From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: chr0naut

Y'er a little late matey for speak like a pirate day

originally posted by: TzarChasm

it doesnt annoy me, however you have already admitted it does annoy you. ergo, no ditto.

But I can see the vein throbbing at your temple (we Theists have that power, when God reveals it to us).

because everything that has been historically credited to a theological force has since been demonstrated to be natural phenomena.

Because something is a natural phenomenon, and has discoverable processes, does not preclude it from also being created by God. As such, the 'naturalness' of nature, and the rational discoverability of its processes, is just not an argument against Theism.

can you demonstrate how these rational deficiencies equally plague atheism?

I could re-re-state my case, which I feel has been clearly expressed in several examples, in several posts, but I will instead defer to the numerous deflective responses of experts (as you did above, when you did not actually answer the previous question and also stated a transparent rational falsehood in your non-answer).

im also interested in whether you can unravel the mysteries of ignosticism with the same confidence that you criticize atheism.

Ignosticism is an argument from ignorance of a particular type of knowledge - that is: 'word definitions and meanings' (also called semantics). Regardless of the specific semantics of the word 'ignosticism', by all accepted definitions, it is an argument from ignorance.

I don't see it as mysterious because in my experience, many people seem quite content in their ignorance.

a reply to: chr0naut

Who is this "we" Ke-mo sah-bee. Your type of theism is not akin to my type of theism, and thus don't lump us all together thanks

%Nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nu-thin!%
%You gotta have sumthin, if...you wanna be with me!%
(chorus)

(sorry if someone already did this...I didn't read 'em all).

a reply to: chr0naut

Because something is a natural phenomenon, and has discoverable processes, does not preclude it from also being created by God. As such, the 'naturalness' of nature, and the rational discoverability of its processes, is just not an argument against Theism.

It kind of does. At that point you are adding an unnecessary step to an already perfectly serviceable breakdown. One might even go so far as to say you are letting science do the legwork and then taking credit. Not cool.

I could re-re-state my case, which I feel has been clearly expressed in several examples, in several posts, but I will instead defer to the numerous deflective responses of experts (as you did above, when you did not actually answer the previous question and also stated a transparent rational falsehood in your non-answer).

It would seem you yourself aren't above the occasional deflection...I will have to go back at a later point to see if I missed something, as you suggest.

Ignosticism is an argument from ignorance of a particular type of knowledge - that is: 'word definitions and meanings' (also called semantics). Regardless of the specific semantics of the word 'ignosticism', by all accepted definitions, it is an argument from ignorance.

It is an argument from poor definition, which is not ignorance in the sense that we do not or cannot know, but in the sense that we have not yet measured. There is a subtle difference that still permits the possibility that someone will wise up and present a suitable data set for establishing a universal and incontrovertible understanding of exactly what a god is. This data set is currently missing although many will state that this phenomena or that testimony points toward the said data set, but that's only from an exclusionary point of view and doesn't hold water if you poke it hard enough. You need substantial data and a consistent definition if you want to resolve the debate. Otherwise Thor, Krishna, hotep, cernunnos, allah and jesus are all equally viable answers. Unicorn farts and smurf orgies are also acceptable as creation mythologies go. You have skipped far too many steps and employed far too many presumptions in a quest where closure is the prize. Go ahead and share your entire hypothesis of creation or abiogenesis and we can point out all the presumptions and unsupported speculation. You can't cut corners and then be...annoyed, was the word you used, when someone happens to put a leak in your boat because they were curious. If your opinion is too fragile to endure the test of peer review, then perhaps its time to review your opinion.

Perhaps we should start calling it the god theory. Although it would become quickly evident just how superfluous the god theory is. An unnecessary step, as I said before.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

You have yet to illustrate this, rather you have said it is so, and decided that is enough. I don't believe you actually know what atheists do or do not believe, rather you assume, based on a caricature

Firstly, I'm not exactly sure which post this refers to, so it is hard to know how to respond. If you would please "quote" the post when responding, I could reply adequately.

However, you are now suggesting that I don't know what Atheism is? Or what Atheists do, or believe? Really?

Try this for a clarification:

Atheists are just normal people, like any others.

A few are geniuses, the vast majority are average, some are intellectually challenged (a bell curve would describe the distribution).

The only attribute they have in common and that differentiates them from Theists is that they believe that there is no God or gods.

It is the belief that differentiates them. Rationality, logic or intellect is not the differentiator.

That's it, no cariacature could fit such a diversity.

(BTW, a Pantheist is a type of Theist - just sayin').

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't know how you are accessing that post, but if its on a PC you click on your name in my reply and it shows you. But to help a brother out .... "But I can see the vein throbbing at your temple (we Theists have that power, when God reveals it to us). " is what I am replying too.

I am indeed suggesting you do not understand atheism.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

But most atheists don't say "There is no god", they say, "I DO NOT BELIEVE that god exists". There's a difference.

... snip ...

You don't understand that atheism is rejection of belief, not a belief in itself.

Rather that try and reason with you, I have quoted and bolded words from your previous post.

See if you can detect any cognitive dissonance in what you were saying.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Did I state that? No I stated that arguments over religion has caused death. Can you disprove that?

You stated "Getting humanity to agree on what the divine is... sort of has killed a lot of humanity thus far". I am not disagreeing with that.

Specific argument over religion has been devastating in terms of casualties.

Take for instance the Stalinist deprivations (estimated casualties @ 20 million) and Chinese 'Cultural Revolution' (estimated casualties 40 million), both perpetrated by Atheist regimes against their majority religious populations.

Atheism has a lot of blood on its hands, does it not?

humanity as a whole has a lot of blood on its hands. so the solution is clear: all humans are bad and should be exterminated regardless of nation, religion or wealth.

...oh thor, skynet was right.

I have never taken another human life and have sought to assist others where possible. I therefore suggest that I should be excluded from the extermination. Similarly, those other humans who have not offended, should be excluded. It is only fair!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut
Can you disprove my statement? Deaths in large numbers have been caused because of religion.

Oh and look at the fallacy of "communists caused all this death, look at the bad atheists". Yep that is not going to fly spud.

There are many Communist governments (and left-leaning ones) that do not espouse Atheism (and also have no blood on their hands).

Eurocommunists/Neocommunists acknowledge and embrace religion as a humanist commitment to making a better world.

There are also Christian Communist movements who point out that the egalitarian community of the early Christian Church embraced ideals similar to Communism.

There are also groups like the Hutterites who existed before Communism but espouse community goods and pacifism.

I was not suggesting that Communism caused all those deaths. You were suggesting that religion (in general) caused deaths in large numbers.

Generally, those who manufacture weapons, raise armies and put those armies and weapons to use, cause deaths in large numbers.

Generally, most religions are pacifist.

In the 20th Century, the top five causes of "deaths in large numbers" were: the Second World War (66 million), The Chinese Cultural Revolution (40 million), Stalin's regime (20 million), the First World War (15 million), the Russian Civil War (9 million). These were the greatest numbers of deaths at human hands in all history. None of those were for religious reasons.

Historically, the numbers of deaths due to religion are a vanishinly tiny fraction of a fraction of the total numbers of deaths by human intent. The frequent mention of it as an argument against religion shows a prejudice against religion, an ignorance of history or both.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: chr0naut

Atheism has a lot of blood on its hands, does it not?

Ya.. But they didn't kill in the name of atheism.

Do you imagine battle scenes with soldiers saying "I kill you in the name of Jesus", "I kill you in the name of Ganesha" or "I kill you in the name of Buddah"? It just doesn't happen. The taking of human life is abhorrent to most religions.

Most soldiers in battle are, or have been, placed there in a situation where it is defend or die. They aren't there for prayers or feeding the orphans (normal activities for religious groups). They weren't placed there by religion.

If people have killed in the name of an Atheist ideal, I know what I'd call it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Y'er a little late matey for speak like a pirate day

Arrr, bugger.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Who is this "we" Ke-mo sah-bee. Your type of theism is not akin to my type of theism, and thus don't lump us all together thanks

"Polly wants a Theism"?

Its a Norwegian Blue, It's pining for the fjords, mate!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't know how you are accessing that post, but if its on a PC you click on your name in my reply and it shows you. But to help a brother out .... "But I can see the vein throbbing at your temple (we Theists have that power, when God reveals it to us). " is what I am replying too.

I am indeed suggesting you do not understand atheism.

Thanks.

I was exhaggerating things, sarcastically, to point out that perhaps multiple responses were indicative of a commitment you have to present your case.

Did my answer indicate that I don't understand atheism?

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't know what Coomba98 thinks of alien visitation (as he didn't mention anything about it), but the rest sounds logical and I agree with it.

What would your thoughts be on the evidence required to show that a thing is nonexistent or unlikely to exist?

Easy, there is not sufficient evidence to support alien visitation. Otherwise it would be well known.

This is why i think your playing games. That or your not reading my posts correctly.

Coomba98


Coomba98

a reply to: chr0naut

Your still not getting it digger.

Atheism is not a stance nor does it make predictions.

When criticising atheism trade i do not believe in gods with i do not believe in vampires.

Just because someone does not believe in vampires does not mean they are good or bad people, or have other beliefs or view points.

Like communism.

Doesnt mean communism is atheism.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Your still not getting it digger.

Atheism is not a stance nor does it make predictions.

When criticising atheism trade i do not believe in gods with i do not believe in vampires.

Just because someone does not believe in vampires does not mean they are good or bad people, or have other beliefs or view points.

Like communism.

Doesnt mean communism is atheism.

Coomba98

Despite the etymology of the word clearly meaning "no god", and the application and exploration of atheism as 'the belief that there is no god', in reason and philosophy, throughout history.

You would define it that an atheist makes no determination upon belief in the existence of God, or not, at all. They neither believe, nor disbelieve. Their brain simply isn't applied to the question. In the regard to the existence of God, they are as rationally functional as a lump of coal.

I'm sure that was the gist of my initial argument.

a reply to: chr0naut

No i do not.

Coomba98

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MamaJ

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MamaJ

I NEVER said Hawking gave Higgs Boson the name God Particle. Leon Lederman gave it that name in a book. I get it... I just stated Hawkings wasn't a fan and called it that.

it was started as a joke, "god particle" being short for "the goddamned particle" on account of it being so difficult to pin down. naturally, people started slinging stigmas around and romanticizing it. equally naturally, most of these people dont have the slightest about what the particle actually means or does.

s

Don't you think if I know who created the term and how he created it in a book years ago I know it started out as a joke? I mean get real. Do you people read the comments or just knee jerk?

Carry on

you seem to have taken my post personally. you really shouldnt have, but its not my problem.

It wasn't personal to you as I did write "you people". I was just pointing out "people" such as yourself not reading the post and replying without the understanding meant to convey. Basically the pot calling the kettle black when you insinuate (as others have) how people take science to another level than what it's meant to convey.

When it gets down to the root of why people believe or disbelieve It's my opinion we are all wired differently. Our brains are different and so our perception of reality is from just one angle. Not to mention our brains are limited.

Neuroscientists have found and measured chemical changes in the brain when a person is going through religious or spiritual experiences and keep coming back for more. It turns out religion makes us feel the same way we do when we meditate — the evolutionary explaination is these practices help us improve our mental state, so in a sense, we all believe in the same thing… only our vision of what “it” is comes in different forms. Whether it be a God or a power we have inside of us

www.patheos.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut
The only attribute they have in common and that differentiates them from Theists is that they believe that there is no God or gods.

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE. They don't "believe there is no". Yes, you do not understand what atheism is, and every time it has been explained, you don't respond. I'm beginning to think you are doing it on purpose now, because you have been selectively responding to people's points and have been conveniently ignoring all points that prove troublesome for you.

Rather that try and reason with you, I have quoted and bolded words from your previous post.

See if you can detect any cognitive dissonance in what you were saying.

Come on, you blatantly ignored the word NOT. "I do NOT believe". That means I lack the belief, not that I have a belief that god absolutely does not exist.

You can't/won't reason with me on this one, and that's obvious. Ask any atheist. Atheism is lack of believing, not believing that there is absolutely no god/gods. There is no cognitive dissonance, only you failing to comprehend that you don't need evidence to justify not believing in something which has no supporting evidence in the first place. You fail to comprehend that lack of belief is not that same as a belief in the opposite.

The only way to debunk or dismiss atheism is objective evidence in favor of god, no matter how much you illogically reverse burden of proof and falsely generalize atheists. End of story.

Despite the etymology of the word clearly meaning "no god", and the application and exploration of atheism as 'the belief that there is no god', in reason and philosophy, throughout history.

Atheism. A-theism.

Theism = belief in god, it doesn't just mean god. A-theism means without (or no) belief in god.

It's not that complicated. The prefix A being added to words, generally indicates No, NOT or without.