What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["The theist and atheist position are both faith based."]

In daily-usage and up-and-until epistemology: They are both 'belief-systems' of which 'faith' is a sub-set, with a somewhat different qualitative basis. Reference: Assumptions and axioms.

PS Quote: ["My offer's still valid ..."]

Please do, and I'm very grateful for the offer. I'm aware of my sub-standard in this context. But DO consider that I'm almost an imbecile, when it comes to computer-handling. You need to go to kindergarten level, if I'm to understand it.

Just sent you a U2U re quotes ...

reply to post by IAMIAM

Because it is redundant. Knowledge IS Power. God is all powerful, thus he is all knowing.

Implying omniscience

If your god is the creator of all that there is,was or will ever be, including itself then this would preclude the free will of any of its' creation.

You simply cannot have the created acting or thinking in a manner that it was not created to do, you god simply cannot want something and then have its' will thwarted as all that there is cannot be in want unless it is not all that there is.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["The theist and atheist position are both faith based."]

In daily-usage and up-and-until epistemology: They are both 'belief-systems' of which 'faith' is a sub-set, with a somewhat different qualitative basis. Reference: Assumptions and axioms.

So your definition is at odds with defenestrator? You are both Atheists?

Originally posted by Student X

Originally posted by defenestrator

Do I hold beliefs in things that others might deem irrational? Yes, I've seen a group of UFOs make aerial maneuvers that don't fit into our consensus reality too well, for several minutes I watched them do things that would seem impossible within the framework of modern physics and aeronautics, but I don't claim to know what they were, and had there not been a group of witnesses with me at the time I would not even believe that I saw what I saw.

Given the pivotal and intimate role that the "UFO phenomenon" has played in world religion and myth since primordial shamanism, I would say you saw "gods". Or, to put it in the materialistic terms of our modern space-age mythology, you saw ET. Or, to put it in Jungian psychophysical terms, you saw manifestations of archetypes.

I recommend these books.

Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times
Alien Identities : Ancient Insights into Modern UFO Phenomena
The Trickster and the Paranormal
Flying Saucers : A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies

I've read Wonders in the Sky, and many other related books. I do believe many of the miracles of ancient times were extra-terrestrial technology, but I don't use that belief as the basis for a supposedly rational argument. I'm not saying having faith in something is wrong, just that it only applies to the individual believer. If someone says my above belief is irrational and ill-founded I will merely agree with them.

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne
So what is left if you eliminated all energy in the universe? Here you go: E=MC2.

So what you are saying there is that all that would be left if we eliminated the energy would be the speed of light squared?

No, Energy is mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.

reply to post by AllIsOne

And your point is?
Sorry for my misapprehension. Nevertheless no energy = no mass, I thought that was a given in the context of your statement. 0 * 0 * C2 = 0
Your point remains elusive as to how it might prove the existence of God(s)

Re AllisOne

Quote on energy in/outside cosmos: ["So you don't really know ... "]

No. We don't even really know the precise dual nature of particles/waves. Only that energy (in the cosmic sense) is implied somewhere in it, and that all of it is said to come into 'existence' at zero-point. It would be meaningless to carry such notions out into the unknown.

Quote: ["So what is left if you eliminated all energy in the universe? Here you go: E=MC2."]


If such a situation hypothetically should happen, all the energy would probably (I don't know really) change to particle form. If on the other hand you mean both wave- and particle form were to disappear, we would return to the child with many names: The void, chaos, beyond-event-horizon, 'emptiness' etc.

For this thread the 'emptiness' option is maybe most relevant, and can then be considered from nothing-nothing or perceptual-nothing perspectives. The buddhist Nirvana, jewish Ain-soph and hinduist BrahmaN (notice the 'N') are perceptual-nothing, while scientific absolute vacuum is nothing-nothing.

Originally posted by defenestrator

I've read Wonders in the Sky, and many other related books. I do believe many of the miracles of ancient times were extra-terrestrial technology, but I don't use that belief as the basis for a supposedly rational argument. I'm not saying having faith in something is wrong, just that it only applies to the individual believer. If someone says my above belief is irrational and ill-founded I will merely agree with them.

Thank you. Maybe we have found some ground on which we can build a mutual understanding.

One can look at religion in terms of ET and technology, or one can look at ET in terms of religion and mysticism. You have elected the former, and I the latter. My position is based on numerous encounters with the "UFO phenomenon", both up-close and in group situations, and encounters with them during mystical states of consciousness. As the work of Carl Jung and my mystical experiences make clear to me, they are both "out there" in the skies and "in here" in the human psyche. They cross a psychophysical threshold between inner and outer.

And my position is based on my studies of comparative religion, comparative mysticism, and comparative mythology. These fields make it quite clear that world religion and myth should be treated as a single unit, not as a bunch of conflicting and isolated systems. That which we modern folk call the UFO-alien phenomenon has always been a part of it but in different guises. The guise of ET is the latest manifestation, but it too is a symbolic guise.

So, a Jungian approach to ET and to religion can give religious and non-religious people common ground on which to build, imo.

reply to post by defenestrator


Surely this is all irrevevent as relativity theory does not marry with quantam theory, or at least we have found no mathmatical means (yet) to marry them.

The whole fact of the matter is that, we can't assert a theory before having evidence, those who assert a theory are doing so on extremely irrational premises. I have heard no logical or empirical evidence that implied any definition of a God; the creator, or designer. or even the omnipotent intervening deity.

Nor have i heard any convincing evidence that reality is infinite. Although the mandelbrot set and the fibonacci spiral are mathematical concepts or ideas it doesn't prove that existence is infinity........ But stating so could be considered more rational than theories without matematical or logical formation. Even still, it is not enough to warrant a definitive belief.

What you think mate? I'm no scientist; so correct me on the quantam theory/relativity statement!

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

Most atheists are agnostic, they admit they don't know, It would be irrational if an Atheist would refuse to rennounce his Atheism in light of critical conclusive evidence of God.

Then they are not atheist, they are agnostic. The two are not the same thing.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

Quote on energy in/outside cosmos: ["So you don't really know ... "]

No. We don't even really know the precise dual nature of particles/waves.

You probably meant to say "photons"? Particles and wave function are well defined in physics. The double slit experiment has lead to the discovery of the double nature of "light"

reply to post by something wicked


Agnosticism/Gnosticism - What you know.

Theism/Atheism - What you believe.

Atheists don't claim to know the cause of reality therefore they suspend belief in light of any theory proposed. Because any theory being proposed has been formed without evidence; scepticism is inevitable. This includes a simple belief in God, or the more deceptive approach of defining God (Religion)

Many Atheists arrive at their positision through Agnosticism.

There is such a thing as an Agnostic Atheist - Agnostic Atheism

Like i've said before; many Atheists believe themselves to be Gnostic Atheists in regards to man-made religion only ( Especially to the theory of an "intevening" or omnipotent God).

They are still "Agnostic Atheists" towards a creator or designer of "all-that-is"

Re Defenestrator

Gosh, Dude. Thanks for your compliment, but there are many people on ATS far above me.

PS AllisOne asked about something I've forgotten now, where you and I seemingly disagree. You have any opinion on this?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Please, spare me the semantics:-

Hi there, Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron? Atheist is defined as a disbelief in God (the God, or faith you choose to selectively disbelieve in, but to be an atheist really means to disbelieve in all)

I don't claim to understand or put faith in what is unknown, i am Agnostic.

Therefore, i take the Atheist position, as i believe it is a positive assertion that cannot be verified. Because it cannot be verrified logically or empirically i take the position of scepticism.

Atheism means you do not beileve, Agnosticism means you do not have the information you need to either believe or not believe - you sound more like an agnostic, but this really is just semantics isn't it? You could also say you are an agnostic theist, but both definitions are a little silly really aren't they?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?

Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.

Hi, I think we agree, so agnostic atheism is still an oxymoron? And yes, I've said several times in this thread that we shouldn't try and complicate this.

I don't see them as contradictory terms.

Maybe - - but to me each stands on its own.

Agreed, they stand on their own. When you try and join them they contradict each other.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by something wicked

 

It depends on the context and definition of God.

If it refers to just the belief in a creative source of reality then i am Agnostic, and therefore Atheist until it can be reasoned otherwise. Evidence is presented? - I will renounce my Agnosticism, and inherently my Atheism.

If it refers to the omnipotent intervening God (religion's claim) then i am a Gnostic Atheist. I don't believe any God intervenes, and the creative force is certainly without care as 99.8% of species have become extinct on our planet alone, and gallaxies are on collision causes with each other. I think it's evident that this God is not omnipotent therefoer i am Gnostic Atheist to that specific definition of God.

edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

So currently you are an agnostic surely? If evidence of a deity was found (which would mean faith was no longer required by the way) then you would be a theist? If no evidence was found in your lifetime then you would be an agnostic waiting for evidence?

Originally posted by defenestrator
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

And your point is?
Sorry for my misapprehension. Nevertheless no energy = no mass, I thought that was a given in the context of your statement. 0 * 0 * C2 = 0
Your point remains elusive as to how it might prove the existence of God(s)

I just don't want you to quote Albert's equation wrong ...

Anyway, I said that God IS the sum of all energy. Did I use the word "proof"?

Also, you have yet to address the fact that Atheism is based on belief. The only "scientific" viewpoint is Agnosticism. (Lack of data). Theism and Atheism are two sides of the same coin. And please don't start with "Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity". You know your Greek ...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?

Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.

Hi, I think we agree, so agnostic atheism is still an oxymoron? And yes, I've said several times in this thread that we shouldn't try and complicate this.

I don't see them as contradictory terms.

Maybe - - but to me each stands on its own.

They are kind of are contradictory - I don't believe/I don't know if I believe/I believe - the bottom line is one of the three - if you really care to call yourself any of them. The definitions are kind of clear cut.

Where is "I believe"?

One says - - - there is no proof".

The other says basically - - - I would be arrogant to claim full knowledge of all that exists.

I believe = theist of the faith they wish to believe.

There is no proof = atheist

I would be arrogant to claim full knowledge of all that exists = kind of agnostic

You don't agree with that?

reply to post by bogomil


None** that i have seen Bogomil.

It's a pleasure to read your arguments and star them in favour of supporting great critical thinking and furthering philosophical ideology.