Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 258

Thread: The God Zoo

  1. Top | #11
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    950
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,870
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by hyzer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    You had me at hello....so......

    Right back at you…….. What is the definition of atheism?
    It has been provided to you multiple times . . .
    Care to provide some evidence for that assertion?

    Seems to be a complete dodge. What is so hard with providing and then defending your definition of atheism?

  2. Top | #12
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    950
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,870
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by ideologyhunter View Post
    Atheism = seeing things in natural sunlight.
    Could mean anything you subjectively want it to mean.
    Sounds like some uniformed Christians I know.
    Just keep dodging the question.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,911
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,857
    Rep Power
    68
    atheism | ˈāTHēˌizəm |
    noun
    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    ~from New Oxford American Dictionary

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,281
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    4,872
    Rep Power
    71
    i.e., the way everyone today regards Odin.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,911
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,857
    Rep Power
    68
    Atheism doesn't require the verbal stew that theism does. We all look at the world and none of us see the handiwork of God anywhere in it unless that idea's been added during our "education" into various abstractions... stories... that are about reality but not an evident feature of it.

    Atheists see the imaginary and verbal contrivance... whichever god you care to name... as an unconvincing story for lack of evidence.

    And, as with Russell's teapot, it's not on the disbeliever to justify his disbelief or lack of belief regardless of any reasons a teapot-believer gives for why it's hard to see. Show it, without verbal diarrhea, or the reasons to believe are lame reasons.

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,874
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,758
    Rep Power
    64
    An atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. It does not matter if that atheist has good reasons for not believing, bad reasons for not believing, or offers no reasons at all for not believing.

    It is that simple.
    Cheerful Charlie

  7. Top | #17
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    950
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,870
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    atheism | ˈāTHēˌizəm |
    noun
    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    ~from New Oxford American Dictionary
    That "or" creates quite a difference of philosophical conclusion.
    So...sort out the verbal straw for me…..
    Are you an atheist that asserts there is no god/gods
    or......
    Do you simply lack a belief?
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Atheism doesn't require the verbal stew that theism does. We all look at the world and none of us see the handiwork of God anywhere in it unless that idea's been added during our "education" into various abstractions... stories... that are about reality but not an evident feature of it.
    Clarification of pronouns needed. Your use of “we” and “us” is confusing.
    B/c……
    “We” all look……… “We” is atheist or everyone? B/c I as a theist see scientific evidence that supports a creator. So you seem to be speaking for atheists only.
    Thus….
    None of “us” see…..means that atheists only don’t see the evidence b/c obviously I see plenty of scientific evidence that supports a transcendent creator.
    Thus further…..it simply means that we interpret the evidence differently. So differently that you judge that theists don’t have evidence. Yet we (you and I) are looking at the same evidence. You are philosophically reasoning that evidence doesn’t exist. And that philosophy would need to be explained and supported. Therein lies the true difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Atheists see the imaginary and verbal contrivance... whichever god you care to name... as an unconvincing story for lack of evidence.
    Clearly. But what is your reasoning to justify that all these different gods in the zoo are on the same footing. These “stories” are not all the same. Just consider the issue of origins. For example…. I agree that Apollo reasons to be a contrivance b/c he is historically/mythologically part of this universe, thus can reasonably be discarded as a contender as the transcend creator of a universe that plausibly began to exist. That goes for all gods in the zoo that are by their mythologies part of this universe. All of those gods in the zoo are not scientifically supported by a universe that most plausibly began to exist. How many gods are there that are described as transcendent creators?
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Atheists see the imaginary and verbal contrivance... whichever god you care to name... as an unconvincing story for lack of evidence.
    You are irrationally treating them as all the same. The issue of origin certainly eliminates the vast majority of the zoo as contrivance. But it in no way eliminates theism.
    And again…. How does the “evidence” of a universe that plausibly began to exist mean that theism has no evidence? You simply assert there is no evidence. You need to defend your assertion. Specifically tell me how a past finite universe does not support a transcendent creator.
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    And, as with Russell's teapot, it's not on the disbeliever to justify his disbelief or lack of belief regardless of any reasons a teapot-believer gives for why it's hard to see. Show it, without verbal diarrhea, or the reasons to believe are lame reasons.
    I understand Russel’s attempt. But his attempt is not analogous to the theistic creator. Russel’s teapot is a material contrivance to reason against the theist immaterial creator. Teapots and FSMs are material thus cannot be used as analogous to the theist creator. Further, the contrivance of his teapot is also a part of the universe and thus again a faulty analogy to the theistic transcendent creator that is supported by a past finite universe. And since his teapot is part of this universe then his teapot is past finite as well. Same goes for the FSM and farting space goats.
    And…
    Again how does the presence of a past finite universe not support for a transcendent creator? You know my reasoning there…so how am I not addressing my burden to justify my belief with evidence and reasoning? YOU DO have the burden to show me why your undefended arbitrary denial of my provided evidence and reasoning is incorrect. Until you do so it is your denial that is verbal diarrhea.

  8. Top | #18
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    950
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,870
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    An atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. It does not matter if that atheist has good reasons for not believing, bad reasons for not believing, or offers no reasons at all for not believing.

    It is that simple.
    Ok, lets keep this simple then......

    If you are not required to have good reasons or any reasons at all for what you believe
    Then
    Why do you insist that theists need to have good reasons for what they believe?

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,911
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,857
    Rep Power
    68
    Atheism isn't a metaphysical stance but a psychological state.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Do you simply lack a belief?
    Yes. My active beliefs are other than atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Clarification of pronouns needed. Your use of “we” and “us” is confusing.
    We humans all look at the world and none of us humans see the handiwork of God... I'm talking about before the interpreting starts, to make a point of how simple atheism is. Atheism doesn't require all the interpreting of the evidence that theism does.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    I as a theist see scientific evidence that supports a creator.
    You think you see it because your education included thinking in the terms of an ancient mythological tradition. Ancient theists thought it took intention for anything to happen and so they projected a god. Modern theists continue indulging this same anthropomorphizing impulse.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    ... I see plenty of scientific evidence that supports a transcendent creator.
    And children see scientific evidence that Santa Claus puts presents under a tree. The presents exist, their existence must be explained, the more self-serving that the explanation is the better, the list of possible present-makers can be trimmed down to who seems most likely. After all, mom and dad have their limits; even kids know only a supernatural being can ride a sleigh in the sky and fit down the chimney.

    The children were taught to interpret the evidence that way. And so long as they value the meaningfulness their Santa provides, they'll keep doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Thus further…..it simply means that we interpret the evidence differently.
    I'm very aware that values have a lot to do with our, and everyone's, differences in outlook.

    We've been over why your interpreting is unconvincing before.

    But my point here is, that atheism is not a metaphysical proposition. It is not a statement of belief, it's a description of a person. It's the state of mind where the choice to struggle to sustain the belief in deity hasn't been made.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    But it in no way eliminates theism.
    I'm not an atheist because I've eliminated all reasons that all theists have ever presented for theism. I'm an atheist for not having been convinced by what's been presented to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    And again…. How does the “evidence” of a universe that plausibly began to exist mean that theism has no evidence? You simply assert there is no evidence.
    There's lack of convincing evidence, to be more clear than I was with the "lack of evidence" statement.

    The point about what humans don't see in nature was that the evidence for God doesn't look like evidence for God until after a person has somehow found a mythology reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    You need to defend your assertion. Specifically tell me how a past finite universe does not support a transcendent creator.
    It's an interesting conjecture but I'm waiting for better than some strained armchair philosophy before I'll consider anyone to have a plausible explanation for this universe. I don't commit to beliefs very readily.

    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    I understand Russel’s attempt. But his attempt is not analogous to the theistic creator. Russel’s teapot is a material contrivance to reason against the theist immaterial creator. Teapots and FSMs are material thus cannot be used as analogous to the theist creator.
    No, it's to reason against anyone going on and on about how he's powerfully demonstrated anything and therefore the burden has shifted to others.

    Is your God immanent too, or just transcendent? If he's immanent then let's see something more direct. Show God's within the universe before asserting he's there in the beyond. Maybe he'd be more believable then.
    Last edited by abaddon; 04-21-2020 at 06:09 PM. Reason: clarifying

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,874
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,758
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    An atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. It does not matter if that atheist has good reasons for not believing, bad reasons for not believing, or offers no reasons at all for not believing.

    It is that simple.
    Ok, lets keep this simple then......

    If you are not required to have good reasons or any reasons at all for what you believe
    Then
    Why do you insist that theists need to have good reasons for what they believe?
    Not all atheists even care. I myself am a strong atheist. Basic claims about God made by theists have little support for them. And create some rather ugly little problems for theology's claims about God. I care about that because theology is basically wrong about everything. And theology leads to stupid religions doing stupid things. And that is important.
    Cheerful Charlie

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •