Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

a reply to: Kashai

atheism

I'm getting the feeling he didn't get the response he was looking for.

originally posted by: Annee
I'm getting the feeling he didn't get the response he was looking for.

It's a shame when people can't humbly admit when they were incorrect about their initial notions.

Not everyone bows to religion.

Ladies and Gentlemen forgive me as up until this moment did I realize this thread still existed. It was transfers to this forum but, I received no notification that it was. And as far as I knew until this exact moment the thread was dead and no longer a part of ATS.

Having said that; I want to point out. That defining God in so far as Humans can literally comprehend, is outside current human capacity. We are sill in every regard engaged in Anthromophism as a result of how in fact we know so little about our surroundings.

This is actually very simple to understand, under the circumstances.

Again my apologies I simply had no idea this thread still existed.


Any thoughts

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

Source

Essentially the Atheist movement constitutes a comprehension of God not being evident, in comprehension of 4% of what reality is.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Ok that made me laugh,

originally posted by: Kashai
Having said that; I want to point out. That defining God in so far as Humans can literally comprehend, is outside current human capacity.

Well, I am glad you didn't run away from the topic. Thank you for continuing the discussion.

What you continue to fail to understand, however, is that claiming that 'God is incomprehensible' is itself not possible to suggest because it would imply that you got that information from 'somewhere'. Comprehending incomprehensibility, in this sense, isn't possible.

You can very well claim that God is unknowable, but any attribution at all would be paradoxal to your original claim itself.

originally posted by: Kashai
We are sill in every regard engaged in Anthromophism as a result of how in fact we know so little about our surroundings.

No we are not. Atheists have no position on what God is because atheism is a lack of belief in one. The only people that are dealing with an anthropomorphic description of God are theists.

originally posted by: Kashai
This is actually very simple to understand, under the circumstances.

Yes, it makes perfect sense, if you continue to use a false premise as an argument

originally posted by: Kashai
Essentially the Atheist movement constitutes a comprehension of God not being evident, in comprehension of 4% of what reality is.

Atheists don't suggest that God is incomprehensible or comprehensible because atheists don't believe in God!

However, they are indeed atheists because out of the '4%' of what we have observed (arguable much less than 4%) there had been absolutely no evidence of a God.

So holding on to a lack of belief in one is perfectly reasonable.

a reply to: Ghost147

It is very good to talk to you again friend.

I am not saying that God is incompressible. I am presenting that reality is incomprehensible based upon human comprehension of it.

It is unrealistic to interpret otherwise, as fundamentally
we are limited to what humans intrinsically comprehend

To suggest in some absolute way there is no God suggest enough information about reality that this is possible. Not some theoretical baloney but very real hard fact's related to a deductive interpretation. Not some ill-defined perspective upon a sample and based upon what is known upon Earth. But a real understanding of reality in the context of a Population.

Science in every sense is all about statistics unless one is exploring a population.

originally posted by: Kashai
To suggest in some absolute way there is no God suggest enough information about reality that this is possible.

Once again, your argument is stemming from a false premise. The majority of atheists do not claim absolute knowledge that there is no God. It's fairly evident that they do not considering that every single secular argument presented by all of the members who have responded to this topic have told you that atheism is not a position or rejection, it is merely a lack of belief.

No atheist in here has claimed that God does not exist, conclusively. Every atheist here has said that, because there is no evidence for one, there's no reason to even suggest the possibility that one exists until observations prove otherwise.

You've been told this several times in every single page of this topic. Why can you not accept this fact?

originally posted by: Kashai
Science in every sense is all about statistics unless one is exploring a population.

Yes, and no one is denying that. Science isn't based on absolutism, so why bring it up? (Unless this is another false premise of yours)

a reply to: Ghost147

Atheism presents that an absence of evidence about God today suggests that God could very well not exist.

I present that this very same "absence of evidence", to a valid extent. Offers ignorance. given what evidence does in fact exist.

We simply do not know and that is not anything to be ashamed of.

Literally "cards on the table"....one cannot provide evidence beyond experience.

Given one knows how to drive a car states nothing about ones ability to maintain it.

I feel we are in no different a situation.

originally posted by: Kashai

I present that this very same "absence of evidence", to a valid extent. Offers ignorance. given what evidence does in fact exist.

We simply do not know and that is not anything to be ashamed of.

To not believe in a man made myth is ignorance? What?

Ashamed? Are you delusional?

There is a lot of actual science in evolution of life.

originally posted by: Kashai
Atheism presents that an absence of evidence about God today suggests that God could very well not exist.

True. I'm glad to see you're learning from your original stance

originally posted by: Kashai
I present that this very same "absence of evidence", to a valid extent. Offers ignorance. given what evidence does in fact exist.

I can't tell if you're suggesting that there is evidence that god exists, or that you're suggesting a stance that an absence of evidence in the use of reasoning what to believe in is an illogical stance?

Could you clarify?

originally posted by: Kashai
We simply do not know and that is not anything to be ashamed of.

I don't see anyone denying that we do not know most things. Why do you think everyone here is denying this?

The fact is, the observations that we have made lead to a conclusion that a god is not required. So in the current state of our knowledge, there is no reason to believe any sort of god exists.

originally posted by: Kashai
Literally "cards on the table"....one cannot provide evidence beyond experience.

Yes, we can.

I have not experienced seeing two million dollars in person, but I can provide evidence that it exists. Not a single person has sat out in space and observed that the Earth does indeed orbit around the sun, but we can prove it does through other means. I have not experienced a situation where a star has gone supernova, but I can verify that not only do stars do go supernova, but that ours will eventually do so in the future, not because I have experienced it, but because there are other ways we can prove it will happen.

Personal experience is both subjective and uncontrolled, leaving us susceptible to misperception and misrepresentation of events. Objective observation is a far greater, far more accurate form of gathering evidence because of the issues within personal observation.

Your logic is flawed.

originally posted by: Kashai
I feel we are in no different a situation.

That's because you are the sole individual within this topic that seems to be incapable of understanding the flaws in the argument at hand.

In general I tend to be a really nice guy and all things considered I get along with the majority of people I encounter.

So here what I think you should do......


1.Copy this entire thread

2. Send a copy to your mother.

3. Have her explain to you why due to this conversation talking to you is a waist of time.

4. Make no further effort to ever contact me again.

5. Have a great day.

Blame others because you didn't get the response/answers you expected.

Always a recommended way to end your thread.

a reply to: Annee

The idea that god exist or not cannot be proven to suggest otherwise is complete.........

Bottom line and get over it.

originally posted by: Kashai
1.Copy this entire thread

I don't need to, because there are hundreds of other threads in the ATS forums that have the exact same issue you have; making an argument on a false premise.

Every single member that has responded to your topic has shown you over and over again that your argument makes no sense. It is not us who is the issue here, it's your inability to understand that your argument is meaningless when it's based off of a false premise.

originally posted by: Kashai
2. Send a copy to your mother.

My mother's dead.

originally posted by: Kashai
3. Have her explain to you why due to this conversation talking to you is a waist of time.

You have yet to refute anything I have said with any sort of validity. Furthermore, every person here has said in their own words what I am also saying. It is pretty evident that you are the one who has the problematic position here, not me, and not anyone else.

For whatever reason, it is you that is having a difficult time comprehending the discussion at hand.

originally posted by: Kashai
4. Make no further effort to ever contact me again.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but you are the one who started the topic. You were the one who directly asked "any thoughts" after nearly every single post you made. You have constantly been seeking others' opinions, and you got them. You simply can't handle them.

I didn't seek you out. Not only that, but I'm not the only one who holds this opposing position. Every single person in this thread has needed to correct you on your points because they're based on

originally posted by: Kashai
5. Have a great day.

Better than yours, apparently. When you're able to allow criticism on your personal opinions and personally constructed concepts, I'll be there to respond to them (most likely).

Deny Ignorance. Don't use it as a shield from reality.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Annee
The idea that god exist or not cannot be proven to suggest otherwise is complete.........

Bottom line and get over it.

Once again, no atheist is stating that god is not possible. We are simply stating there is no evidence to suggest it does, therefor no reason to believe it does. You're continuing to argue a false premise.

In reality there is no physical evidence to support or deny the existence of God.


In that sense your point is mute.

originally posted by: Kashai
In reality there is no physical evidence to support or deny the existence of God.

Except that we have observed natural occurrences for everything, thus a need for a god isn't there. We know how planets form, how life reproduces with variation, how clouds form, why the sun appears to rise and set, that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe, and many things in between all these topics.

We continue to observe that natural occurrences are whats needed to produce everything around us. There is simply no need for a god.

So, until we've made an observation that anything at all has a supernatural development, driven by a force or being, there is no evidence for a god, and illogical to believe in one. Yet, everything still points to a natural onset to everything.