Atheism

Author: RaymondSheen
Atheism

Posts

Total: 302
Topic's author
#121
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
sure, do you think it's fair to say the key claims of YHWH include the claim that YHWH is omnipotent omniscient and the creator of all things (OOC) ?
So, Jehovah isn't, according to the Bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenovolent in the way theology tends to present him. For example, God's position is in heaven, and the physical heavens can't contain him. So God couldn't come here anymore than we could go into a birdhouse we built. God can't lie and can't go against his own will, God didn't know what Adam or Cain or the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had done so he isn't omniscient. God hates wickedness and the wicked so he isn't omnibenovolent. However, think of omnivore. The term isn't practical in an exaggerated sense as the omnis are presented in theology. God can get to know whatever he wants, can do anything within the paramaters of his will. Pretty much common sense. 

Is he the creator of all things? In a sense, yes and in a sense no. Had he not created our universe nothing would be created in it, of course. But he didn't create cell phones directly, for example. 

Topic's author
#122
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Sidewalker
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.

Anybody want to debate this?
That's sort of ambiguous isn't it? Being theistic certainly doesn't guarentee reasonableness. I think, if only. I can be really stupid. My theism can be really stupid. I would think you would have to be more specific. 

Topic's author
#123
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
you say: everything is a god and if you believe in something, anything really, then you can't be an atheist
I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. At least I hope the hell I didn't. 

i say: this has nothing to do with people who actually call themselves atheists because atheists simply lack belief in the demonstrable POWER of THEISTIC GOD(S)
I'll ask you again to define the theistic God. Not that I disagree, just for the sake of argument. 

i've never met an atheist who claimed to not believe in money or statues or books or whatever the hell you think qualifies as a "god" in your own mind
You don't get it. What is a god? Something venerated. Jehovah is only one of the countless gods. Before Jehovah created anything to worship i.e. venerate him, he wasn't a god. 

atheists are not a monolith, they believe many different things for many different reasons 

I have no doubt. 

just like theists or anyone else
Sure. I agree. 

Topic's author
#124
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, but if the book of NANABOZHO demands that non-believers be destroyed, would that maybe get your attention ?
Not if I were a non-believer. 

do you think maybe at that point NANABOZHO might warrant some attention ?
Well, perhaps, but not an emotional ideological fixation. If I thought it warranted some attention I would educate myself on NANOONANOOBOOBOO instead of stick my head in poo-poo, mister, I can tell you! 

Can I get an AMEN, brother?! Woo!
#125
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Hmmmm.

I think that you summed up my point concerning the arrangement of words.

So I won't try and elaborate further.

Regards.


#126
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@RaymondSheen
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.

Anybody want to debate this?
That's sort of ambiguous isn't it?
Yeah, that's somewhat my point, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, there are no proofs either way, Theism is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of qualities, values, meanings, and purposes. 

Being theistic certainly doesn't guarentee reasonableness.
Of course it doesn't, I'm responding to a boatload of contention that Theism is uneasonable/irrational. We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever.  The other thing that is constant is this Pavlovian response that Theism carries a Burden of Proof, which is complete nonsense, but nobody will debate that one either.  

I think, if only. I can be really stupid. My theism can be really stupid.
Everyone can be really stupid, nothing protects from that.  

I would think you would have to be more specific. 
Yes, that would be the debate part, I'll be very explicit if anyone accepts.  
#127
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 92
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@Sidewalker
We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever.
I’ll debate you
#128
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
If one is going to propose a specific creation hypothesis, then there is always going to be an accompanying "burden of proof".

Doesn't matter if it's a magical floaty about bloke or a BIG BOOM.

Atheists tend to run with the I don't no option, wherein proof is irrelevant.
#129
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
No, it would be like saying a doctor has to be defined by some arbitrary adherence
we're not talking about defining someone or something by what they ARE

we're talking about defining someone or something by what they are NOT

an elephant is NOT A THEIST
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Theism is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith,
debate over
#131
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@baggins
We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever.
I’ll debate you
Cool, it will be my first time so be gentle :)

We can make the subject of the debate:  It is reasonable/rational to be Theist.

Now lets figure out how to set it up.
#132
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
I'll ask you again to define the theistic God. Not that I disagree, just for the sake of argument. 
a theistic god is a deity believed in by followers of a religion who is involved in the world and interacts with humans
#133
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@baggins
We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever.
I’ll debate you
Cool, it will be my first time so be gentle :)

We can make the subject of the debate:  It is reasonable/rational to be Theist.

Now let's figure out how to set it up.

Or we can make the subject:  Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific

And then you be pro of course, would you prefer that since that's the way I stated it in the post you responded to?
#134
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
So, Jehovah isn't, according to the Bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenovolent in the way theology tends to present him.
ok, can you distill what you consider the essential characteristics of your version of jehovah ?
#135
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
because you conflate, as I've said repeatedly, God and gods.
what in the hell are you talking about ?
#136
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
You say, for example, that some atheists wouldn't have a problem with the big bang as a god, but if that's true it's only because the term doesn't mean anything to them. It isn't dependent upon ignorance beyond the surface because if you educated them, they either wouldn't accept it or it wouldn't be meaningless to them.
ooooooh


i only disagree with you because i don't UNDERstand you ?


i could say the exact same thing about you


how does this qualify as an "argument" ?
#137
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
I agree completely. 

Now what about the gods. Atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of God or gods. We've covered and agree upon God, now what about gods. Obviously gods in general? None specified. 

do you understand the difference between the logical operation of (OR) relative to the logical operation of (AND) ?
#138
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
Okay. Can science falsify the Biblical God hypothesis by evidence?  If so, how, if not why? 
which flavor of biblical god hypothesis are you specifically talking about

it is obviously impossible to expose logical contradictions for undefined or underdefined (unfalsifiable) claims
#139
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You haven't made a claim for me to accept, reject, or distort except for your mischaracterization of what atheism is, which is why I'm correcting it (or trying to anyway). We can certainly get into the many claims theists have presented throughout the ages but that would seem to be a deflection from the topic.
well stated
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
P1: It is reasonable/rational to withhold belief in an unfalsifiable entity.
P2: God is an unfalsifiable entity.
P3: Atheists withhold belief in God.
C: It is reasonable/rational to be atheist.
I agree completely. 
debate over
Topic's author
#141
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
What is an elephant that is not a theist or an atheist? A non-existent elephant? Ganesh? 
Topic's author
#142
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
which flavor of biblical god hypothesis are you specifically talking about

How many are there? 

it is obviously impossible to expose logical contradictions for undefined or underdefined (unfalsifiable) claims

Uh - okay. Give me an example of the attempt to do so. 
#143
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@RaymondSheen
Okay. That's a start. I've found the best way to, as Popper said "contradict [my] own assumptions" is to listen to contradictory positions. Give me yours. Elaborate. 
Elaborate. I see no recognition by you on what Ive presented clearly already regarding our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

Universe is the sum-total whole of what is natural { nature } and technological { biologic design }, since both are just complexes of sub-atomics >< atomics >< molecules >< compound complexes >< biology >< complex humans with access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego,  that, allows for concept of a Meta-space God, outside of a finite,  Meta-space Universe, and looking back in on a Meta-space Universe the Meta-space God has created and holding in its Meta-space hands.  

Very well. Good job. So, simply, to me, supernatural are things science can't explain because science is knowledge of nature.
Thanks for the kudo. Has science explained how a photon is both a discrete particle and a geometric wave simultaneously? 

If no, then the photon is supernatural. Yes?

Has science explained how a photon is observed to have a constant speed to any observer irrespective of their speed toward or away from the photon?

If no, then the photon is supernatural. Yes?

Yet science has taught us so much about EMRadition { photons }. Yes?

A market is still a market even when it is a supermarket.

A person is still a person even when they are a superperson { ex Superman }  is still a person { tho fiction }.  

A nova is still a nova, even when it is a supernova. 

Okay. Now I see where those references came from. Still don't see the connection as far as any argument you would have against my statement that God is supernatural and can't be tested as such. 
Your speaking of  the existence of  Meta-space God aka abstract concept of mind/intellect and not an occupied space creator God.
Simply saying an occupied space creator God exists, is no differrent from saying a biologic polka dot unicorn created by Toyota exists.

I think that is what 3RU7AL was going on about with you.      

Theologically there is, for example, a physical heaven (Venus, Jupiter) which is "above" earth from the perspective of someone on earth, and a spiritual heaven above that.
Huh? Spiritual heaven is an occupied space above what specifically? Your starting to sound like my mother.
Spirit means invisible active force.
Spirit and soul are two words in dictionary that have many varied meanings. Ive presented over the years the four primary kinds of spirit.

1} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts

------conceptual line-of-demarcation-------

2} Spirit-2, occupied space  fermionic matter and bosonic forces ergo our sine-wave associated physical reality aka energy { that humans have quantised and quantified  }
.......humans see some photon frequencies and not others, so by your standard above spirit = radio waves, infra-red, X-rays etc and this line of thinking is illogical, lacks common sense critical thinking. Simple and not stated to offend, just to be close to most refined truth as we can get....

....2a} Spirit-3, ultra-micro, occupied space,   Gravity { mass-attractive/contractive }, that, has not been quantised nor quantified and most likely will not ever be quantised, even if quantified { maybe },

.....2b} Spirit-4, ultra-micro, occupied space, Dark Energy { expansive }, that, has not been quantised nor quantified and probably never will.

Okay. Can science falsify the Biblical God hypothesis by evidence?  If so, how, if not why?
My lord, here we go with Biblical concepts again. Oh yeah, I forgot were in religion forum ergo, any belief is considered sacred above all science, logic, common sense and critical thinking based on observations of  humans { includes instrumental observation }.

So if a cult or person or superperson believes Toyota maufactures biologic purple polka dot unicorns, and keeps them hidden on a faraway place called heaven { or whatever }, then it is true along with your Biblical beliefs, because, science has not or cannot prove Toyota is not doing this?

Here is the differrence between philosophy forum and relgion forum. I expect an attempt at logical, common sense critical thinking in philosophy forum.

Topic's author
#144
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
a theistic god is a deity believed in by followers of a religion who is involved in the world and interacts with humans

Buddha said that there is no God and if there was he wouldn't be concerned with the world of men. Was Buddhism a religion? How would you define religion? A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance?

Topic's author
#145
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, can you distill what you consider the essential characteristics of your version of jehovah ?
We were created in his image or likeness. Since we are physical and he is spiritual that obviously doesn't mean physical attributes. Since he (grammatical gender is masculine) created both man and woman in his image this means he possesses characteristics of both behavioral aspects. Male and female.  So,  Loving, wise, just, powerful, pure, happy, merciful.

Topic's author
#146
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
do you understand the difference between the logical operation of (OR) relative to the logical operation of (AND) ?
I'm not sure. Tell me exactly what that means because I haven't a clue what you're even talking about. It could be I do understand it but don't know it by name. OR, and AND. I'll have to look up that in the handy DART list of phrases we are too lazy to type out. Hmm. I don't see those on the list. OR is organized religion? AND uh - Atheist Near Death? I don't know. 

Topic's author
#147
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
what in the hell are you talking about ?
If I say God to you, do you think Allah or Jehovah? Sky magician or venerated? Old man with beard or phallic symbol? God or Goddess? Tammuz or Moses? Satan or Baal? God or Lord? Landlord or Godmother? Fairy or troll? 

So, a lord is someone with authority. Usually but not allways granted by another. A god is something or someone who in some way possesses a might that is greater than the one attributing it. A fertility god or goddess, for example, is entrusted with bringing about a bountiful crop and children. The god of luck delivers good or protects against bad luck. 

In Western society we are conditioned to believe God is the only god and that all other references are modeled after Him, which doesn't make a great deal of sense but like racism in cultures it is a very powerful - uh, whatsit? Uh . . . conditioning, I suppose. 

That's why I think it's so funny when atheists think God has no power over them. Look around you, your civilizations, laws etc. were modeled after them or some nonsensical variation of it anyway.  


#148
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
which flavor of biblical god hypothesis are you specifically talking about

How many are there? 
if you don't know which god you believe in

maybe you're the atheist
#149
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
a theistic god is a deity believed in by followers of a religion who is involved in the world and interacts with humans

Buddha said that there is no God and if there was he wouldn't be concerned with the world of men. Was Buddhism a religion? How would you define religion? A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance?

do you understand that NOT all religions are theistic religions

we're addressing a subset of religions here, specifically the ones that worship a theistic god who is involved in the world and interacts with humans
#150
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
We were created in his image or likeness. Since we are physical and he is spiritual that obviously doesn't mean physical attributes. Since he (grammatical gender is masculine) created both man and woman in his image this means he possesses characteristics of both behavioral aspects. Male and female.  So,  Loving, wise, just, powerful, pure, happy, merciful.
so, my image doesn't look anything like your god's image but somehow this is supposed to be useful information somehow ?

your god is both a woman and a man but you still call it a "he"

loving wise just powerful pure happy merciful

i guess it just can't warn people about earthquakes

or disease outbreaks

or you know, genocides and stuff

not really sure how "powerful" that makes it