Atheism is a paradox and it results in chaos and madness.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Klassified

 

No, I am not joking. And I am not trying to win anything, are you? Were we engaged in some sort of competition? I spelled out my understanding of the circumstance. If you wish to disengage from further discussion that is certainly your prerogative.

No problem bro. I was just frustrated, and trying to figure out where we got our wires crossed. Let me try rewording the original question...

If there is a being of some kind that had a hand in our creation, what makes that being divine? What makes it a god, or a deity? See what I'm asking there?

Would a scientist be a god/deity because he/she was able to create life in the laboratory?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by jiggerj
Atheism is solely the belief that there is no creator. That's all there is to atheism.

That sounds so much more rational..

Except that it's incorrect as a definition.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Ah, he corrected it later I see.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. That's all. If people want to add an agenda to it, then it is not atheism.

reply to post by xDeadcowx

First just want to say I enjoyed your post and your critique of the OP I hope more people persuade him away from some of his beliefs.

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
My reason for being Atheist is just that, reason. Advocates for religion always use the argument that everything couldn't have just happened randomly, there had to have been an intelligent design. If that is the case, then how did "God" get created?

Either way we are faced with something eternal. Whether it's 'God', collective consciousness, or a mechanical physical Universe or whathaveyou.

So from there what is a fitting description for something un-created? I am not positing anything here. This is the mental exercise I give myself. To me seems as how eternity defeated the impossible conundrum of something coming from nothing I will at least attribute omnipotence. If I am calling all of creation a part of this eternal first cause I will then attribute omnipresence. That seems as far as I can stretch the logic. Omniscience I personally have belief to add as I believe consciousness to have been woven into the very fabric of existence from its very onset (whatever onset means to eternity that is). Omnibenevolence... yeah I hope so lol I don't have reason for that except wishful thinking.

The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence. —Thomas Hobbes,

edit on 19-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by wildtimes


I'm not sure what you're meaning here.....
infinite, impossible consciousness, yes, that is "forgotten" as soon as the child is born (possibly while in utero)....
because we come here to learn. If we already know what the tests are, we can cheat....so, after we (in ethereal dimension) determine what lessons need to be repeated or presented, we are once more born on Earth, and go through the lessons as planned. Some people see that we are learning....others do not.....

Forgive me, it's way way way past my bedtime.

Good morning! If you are conceding that we come from a consciousness of infinite wisdom, then what can we possibly learn here that we will bring back once we return to that consciousness?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by jiggerj
Atheism is solely the belief that there is no creator. That's all there is to atheism.

That sounds so much more rational..

It is highly irrational to adopt a definition that is baseless and absent of authority. All that definition serves is perhaps a single person or two...it is a definition of convenience.

reply to post by Klassified

If there is a being of some kind that had a hand in our creation, what makes that being divine?

Nothing in and of itself except to state it is ascribed that adjective by the observer...similar to people who ascribed the term divine or divinely inspired to the paintings of DaVinci or the music of Mozart. Subjective of course.

What makes it a god, or a deity? See what I'm asking there? Would a scientist be a god/deity because he/she was able to create life in the laboratory?

No. I would not ascribe the term god/deity to any scientist.

The point is there are many things created by many known entities. Chimpanzees create rudimentary tools from twigs. Granted, it does not differ much from the original shape of the twig, but its new found purpose could be subjectively interpreted as divine.

The fact remains the disbelief in a god(s) of the atheist is logically inconsistent with the known facts.

Atheists are human.
All humans lack total experience.
All atheists lack total experience.

The only absolute fact in the life of the atheist is the atheist (and all other humans) is they have yet to experience everything there is to experience. There is a possibility the god or evidence of the god could exist in a place the professed atheist has yet to experience. Since this is an indisputable fact, the atheist must surrender his state of disbelief and adopt a position of agnosticism.

In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Richard Dawkins acknowledges this fact. He went so far as to state intelligent design is a possibility. He adopted the position of Kirk in "Star Trek - The Final Frontier," when confronted by the entity at the center of the galaxy,

"...a skeptical Kirk inquires, "What does God need with a starship?"

ETA: I see where Dawkins is now claiming his explanation of how life originated on this planet was an attempt to advocate for something he does not believe in. (i.e., panspermia, ID).

...It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be.

He is stating it is implausible. Not impossible.

My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible.

reply to post by totallackey

All that definition serves is perhaps a single person or two...it is a definition of convenience.

Serves a single person or two?

I am not following.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Member jiggerj provided the following definition of atheism:

Atheism is solely the belief that there is no creator. That's all there is to atheism.

Another member, NewAgeMan, stated:

That sounds so much more rational..

To which, I replied:

It is highly irrational to adopt a definition that is baseless and absent of authority. All that definition serves is perhaps a single person or two...it is a definition of convenience.

So, as we can see, my entire reply states the definition is baseless and has no rational authority to back it up. It is merely a definition of convenience, similar to what one or two people might choose to wear on a given day of the week...subject to whim and flights of fancy.

If you can find jiggerj's definition of atheism written in any authoritative text (i.e., dictionary), then I will retract my statement. It might be there.

reply to post by totallackey


I probably missed a few posts for context.

I get the sneaking feeling you think an atheist can't be agnostic?

Atheism is the position and agnosticism is a methodology that an atheist can use to reach it.

So for instance. "I don't believe there is enough evidence to prove God". That's an atheist. The lack of belief in God is the result in the lack of evidence.

If I said there is no God. There will never be evidence for God. God is impossible. That is also atheist. They differ in that the agnostic atheist believes if evidence is later provided they could change their position.

That's how I understand it.

Originally posted by totallackey

If you can find jiggerj's definition of atheism written in any authoritative text (i.e., dictionary), then I will retract my statement. It might be there.

I would trust this over anything I say

www.atheists.org...

reply to post by totallackey

Nothing in and of itself except to state it is ascribed that adjective by the observer...similar to people who ascribed the term divine or divinely inspired to the paintings of DaVinci or the music of Mozart. Subjective of course.

That's what I was looking for. I don't have a problem with a being that from our perspective might be all-powerful and all-knowing. A being that might have even created us, and even the universe. What I have a problem with is the human inclination to ascribe divinity to that being, and worship it, just because it blows our idea of existence and reality out of the water.

The above is what makes me an atheist. I'm not presumptuous enough to think that being couldn't exist. I just can't ascribe divinity to it anymore than you can to a scientist. But historically, it seems we always have. I suppose it is human nature to either fear, hate, or worship what is beyond our comprehension.

Thanks for the reply. I now see where our wires got crossed. We all seem to have a different idea in our mind as to what an atheist, or a god, are. It can really get confusing in a discussion if both parties haven't defined the terms.

Thanks for the reply.

reply to post by dominicus

How come the news here isn't full of stories about people "flinging crap at each other" then?

Also, if your God is the only reason you're not running around throwing your feces... then by all means, go on and believe in whatever deity inhibits your primal behaviour.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Well, let us move forward with this definition:

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

and see if it fundamentally impacts my argument.

Atheists' lack of belief in gods is based on a personally experienced lack of objective evidence. Since objective evidence is the benchmark for this state of being, and it can be objectively and indisputably stated any professed atheist has yet to achieve total experience, then my argument stands unopposed, unblemished, and untarnished.

As an aside, I must comment on this statement found at the website:

Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives.

I have yet to find any dictionary/thesaurus listing these adjectives as synonymous with atheism. I believe this statement is hyperbole. If there is a referenced source to back up this statement, then I will retract.

reply to post by Klassified

The above is what makes me an atheist. I'm not presumptuous enough to think that being couldn't exist. I just can't ascribe divinity to it anymore than you can to a scientist. But historically, it seems we always have. I suppose it is human nature to either fear, hate, or worship what is beyond our comprehension.

Regardless of what you claim the reason(s) or foundation(s) for your atheism is/are, they cannot stand to the argument as written. You must allow for the fact deity may exist. Your state of "lack of belief," or "disbelief," is not based on the objective evidence.

reply to post by dominicus


But it gets down to each individual atheist's conscience, some will be like you say animals with no conscience, others, I would say most still listen to that little voice that says stuff like murder and rape are wrong, even if there is no law against it, they just know it.

Here is the problem since they are their own director of their own personal morality because they have dismissed
Judao/Christian principles, it can decline at any time, because there is nothing to stop it, but their conscience, and we know it is possible for a persons conscience to become seared so that it never warns them anymore about doing wrong. And is true the same thing can happen to a Christian, the abuse of young boys in the Catholic church is an example of that. So it can happen to anybody, I really do believe that it come down the individual we have good and bad Christians the same as we have good and bad atheists.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I get the sneaking feeling you think an atheist can't be agnostic?

There is nothing that should remain sneaky...allow me to clarify...

There may be liars...who refuse to answer yes or no questions directly...

There may be equivocators...who offer varying definitions designed for convenience to escape or otherwise elude the facts in evidence...however,

There is no such thing as an atheist. This is objective fact. It is indisputable.

reply to post by totallackey

Atheists' lack of belief in gods is based on a personally experienced lack of objective evidence. Since objective evidence is the benchmark for this state of being, and it can be objectively and indisputably stated any professed atheist has yet to achieve total experience, then my argument stands unopposed, unblemished, and untarnished.

So basically humans are limited in such a way that they cannot understand all objective evidence therefore they cannot deduce all objective truths with factual certainty?

I can understand that.

That could equally be applied to the belief in God.

reply to post by totallackey

There is no such thing as an atheist. This is objective fact. It is indisputable

Okay yeah I guess I am not following after all.

You can argue the position is irrational on the grounds of objectivity (which I think you were doing)....

That doesn't negate someone lacks a belief in God, and that is the definition.

I have yet to find any dictionary/thesaurus listing these adjectives as synonymous with atheism. I believe this statement is hyperbole. If there is a referenced source to back up this statement, then I will retract.

They could be referencing older editions. Or perhaps when they say 'dictionaries' they are speaking so loosely they mean to include word glossaries on various sites. I don't know. Maybe hyperbole.

I do know in the past I have seen definitions for Anarchism associated with Satanism on sites.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Actually, my argument does not imply humans being incapable of understanding objective truth. It actually argues for it.

My argument clearly states the only current objective truth in existence at this particular point in time:

All atheists are human
All humans lack total experience
All atheists lack total experience

Since this is indisputable and is clearly objective truth, the atheist must surrender his state of disbelief and/or lack of belief and allow for the fact evidence of a deity or the deity itself may exist outside of the realm of personal experience.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Okay yeah I guess I am not following after all. You can argue the position is irrational on the grounds of objectivity (which I think you were doing).... That doesn't negate someone lacks a belief in God, and that is the definition.

Actually, it does negate the lack of belief...allow me to further clarify my argument.

When asked to ascribe the lack of belief position, the atheist must lay claim to the lack of evidence.

Granted, given, and conceded.

However, it is intellectually dishonest to adopt this position and not look at one's state of being, namely the indisputable fact not one human can lay claim to total experience.

In essence, the atheist must allow for a shred of possibility...thereby making the atheist an agnostic.

Atheists do not exist. And cannot exist.

Originally posted by totallackey
Actually, my argument does not imply humans being incapable of understanding objective truth. It actually argues for it.

I understood what you meant then, I suppose I didn't articulate well.. I didn't say they couldn't understand objective truth I said objective evidence. You said the totality of experience is outside the scope of 'the atheist' ergo the experience outside that scope being the objective evidence.

My argument clearly states the only current objective truth in existence at this particular point in time:

All atheists are human
All humans lack total experience
All atheists lack total experience

Since this is indisputable and is clearly objective truth, the atheist must surrender his state of disbelief and/or lack of belief and allow for the fact evidence of a deity or the deity itself may exist outside of the realm of personal experience.

I think I have already addressed this a few times in a few posts here.

Atheist sometimes DO acknowledge that possibility. You are trying to assert all atheists are 'hard atheists'.

This position which is atheist:

"I lack the belief in God due to the lack of evidence"

is not incompatible with what you said:

"allow for the fact evidence of a deity or the deity itself may exist"

Intrinsic to the agnostic understanding of that atheist is the understanding if evidence was presented they may change their position.

In essence, the atheist must allow for a shred of possibility...thereby making the atheist an agnostic.

Agnosticism as I understand it (as it was originally meant) is the methodology and not the position. Either way within the body of atheists many hold a belief based on how I am thinking you are calling agnostic.

Clearly the issue that needs to be resolved now is how agnosticism relates to atheism.

Also something to point out.

All theists are human
All humans lack total experience
All theists lack total experience

Therefore theists don't exist either in this strict understanding of objectivity. Either the human atheist or the human theist are drawing conclusions from a non-totality of experience.