From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

See that seems like some revisionist history right there. I don't like revisionist history.

Wouldn't I have to have revised something, to be revisionist? I was pointing out what IS.

People have made statements like: Black is white. Up is down. Pacifism is war. Forgiveness is vengeance. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Truth is lies.

'T does not make it so.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nope. You have decided to put the other eye patch back on. I've got better places to post

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.

Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.

God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.

So the pope is a fraud. Good to know you agree.

a reply to: VP740

Where did you find that definition? Out of an old hard copy of the dictionary? I couldn't find that definition anywhere online. The word atheism actually can mean both "lack of belief in deities" or "believe that no god exists"

Miriam Webster:

Atheism:
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Wiki:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Google:

noun
noun: atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary.com

atheism
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It seems that each one of them has an element of lack of belief or disbelief, but the word can be applied in both ways. I hinted at that in my post above where I explained how some of the more "hardcore" atheists do indeed believe god(s) do not exist and could not be convinced otherwise. These people, however, are quite rare. Chronaut is lumping all atheists into that "hardcore" category in attempts to shift the burden of proof from theism to atheism.

That is the problem I have. Yes, his wording is god awful and I have no idea why he keeps capitalizing "atheism," but it doesn't help his case that he is ignoring basic tenants of logic. The conversation started with him referring to philosophical arguments for god and suggesting they held weight. Once people began criticizing it, the conversation steered far away from those arguments and became an all out attack on atheism.

I'm sorry but there is no logical way to throw the burden of proof on atheism. It's like asking for evidence that pixies do not exist before rejecting the belief in them. Sure, you can't prove god does not exist, but since there is no evidence for god, there is no reason TO BELIEVE (which is the affirmative claim here).

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.

Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.

God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.

So the pope is a fraud. Good to know you agree.

The Pope is not God.

No Pope has ever claimed that they are God.

There are some websites that claim that the Pope or the church has claimed magisterium for the Pope, usually by mistranslating or specifically omitting the word 'vicar' from Roman Catholic documents. The word is actually a secular medieval one. In medieval times, if a king were to leave his country, or otherwise be unavailable to rule temporarily, they would appoint a 'vicar' to occupy the throne in their absence. A vicar was not a king, they were representative of the king.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.

Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.

God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.

So the pope is a fraud. Good to know you agree.

The Pope is not God.

No Pope has ever claimed that they are God.

There are some websites that claim that the Pope or the church has claimed magisterium for the Pope, usually by mistranslating or specifically omitting the word 'vicar' from Roman Catholic documents. The word is actually a secular medieval one. In medieval times, if a king were to leave his country, or otherwise be unavailable to rule temporarily, they would appoint a 'vicar' to occupy the throne in their absence. A vicar was not a king, they were representative of the king.

And yet there are many who claim to speak on behalf of god who ask for money, and there are many who speak on behalf of god who ask for lives. And many listen to them. And there are many others who perhaps know better, yet they say nothing.

a reply to: chr0naut

It is said he speaks with gods words however. That he is elected by God. Etc.

I've nothing against any of the Abrahamic clergy, but he's just clergy.

a reply to: Barcs

Yes, I do have a physical copy. ISBN 0-446-36026-0 Copyright 1990 By Simon & Schuster, Inc. I hope that helps you track one down.

I notice you didn't bold "b : the doctrine that there is no deity" or "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God." although those seem to be the ones Chr0naut is going by. So, you only take issue with Chr0naut using the word atheist by those definitions, and have no further dispute with his sentiments or the meaning behind his words?

eta: Your edit has clarified your position.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: VP740

Where did you find that definition? Out of an old hard copy of the dictionary? I couldn't find that definition anywhere online. The word atheism actually can mean both "lack of belief in deities" or "believe that no god exists"

Miriam Webster:

Atheism:
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Wiki:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Google:

noun
noun: atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary.com

atheism
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It seems that each one of them has an element of lack of belief or disbelief, but the word can be applied in both ways. I hinted at that in my post above where I explained how some of the more "hardcore" atheists do indeed believe god(s) do not exist and could not be convinced otherwise. These people, however, are quite rare. Chronaut is lumping all atheists into that "hardcore" category in attempts to shift the burden of proof from theism to atheism.

That is the problem I have. Yes, his wording is god awful and I have no idea why he keeps capitalizing "atheism," but it doesn't help his case that he is ignoring basic tenants of logic. The conversation starting with him referring to philosophical arguments for god and suggesting they held weight. Once people began criticizing it became an all out attack on atheism.

I keep capitalizing Atheism because it is an organized belief, with global conventions, key speakers, authors, apologists, churches in several nations, budgets, meeting leaders and significant representation in the media.

In my third post in this topic thread (which was a call by Slayer69 to atheists, to reason about their position), I suggested that "It is the atheists case that lacks evidence or rationale". I have maintained that throughout and still have not recieved a refutation that is reasoned (all refutations have been of the "just is" or "you don't know what you are saying" sort. None use reason).

Your first post in this thread, eight pages in, was about definitions of faith and trust in regard to science. Perhaps you were the one going off topic?

a reply to: VP740

I explained above, the main problem I have is the way he is shifting the burden of proof. It is illogical, regardless of which definition he is using. Even if somebody is a hardcore atheist and believes there is no god, it is still a rejection of theism, and is still the logical default. The burden of proof is on theism as theism ASSERTS there is a god. Atheism is justified because no objective evidence whatsoever exists in support of theism.

a reply to: chr0naut

You still haven't demonstrated why anyone should care one way or the other. What is the point of theology other than to make us feel important?

a reply to: Barcs

Even if somebody is a hardcore atheist and believes there is no god, it is still a rejection of theism, and is still the logical default.

There I disagree. I think agnosticism is the logical default. To say there are no gods, unicorns, pixies or whatever, is an assertion which requires evidence for justification; just as any other assertion would. Arguing from ignorance, tends to lead to arguing for ignorance.

ETA: To be more clear, I won't accept absence of evidence, as evidence of absence; only absence of evidence where we should find it.

a reply to: VP740

Its one of those grey areas. If someone relies only on what they can measure. It is atheism. If one relies on what they can measure, and "feel" (I don't mean nerve response either) then it is a form of agnosticism. Most atheists and agnostics however will reevaluate their position based on evidence. Most theists don't, or if they do, they need a "road to Damascus moment"

a reply to: Noinden

I suppose that would depend on your definition of god; but even if we can't measure god directly, if god played any significant role in the development of our universe, I'd expect to be able to gather evidence from observations, which would give some sort of indication of what they were doing here.

a reply to: VP740

See defining God (or I'd prefer Gods thanks) is going to cause fights, and it never happens because of that.

Deities (plural, singular, pasta formed, caffeinated) are supernatural beings. Beyond nature. As such, how does one build something to measure them?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: VP740

I explained above, the main problem I have is the way he is shifting the burden of proof. It is illogical, regardless of which definition he is using. Even if somebody is a hardcore atheist and believes there is no god, it is still a rejection of theism, and is still the logical default. The burden of proof is on theism. I'm not going to justify rejecting a belief, when they have not presented any objective evidence whatsoever in support of it.

I am not putting the whole burden of proof onto Atheism. I am suggesting that the identical burden, applied to both sides of the argument, is rational.

You said "logical default". That must mean there is logic that describes why it is the default. Present that logic. Not by saying "just is", not by reduction of semantics to meaninglessness, and not by suggesting that an atheist must be unthinking on the topic.

Let me demonstrate by supplying a reasoned argument, antithetical to my belief but none the less, reasoned:

Theism may be invalid because, in the absence of all other evidence, the subjective opinion of Theists may possibly be delusion.

If we examine human psychology, a significant statistic have delusional beliefs (in things that are evidenced and we can be sure are delusions).

If there is a degree of correlation between the statistics of Theists as a fraction of all humans, and the statistics of verifably deluded humans as a fraction of all humans, one might suggest the possibility that such belief is based in delusion (it still isn't definite).

If Thesim were delusion, then rationally, atheism would be reasonable.

See, that is how you reason.

So, let us continue this process of reasoning (because I do so want my actual belief to be rationally justifiable):

Fact checking according to Wikipedia, Delusional Disorder affects 30 people in 100,000.

And, according to Wikipedia, the percentage of people who hold at least some religious belief is nearly 100%.

So, I'd suggest that, despite the rationality of the thought process, the correlation is too weak to draw a conclusion. (If it were atheism that was held to be delusional, however, the correlation would be strong).

Come on peeples, flex them intellectual muscles. It's free!

a reply to: Noinden

If they're beyond nature, then you can't measure them directly. But you should be able to measure their interaction with our world.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.

Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.

Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.

God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.

So the pope is a fraud. Good to know you agree.

The Pope is not God.

No Pope has ever claimed that they are God.

There are some websites that claim that the Pope or the church has claimed magisterium for the Pope, usually by mistranslating or specifically omitting the word 'vicar' from Roman Catholic documents. The word is actually a secular medieval one. In medieval times, if a king were to leave his country, or otherwise be unavailable to rule temporarily, they would appoint a 'vicar' to occupy the throne in their absence. A vicar was not a king, they were representative of the king.

And yet there are many who claim to speak on behalf of god who ask for money, and there are many who speak on behalf of god who ask for lives. And many listen to them. And there are many others who perhaps know better, yet they say nothing.

So? That gives reason to atheism?

originally posted by: chr0naut
I keep capitalizing Atheism because it is an organized belief, with global conventions, key speakers, authors, apologists, churches in several nations, budgets, meeting leaders and significant representation in the media.

Okay, in that case I completely misunderstood you. You are using a completely different definition than I realized. So essentially you are talking to nobody on here, just referring to the small minority of extreme hardcore atheists that organize activities. I guess that makes it fair to define all theists based on the fundamentalists, right?

Your first post in this thread, eight pages in, was about definitions of faith and trust in regard to science. Perhaps you were the one going off topic?

No surprise, my first post in the topic is me pointing out a logical flaw.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

You still haven't demonstrated why anyone should care one way or the other. What is the point of theology other than to make us feel important?

We are only actually important if it is right (i.e: Theism is the true case).

If it isn't, we have no actual importance, our self-importance would be affected and empty.

Pascal's wager is as follows:

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. You must wager (it is not optional).
4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

(note: there is a sixth logical step but the five above are sufficient to explain why I might choose one unknown over another).