to leave it in lower case?

It isn't a name though. It's a classification, like in "the ancient Greeks had many gods" or "Heracles was the son of a human woman called Alcmen and a god called Zeus".

Perhaps unbelievers don't capitalize god for the same reason they don't capitalize faerie or unicorn. If they believed in one special unicorn who ran the world, they would write it; "the Unicorn".

 

[michael_taylor]

Atheism is not reaslly the oppoite of Religion.

It is mutually exclusive to the vast majority of what are properly termed religions though (the only counter example among dozens of confirmations I know of is Buddhism, and half the time that isn't referred to as a religion at all).

Religion doesn't require the beleif in a god.

I don't even know why you attach so much importance to a single partial counterexample. Are you a devout Buddhist? I don't have any problem with that at all.

Are there other examples of religions without any gods you can think of?

 

[ZAV]

mr. Taylor-

It isn't a name though. It's a classification, like in "the ancient Greeks had many gods" or "Heracles was the son of a human woman called Alcmen and a god called Zeus".

Perhaps unbelievers don't capitalize god for the same reason they don't capitalize faerie or unicorn. If they believed in one special unicorn who ran the world, they would write it; "the Unicorn".

This is not True. The thing is, God is a name. At least, God is a name when the word God is sued as if it is a name. That's how the English Language works. Also, "Unbelievers" do usually cap the G, and historically everyone did. The trend to leave god in lower case is a thoroughly contemporary one. Even outright Atheists like Neitche spelled it "God' not "god", and so did Huxley, and so does Richard Dawkins. The Trend to leave it lower case was started mainly by Militant Atheists who wanted to rub Christian noses in the fact that they see the god Christians worship as mythical and noted how Christians leave the g in lower case for everyone else’s gods. They never bothered to check the Grammatical reason why this is so.

It really isn’t True that “believers” cap the G out of respect. Heck, Zeus is called “God” in English Translations OF THE Iliad, and the G is capped, and rightly so. Once you replace “Zeus” with “God”, then “God” becomes Zeus’s name.

Again, it doesn’t matter if the word god izs normally a Proper Noun, what matters is that you use the word to identify a specific person so for the sake of the sentence it is a name.

Please stop trying to defend this ridiculous modern Trend, all I ask is that you recognise the proper conventions of the Language and spell the name God right. Its Childish to spell it god when you use it as a name and stupid to defend this with “but I don’t believee in god” and “ but god is not a name”. God is a name, and must be capped unless you are unlettered, or simply too emotionally attached to the misspelling. At any rate, I find it harder to really take seriously people who do this sort of stunt.

 

[gmilam]

Yahweh isn't the only god I don't believe in.

 

[michael_taylor]

God is a name when the word God is used as if it is a name.

Christians do, exactly so. But people who never use it as a name may spell it without a capital.

 

[ZAV]

Mr. Taylor, you did use it as a name. You specifically even spoke of the same God Christians worship. You can't say it’s not a name because you don't believe in God or because to you it wasn’t, the rules of English Grammar dictate that it’s a name. You didn’t say a god, or the god, you used God as a space holder for a specific name and as a term to identify a specific person. It’s ridiculous to say you didn't use it as a name.

Please stop making excuses. I know it’s trendy for Atheists to spell god in lower case, but you can’t say its proper grammar by saying “well I didn’t mean it as a name” because there is no other bloody way to read the sentence.


It's not even a Christian thing, I even cited an examp;el of the same rule applyign to Zeus.

 

[wynn]

actually he is talking of the knowledge base of a new born child being maintained through to adulthood - doesn't matter whether the subject is physics, religion or modern history - the result is the same : ignorance

...
Then Pañcakanga went to Uggahamana and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Uggahamana said to him, "I describe an individual endowed with four qualities as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. An individual endowed with these four qualities I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments."

Then Pañcakanga neither delighted in Uggahamana's words nor did he scorn them. Expressing neither delight nor scorn, he got up from his seat & left, thinking, "I will learn the meaning of this statement in the Blessed One's presence."

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with Uggahamana.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.
...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html

 

[lightgigantic]

LG

Faith in god is swayed/changed/lost everyday by people believing they have discovered evidence/proof to the contrary?

Its more that atheism is maintained by issues of faith (as far as explicitly denying the existence of god )

 

[lightgigantic]

...
Then Pañcakanga went to Uggahamana and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Uggahamana said to him, "I describe an individual endowed with four qualities as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. An individual endowed with these four qualities I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments."

Then Pañcakanga neither delighted in Uggahamana's words nor did he scorn them. Expressing neither delight nor scorn, he got up from his seat & left, thinking, "I will learn the meaning of this statement in the Blessed One's presence."

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with Uggahamana.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.
...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html

probably a good example of neti neti struggling to affirm positive qualities

 

[michael_taylor]

You can't say

Well, if you're absolutely certain that a few biased sources are the best basis for determining usage rather than, say, actual usage, I suppose you're right.

And if the way we use and spell words is immutable and never evolves to fit the changing concepts behind them, you're right again.

As for me personally I shall say whatever I please. When I refer to the generic idea of god I shall use the word "god". When I refer to your God I may use "the god of the Christian bible" or "the Christian god" or perhaps "Yahweh".

 

[ZAV]

You don't even know if I am a Christian though... just because I don't spew the usual drivel I see online doesn't make me a Christian.

That said, its still wrong to use a word as a name but leave it in lower case, and god is the only word you do this with. You never call a man rock but leave the r lower, for instance, despite rock not being his actual name. its also stupid to say you mean a generic concept when you obviously refer to the Christian god.


As I said, I know its popular for Atheists to spell god in lower case, but it makes Atheists look like idiots when they do. Unlike AUSTIN Cline, I don’t give the benefit of a doubt to Atheists. I don’t pretend the Religious people are all mindless or have suspect motives but Atheist are fully honest in all they say. I’ve been banned off both Christian and Atheist boards as a result.

But, it’s better than continuing stupidity. It is stupidity to use the word god as a name but to leave it in lower case.

 

[michael_taylor]

You don't even know if I am a Christian though... just because I don't spew the usual drivel I see online doesn't make me a Christian.

It was spewing the usual kind of drivel (thinly disguised at that) that made me think you were a christian. Are you a christian? If you are a muslim or atheist or whatever, I stand corrected and you have my apologies.

You never call a man rock but leave the r lower, for instance, despite rock not being his actual name.

But you do call him "a man" or "man" without a capital "M", even though the name for humankind is "Man".

Anyway, the name for your god isn't "god" or "deity" anyway, it's "Yahweh", isn't it?

It is stupidity to use the word god as a name but to leave it in lower case.

So you don't think it could be to communicate the belief that a vulgar fiction shouldn't be accorded such primacy?

I disagree. Your God is not the one true god any more than all the others are.

 

[ZAV]

Mr. Taylor, I don't know why this is hard to understand so I will explain again. It doesn’t matter if the actual name of my God is Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, Peter Graves, or anything else. All that matters is how its used in the sentence. If you use a word, any word, to refer to a specific person, then it is a name. You cannot use the word god as a generic entity if you are referring to a specific object. EG, you can't say "I don't believe in god" and say "But its generic". No, its not. You refer to a specific object, called god.

This makes God a name. This is irrespective of it God is the actual name o God. Its irrespective of whose god you speak of.


You can properly say "I don't believe in a god", or "I don't believe in the god", but to say "god" alone does make it a name.

My Biased source is, of course, actual knowledge of English Grammar.

Do I need to post a link to an English Grammar site to prove this?


As for man, that still follows the same rule. If you say “Hey, man, what Time is it?” then no, it need not be capitalised. But if I called you “Man” as a name, such as “It’s the O’clock, Man should be returning”, then it is. It’s the same grammar rule. I don’t see why this is so hard to grasp, other than a desire to continue to leave god in lower case. Hence why I lost respect for modern Atheism. Its obvious in the endless defence of god that its more emotion than reason that drives it, and its become an emblem.

My beliefs aren’t relevant, the facts I present are. I’m not here for me. Check my introductory post for more details.

 

[michael_taylor]

...

But that only makes sense if you think the god of the bible is real, or if you believe in forcing people who don't believe into acting like they do. It only becomes about grammar once you've decided what you think a god actually is, and it isn't up to you to act as the arbiter of what is correct in that regard.

 

[universaldistress]

Univ-




I know the Trend has existed for Five or six years now but, its really irritating to see Modern Atheists spelling god in lower cases when they use it as a name. I know the excuses, but they don’t pan out. The word god is not capitalised only by Believers because they want to show reverence for their deity, and its not a Title, so saying you don’t believe in god so see no reason to venerate the Title is moot.


In the sentence above you identify a specific person, god, in contrast to Jesus. This is not some generic being that could be Thor, and even if it was, there is no a or thee in front of the word god. The word god clearly identifies a specific person. That makes the word god the name of said person in that sentence. It is irrelevant if god is the actual name of said person that is how the sentence is structured.

It also doesn’t matter if you believe in god or not, as I doubt you believe in peter pan or sherlock holmes. Even fictional names are properly capitalised.

So, if you are going to capitalise the name “Jesus”, why not capitalise the name “God”? Its not like capitalising the G means you believe in God, and its just poor English to leave it in lower case?

Your argument is also poor, as it ignores the whole Theology Christianity is based on, but I don’t feel like discussing it with another poster who can’t grasp that God is supposed to be capped irrespective of ones beliefs.

I am in the habit of not capitalising god, as I think of god as a body of everything; much in the same way one could or could not capitalise "man" as in all of "humankind", or more specifically "earth" or "moon" or "universe" or "galaxy". I suppose if I am referring to the christian god then the done thing is to capitalise. However grammar rules on such things are very often down to personal choice, unlike SPELLING.

Not addressing the points put to you because of this is a bit sad on your part.

So are you saying the wiki page on Elohim is wrong when it states:

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language. When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".

Also you haven't addressed the article I posted about polytheism and Genesis. How can we take you seriously when you don't counter 1, the reasoning in the article and 2, the wiki page that directly contradicts your claims???

It seems that your stance is YOUR OPINION, and that other scholarly humans have different OPINIONS/interpretations. Pedalling your interpretations as facts seems a little strong. Can you solidly counter the evidence I have pointed towards? or can I continue to reference it in such debates?

I still think the Bible is polytheistic, that's my pov and it's justifiable. If god is three distinct entities then 1, using "god" as a term to describe a grouping is fine, and 2, it is fine to refer to the bible as polytheistic.

 

[universaldistress]

The passage I quoted from wiki, above, regarding "elohim" as being either plural or singular cites these references:

^ Glinert Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar Routledge
^ Gesenius A Grammar of the Hebrew Language