Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

Atheism is a lack of belief in something as defined by observation and the reliance that what was observed was not documented in a way consistent with there standards.

Atheism is an argument against a standard defined in the context of human limitations.

Again and for the record no major religion in retrospect to those who actually study in a grave way, conclude God as an abstract compared to common thinking.

It's not a lack of Belief in Something. It's a lack of belief in a God based on the lack of positive evidence to support the claim that a God exists. That's all.

I lack belief in God because there is no positive evidence showing that there is a God. My lack of belief isn't a positive assertion of anything. It requires no proof because it makes no positive claims.

God is not evidently true. If it was it would be evident to us all without question. So to claim that there is a God requires some evidence to prove it.

Does that make sense???

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

Not if they all speak a different language.

A point being that reality as whole could be as beyond current human capacity to comprehend as it would be for a Bactria to understand how to operate an fly an F-22 Raptor.

However even in the case of such an example I am engaged in Anthromophism.

It could be beyond human comprehension but it could also be within our ability to comprehend as well. We won't know until we reach the limit of what we can comprehend now will we??? So why would we conclude that we can't understand it before we've tried to figure it out??

If we can't comprehend it then using God isn't the correct answer either so why say it is??? It's not like we don't allow for that to be the answer. If we find out that in fact it is, then it is. But if it is we'll still need to be able to show why it's the answer and as of yet that isn't what the evidence is showing us.

For the same reason you would not claim to be able to rebuild an engine if you cannot.

Not different that in relation to deductive and inductive arguments.

Deductive arguments are in relation to populations while inductive support a position related to samples.

originally posted by: Kashai

For the same reason you would not claim to be able to rebuild an engine if you cannot.

Not different that in relation to deductive and inductive arguments.

Deductive arguments are in relation to populations while inductive support a position related to samples.

Let me make sure I understand you.

The ability to rebuild an engine in your example is equal to claiming to know the existence of God, correct??? So I cannot claim the ability to rebuild an engine since I don't know how to rebuild an engine, correct???

Because I'm not claiming to know if God exists or not. I'm not making any claim. You're saying God exists, so you are making a claim. I'm saying I can't claim anything but if you are then I want to see the evidence you use to support that claim.

If you're saying you don't know and I'm saying I don't know then neither of us are making any claim. I can entertain the idea of a God existing for the sake of conversation or to use my imagination just like you can. But it never leaves that realm and enters into reality because it's not based in reality. It's just my imagination exploring infinite ideas.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
What you fail to understand is that by "not random" I obviously mean created as in having a purpose.

How am I failing to understand that? I've already mentioned it several times in a number of posts in this thread.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Reality can have a purpose and in so far as those who claim it could not, do not understand what we define as purpose is Anthromophism.

Who is we? What is 'Anthromophism' (this is not a real word)? It is only you who has these absurd concepts.

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, not an actual, specific thing in and of itself. Reality is entirely subjective to the individual perceiving it. It serves no purpose because it isn't a thing, it's a subjective point of view.

If you mean "universe" then stop speaking in such vague terms and get to your point.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Atheism is a lack of belief in something as defined by observation and the reliance that what was observed was not documented in a way consistent with there standards.

What the hell are you talking about? The more talk try to define atheism, the more obvious it is you have no idea what you're trying to describe.

Atheism isn't some sort of methodology on how to decipher the world around us. It is simply a lack of theism, that's it!!! A-Theism. It's not a difficult concept.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Atheism is an argument against a standard defined in the context of human limitations.

No! It's not! How is this so difficult to conceive? Atheism hasn't an argument about anything, it isn't a position on anything. Every single member in this thread is showing you that it isn't, yet you continue to backtrack to this bull**** idea on how you think atheism is defined.

You are wrong. Get over it.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Again and for the record no major religion in retrospect to those who actually study in a grave way, conclude God as an abstract compared to common thinking.

This has no relevance to the topic at hand, because your thread is based off of a false premise.

a reply to: mOjOm

A lack of belief is a belief unless one has anything to support it

a reply to: Ghost147

My point is you do not have any facts about reality beyond those that have been proven like why your toaster works.

To be clear you need to get over that.

Anthropomorphism is one of the oldest forms of worship for ether spirituality, or religion. Also, probably considered the most primitive form of it, where as Monotheist have a superiority complex against them, like Jesus being a lamb, or Satan being a Dragon(which is a mixture of others animals, like Bats).

Pagans(polytheist), Gentiles, and Barbarians...O my.

I'm getting dizzy in the circular.

You lack belief or you believe.

There is no proof either way.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

A lack of belief is a belief unless one has anything to support it

no a lack of belief is a response to someone like you that makes a claim to know something he cant.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

A lack of belief is a belief unless one has anything to support it

no a lack of belief is a response to someone like you that makes a claim to know something he cant.

Thank you. Very well put.

Man, I get tired of those who tell me what I'm suppose to believe.

a reply to: vjr1113

I do not claim to know anything and made that very clear in an earlier statement.

Perhaps you did not read it?

Again there is no real reason to assume that reality came as a result as a random event as in evidence what we understand as random in nature is not.

originally posted by: Kashai

Again there is no real reason to assume that reality came as a result as a random event as in evidence when we understand as random in nature is not.

Did you not just claim what you just posted?

a reply to: Annee

I have made this position very clear throughout this thread.

a reply to: Kashai

Guys and Gals in my part of time its 5 minutes to 2 am.

I thank you all for this evenings conversation.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

A lack of belief is a belief

Your belief that A lack of belief is a belief is unbelievable.

a reply to: Kashai

no one said nature is random, and even if it isnt random does not mean it has purpose by default. if you imply purpose, you need to reason behind it. if its your belief that there is purpose, its just opinion untill you back it up with anything.

you define order by comparing it to nature. if you say nature is the proof of order then you are making a huge mistake.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Annee

I have made this position very clear throughout this thread.

And somehow it makes a difference how many times you claim this position?

its the watchman theory.

you find a watch in the sand so you know its not natural, but what you're saying is that

you find a watch among millions of watches and call it unique.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

My point is you do not have any facts about reality beyond those that have been proven like why your toaster works.

To be clear you need to get over that.

When did I ever reject that notion? I am fully aware that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

I'm not sure you're even aware of anyone's position in this thread. But, you will certainly claim that you do know their position, over and over again, despite being proved wrong several times over.

originally posted by: Specimen
Anthropomorphism is one of the oldest forms of worship for ether spirituality, or religion.

Apparently he means "Anthromophism". He types it "Anthromophism" every time he posts, so I don't even know if he is referring to something he made up, or simply doesn't realize he's misspelling the word over and over again (even though I've directly mentioned it to him earlier [there was no response to it])

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

A lack of belief is a belief unless one has anything to support it

This is word play and semantics. In this context if you want to say my lack of belief is somehow a belief then fine. I don't see how that changes anything though. To me it just confuses the idea of what Belief means.

Because I've heard people tell me about what God is to them I now have a concept of what you're talking about. So in that sense my disbelief is a belief that your God that you just told me about isn't real. But it's only because you just defined God for me that makes my disbelief into a belief. But it's more that I disbelieve in what you just described as being real as opposed to disbelief in the general concept of God, whatever that might mean.

Since God means just about anything anyone wants to define it as it makes it difficult in this sense. In other words for me to have a positive belief that no God exists you have to define what God it is first. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to disbelieve it. I wouldn't even have a concept of anything to disbelieve in to begin with.

For example you didn't have a disbelief in Koopanatra because until this very second Koopanatra wasn't a possibility. I had to mention it first.

I think that makes sense....we're just talking semantics though which is pointless and doesn't change anything.