Atheists don't "know" there is no God.....

a reply to: Seed76

You said you ate the FSM, and your answer to Raptor Jesus was "well...". That hardly qualifies as an answer to the question of whether you believed they actually existed.

Likewise the rewording of that question using a different being, and a more direct question, resulted not in an actual reply to the question but instead you answering it with a question.

"we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it".

^Remember when you said that?? You said you couldn't remain in a state of disbelief once introduced to the concept of said being. I think you dodged my questions because you didn't like your answers.

This is going no where so let us part ways.

originally posted by: Seed76
a reply to: Prezbo369
No, but i have better understanding concerning Greek words and their meanings than you will ever have.

Congratulations? but we're talking about the definition of english words and the etymology of said words is irrelevant. You're not an expert on this issue even if you're greek?

But since you like to quote dictionary : The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

Peace

So now you admit that despite you being greek, you were completely wrong and incorrect when you said:

Atheism is the belief/concept that there are "No-God(s)". As Theism is the belief/concept that there are "God(s).

Yes?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

^Remember when you said that?? You said you couldn't remain in a state of disbelief once introduced to the concept of said being.

And my point stands. If you have "lack of belief" how can you have disbelief.

This is going no where so let us part ways.

Yes!!! We agree to disagree on different terminology. Let´s leave it to that.

Peace

a reply to: Prezbo369
You always reply like that ? I guess its hard to understand that "No-God" = "Without God" as"No-Water"="Without Water".

Yes?

I have simply corrected you when you quoted :

an atheist, term applied to those who thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society

with

But since you like to quote dictionary : The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society

.

Anyways i said what i wanted to say on my first post here and i am done with this thread.

Peace

Seed76,

I don't believe Zeus exists. That's a factual statement. If I was hooked up to that lie detector and it asked me 'Yes or No' if I believed Zeus exists, it would show I was not lying if I said 'No'. I lack belief in this gods existence. Just as you do in the FSM. As a lie detector would verify for you as well. However, I make no claim that I actually posses knowledge about supernatural realms that would give me certitude Zeus in fact does not exist. Being aware I lack that proof doesn't in any way prevent me from disbelieving in Zeus's existence. Your lack of that proof doesn't prevent you from disbelieving in Raptor Jesus. Who by the way went extinct for your sins and transcended millions of years ago.

An agnostic atheist could be defined as: those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist/.

Considering there is no substantial evidence for any religious god, I think this is the most reasonable position. Show me evidence and I might change my position. Until then I am very much 'remaining in a state of disbelief', which you claimed I couldn't do.

originally posted by: Seed76
a reply to: Prezbo369
You always reply like that ? I guess its hard to understand that "No-God" = "Without God" as"No-Water"="Without Water".

If only you were as good with the english language as you say are with the greek language...

The rejection of the claim made by theists for the existence of gods is not itself a claim that gods do not exist.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

So tell me holy one, what do I specifically need to do to become enlightened such as yourself?

Simple. Build on what you've already been given: An awareness of the interconnectivity of the universe. If you do actually possess that awareness, as opposed to possessing a mere intellectual concept of it, then you have a foundation to build on. So why aren't you? Are you scared that you'll get abducted by Grey aliens again?

Additionally, can you reassure me that when I transcend as you have I will not be as condescending as you? I would very much like to maintain my friendship with Humankind.

Simple. Remain human when you awaken. Since humans are occasionally condescending, you'll have to be as well. Through interconnectedness, which you claim to be aware of, you'll contain every human face within your own, without damning judgment of any of them. You'll have to be everything that humans are, without shame or shamelessness. Unfortunately, humans are jerks. I don't think you'll have a problem with that part.

👣

originally posted by: Seed76
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

^Remember when you said that?? You said you couldn't remain in a state of disbelief once introduced to the concept of said being.

Yes!!! We agree to disagree on different terminology. Let´s leave it to that.

Ya, since page 1. It's boggling how many times you can all say the same things in different ways over & over again. Seriously, what is anyone even trying to resolve at this point? Who cares what an agnostic, atheist, or deist is "defined" as. Another pointless discussion in a pointless world.

PS. If someone builds a statue of the christian God, I'll convert. Until then, Zeus is my main man.

Seriously, what is anyone even trying to resolve at this point?

Well I was trying to resolve...

..with one member it was how someone could disbelieve in the existence of 'god', and yet also make no claim to have knowledge whether that 'god' exists or not.

..with the other member it was about who has the obligation to prove the claim, and who doesn't.

Resolution doesn't appear on the horizon. I think the need for so much paraphrasing is boggling too.

I wouldn't go so far and agree this World is pointless, but I agree it's a pointless discussion. At least right now.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

Considering there is no substantial evidence for any religious god, I think this is the most reasonable position. Show me evidence and I might change my position. Until then I am very much 'remaining in a state of disbelief', which you claimed I couldn't do.

No one needs to show you evidence of anything, because you have already claimed to have experienced the transcendent; the interconnectedness. What you need to be shown is this: God is a word, an idea, a metaphor... which among other things refers to those mysteries which you claim to have experienced.

A rose by any other etc.

You aren't in a state of disbelief. You're in a state of denial. Deep down, you already know all these things I'm telling you.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

No one needs to show you evidence of anything, because you have already claimed to have experienced the transcendent; the interconnectedness.

You take these religions and strip away the literal, and find commonalities. I don't agree with that, but I understand you find value there.

Most religious people are not taking your understanding to their religion. Most religious people think their religion is the one true religion and posit things as literal accounts in accordance to their specific scripture. Such as their creation stories. The burden of proof for these kinds of claims are on them. Most religious people are not religious pluralists or study comparative religion or think their scripture is wholly metaphorical. Yes I can easily back my use of 'most'. Though that should be obvious.

As for my state of disbelief, and my denial. I'm sorry but my experience, while yes very much a transcendental one, in no way pointed me towards any religion. Certainly not towards all of them. Even if I were to call it 'god' or 'godhead' it would still not align with most religions. Not even taken metaphorically would they resonate. It would have to be coming from Eastern mysticism for me to find something relatable. If anything the experience left me with a greater distance between me and religion. Anyways..

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: BlueMule

No one needs to show you evidence of anything, because you have already claimed to have experienced the transcendent; the interconnectedness.

You take these religions and strip away the literal, and find commonalities. I don't agree with that, but you're welcome to it. That is so beside the point.

That's an oversimplification.

Most religious people are not taking your understanding to their religion. Most religious people think their religion is the one true religion and posit things as literal accounts in accordance to their specific scripture. Such as their creation stories. The burden of proof for these kinds of claims are on them. Most religious people are not religious pluralists or study comparative religion or think their scripture is wholly metaphorical. Yes I can easily back my use of 'most'. Though that should be obvious.

Do I seem like the kind of person who follows the crowd?

As for my state of disbelief, and my denial. I'm sorry but my experience, while yes very much a transcendental one, in no way pointed me towards any religion. Certainly not towards all of them. Even if I were to call it god it would still not align with most religions. Not even taken metaphorically would they resonate. It would have to be coming from Eastern mysticism for me to find something relatable. Anyways..

You're young, you'll learn.

You probably don't realize this, but the ancient experience of shamanic initiation goes by another name in our space-age culture. Alien abduction. You've been initiated. If you think they're done with you, then think again.

Welcome to the club.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Do I seem like the kind of person who follows the crowd?

I wasn't trying to isolate the discussion to you, as you are trying to do with me. If that's your goal here then U2U.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

VHB: No I did not read a link you did not author.

Lucid Lunacy: Well I am sorry you didn't. It would have clarified this. I linked it because it explained the fallacy, and what I was attempting to convey.

I will read it; thank you for sharing this as it is important to your arguement.

VHB: All of them, every one of them?

Lucid Lunacy: Yes. Im just repeating myself. Please read it. It's not long. Link

I will; and will have an open mind as to how my logical fallacy (redundant here fails me). Will you be available to hear my response tomorrow?

VHB: What if they don't see an argument that justifies the time spent?

Lucid Lunacy: This is tangential to what we are discussing. I'm not saying anyone has to argue about anything. None of that changes where the burden for proof lies, and where it doesn't.

That is re-assuring as everyone could be wrong about everything premised.

VHB: Maybe they are sure of their faith

Lucid Lunacy: Great. With such conviction about the truthfulness of their faith, is it so surprising people would ask for proof?

If they were 'Gnostics' the question would never enter their mind.

VHB: and would look at your atheism with a sense of charity, humor, compassion or concern as to what brought you to such a place that caused you to deny your creator being.

Lucid Lunacy: I fully support their freedom to think anything they want about my position. Their feelings towards me doesn't in any way increase the likelihood their faith represents reality.

Who said 'faith' represents anything resembling 'reality', your experience here as a third dimensional experiment does not resemble anything close to what the real reality is (its not here or what you think are experiencing).

VHB: You alone made the determination to be an Atheist.

Lucid Lunacy: Ultimately it was me but I source from the wealth of knowledge in the World.

This world is false; it is just a mirror of what true reality is. It is an laboratory experiment that is focused on the material processes and how it fuses with the spiritual/animation of those processes.

VHB: you apparently have convinced yourself you have"good enough grounds for disbelief"

Lucid Lunacy: Certainly for any religious god, yes.

Absolutely, I agree; I have no stomach for religious dogma.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

If they were 'Gnostics' the question would never enter their mind.

We were talking about faith there. Faith wouldn't be in their mind either, right? Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Take a leap of faith. Whereas the gnostic knows through experiential knowledge.

Who said 'faith' represents anything resembling 'reality'

In context to these religions, then I certainly didn't. My point was simply that whatever emotions a theist, or what have you, throws my way it's not going to somehow make their religion more true and thus make my arguments less valid. Wasted energy in my opinion. If however someone wants to invest so much into me that's their prerogative.

Will you be available to hear my response tomorrow?

I hope so.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: BlueMule

Do I seem like the kind of person who follows the crowd?

I wasn't trying to isolate the discussion to you, as you are trying to do with me. If that's your goal here then U2U.

I don't U2U.

The variety of human responses to the Numinous is on-topic here, because the position of antitheist or atheist, as a response, is occupied by you in this thread. It's an interesting response, laced with the paradox of denying the very thing which pushed you into that position. Wouldn't you say?

I've learned a lot about you in this thread, and have become more sympathetic to your position. Regarding your encounter with the Numinous ('alien abduction'), you said, "I think I now know what the prey feels like when paralyzed in fright from a tiger." I know that feeling too. A powerful emotion which could be expressed in Shakespeare's words, 'under it my genius is rebuked'. Would it surprise you to learn that Shakespeare was a mystic? But I digress.

Obviously, you are demonstrating that responses to mystical encounters with the Numinous span a spectrum that stretches even into antitheism. As does mysticism itself. I respect your response... I think it is a natural one given the rapid mutation that myth has undergone since the birth of the space-age.

Would you describe your 'personal mythology' as informed/inspired/influenced by the sci-fi/comic-book mythos?

👣