Chimpanzees, Blades of Grass and the Atheist Argument

a reply to: ketsuko

Colloquially speaking, I guess, yes.
But I prefer to be precise.
"If you don't say what you mean you can never mean what you say."
-
I do not believe in the existence of a diety.
Nothing leads me to believe what we would call a diety exists.
Or I lack belief.
Which makes me an atheist.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēˌist/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic;

SOURCE


However, the fact that I do not make a claim that a god does not exist simply because I do not believe in one.
In a nutshell, I do not know.

ag·nos·tic
/agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
synonyms:
skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic;

SOURCE


Which makes me a agnostic atheist.

Basically, the mirror of agnostic theists.
People who believe some sort of higher power exists.
But does not claim to know much about it.

Here is a visual aid.

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
That being said. I still can not figure out Woman and handbags.

I think you are envious of them since they have access to half of their household at their finger tips.

Boy and here I thought this thread was going to go in the direction that grass and Chimpanzees have like DNA as does all living things on our planet. This suggests that if you go back far enough everything has a common ancestor. That common ancestor for like chimps and humans was somewhat resent in terms of the age of earth where chimps and grass is most likely billions of years ago, but in any case the DNA connection is right there staring us in our faces, or blade...

originally posted by: darkbake
The soul, according to my definition, is what generates our free will and experiences life - neither definition has been disproved by science, and there are many more advanced studies that show evidence of that kind of thing existing.

................

But it is an important way to look at things, because not only does the evidence support it....

As someone who is not aware of any evidence to support the claims of either gods or souls, I would be very interested in some source links regarding these 'many advanced studies' you speak of.

I do not say there are no gods, souls, ghosts, demons, pixies or whatever, but without any evidence to support the claims I do not believe in such things. Perhaps this new evidence you claim to know about may influence my thoughts. I look forward to reading it, note, read, not watch some lame unsubstantiated youtube vid.
Thanks in advance.

It can be safely said the whole problem with these dialogues is that there are differing ideas as to what constitutes "proof".

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
I agree. It is why I asked for evidence and not proof.
Right now, outside of personal testimony and multiple translated ancient books of uncertain origin, I am unaware of any evidence to support claims of gods or souls. Do you know of any?

a reply to: grainofsand

I wouldn't be claiming to be a agnostic atheist if I did. :p
But there are things that make me wonder.
A number of unexplained phenomena that could have utterly mundane explainations or not.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows

Basically, the mirror of agnostic theists.
People who believe some sort of higher power exists.
But does not claim to know much about it.

I respect your position and want to ask, what in your opinion is the mirror of a gnostic?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
As one agnostic atheist to another I totally understand your stance regarding supporting evidence.
It is the reason I am wishing to learn more of the OP claims regarding 'many more advanced studies that show evidence' (of a soul).
Until the OP is able to present sources to support this specific claim I can only dismiss it as just unsubstantiated assertions, and irrelevant to the debate.

a reply to: BlueMule

I am kind of confused as to why you'd feel you had to ask.
But.
Since we are dealing with a dualism here.
Agnostic.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
I agree. It is why I asked for evidence and not proof.
Right now, outside of personal testimony and multiple translated ancient books of uncertain origin, I am unaware of any evidence to support claims of gods or souls. Do you know of any?

I do. But it's difficult to explain.

Throughout world religion and myth there are universal common denominators. One way to explain it is diffusion - elementary ideas made their way around the world by word of mouth, influencing religion and myth in every culture.

Another way to explain it is that elementary ideas, such as that of a 'spiritual power', are common because there is a seed of truth to it that world religion and myth has discovered time and time again... with each culture putting their own spin on it, their own inflection.

As a comparativist and a mystic I favor the latter. The elementary idea of a spiritual power emerges independantly time and time again because we have spirit. There is more to our nature than we realize.

The evidence for this claim is very strong. The field of parapsychology has been accumulating it for over a century, and there is a very large body of evidence. Naturally, it is taboo. It isn't handed to people on a silver platter. You must seek it out yourself.

Here is a place to start.

www.amazon.com...

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

So there are agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and gnostic theists? A four-fold symmetry?

a reply to: BlueMule
So, your 'evidence' is really just an assumption that a glimmer of similarity in old world religions indicates that the wider story must be true?
That isn't really evidence is it, does the same 'logic' apply to legends of pixies in my part of the UK then, or even dragons?

And as for parapsychology requiring a personal search to understand the concepts, again, that is poor claim of evidence.
If it makes you happy though good luck with it.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: BlueMule
So, your 'evidence' is really just an assumption that a glimmer of similarity in old world religions indicates that the wider story must be true?
That isn't really evidence is it, does the same 'logic' apply to legends of pixies in my part of the UK then, or even dragons?

My friend, it is FAR more than a glimmer of similarity. Become a comparativist and you'll be astounded at the depth of similarity, again and again.

"Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God)." -Erwin Schrödinger

And as for parapsychology requiring a personal search to understand the concepts, again, that is poor claim of evidence.
If it makes you happy though good luck with it.

I linked you to the college textbook. You don't have to read it, but it seems to me that you are judging a book by its cover. You are judging something you know little or nothing about, and you are doing it twice. First, about the comparative fields. Second, about parapsychology. Maybe you would prefer to be willfully ignorant.

a reply to: BlueMule

That's not any sort of proof though.
The commonality of stories/beliefs/whathaveyou does have a more mundane explaination.
In short, people are essentially the same, people travel, people communicate and always have.

As for parapsychology.......
Well.....
Doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the empiric sense.
Which is understandable.
But.

a reply to: BlueMule

As to the question of the existence or not of a high power.
Yes.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: BlueMule

That's not any sort of proof though.
The commonality of stories/beliefs/whathaveyou does have a more mundane explaination.
In short, people travel and communicate, and always have.

Including isolated indigenous tribes?

Yes, people are at liberty to believe a mundane explanation. But I would invite them to spend a few years with the comparative fields first (comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, comparative religion). There is a scholarly depth to these fields that people just aren't aware of.

As for parapsychology.......
Well.....
Doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the empiric sense.
Which is understandable.
But.

With all due respect...

How would you know?

How many years have you spent studying it for yourself?

Or do you figure that if there was something to it, TPTB would have let you know by now?

a reply to: darkbake

The major error with your analysis is that you've defined an atheist based on your personal definition of what one is, rather than how they define themselves.

As you say in a later reply, you are arguing for the existence of a self-defined "soul," based on the existence of free-will. This argument, you claim, doesn't stem from any religious creed or theology. The problem arises from the fact that an atheist denies the existence of a theistic soul, based on dogma and religious belief.

Atheists do not deny that cognitive creatures possess choice or free-will. They don't deny that we have emotion, can reason, and develop unique personality traits. Free-will is, in fact, one of the things a typical atheist uses to defend his point of view, as having free-will contradicts an all-knowing, all-powerful "God" figure.


~ Wandering Scribe

a reply to: BlueMule
Ah, ok so you perceive that as evidence, ok, I'm pleased for you.
Regarding parapsychology though, I have read a bit about it and I didn't need to purchase a book for the information.
It is always unwise to assume the understanding (or lack thereof) a person may have regarding a given topic.
If you believe in it though again, I'm pleased for you.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: BlueMule

As to the question of the existence or not of a high power.
Yes.

But a gnostic theist is someone who knows there is a higher power because of a religious / mystical experience. You can prove a positive through experience, hence gnostics.

In order to maintain the symmetry of a mirror image, a gnostic atheist would have to have an experience that proves a negative. But you can't prove a negative.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? The symmetry breaks down. A gnostic atheist is an oxymoron.