From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, sweet summer child.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

I find it hard to believe that you find atheism for the weak minded.

All atheism mean is 'the rejection of gods' given the lack of empirical evidence available.

Weak minds usually jump to conclusions and/or are gullible on certain subjects.

Dont take that to mean im saying your not intelligent as from your posts (excl atheism ones) show you to be an intelligent man.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

As I've said to my fellow kiwi .... his biases are showing. He also seems to believe that a philosophical argument is as good as actual objective data.

Now I've no problem with his faith, I'm a Polytheist. But I do find it telling that his biases are apparently considered evidence.

a reply to: Noinden

I dont mind chr0naut his ok in my view.

I dont think its bias per say, just tunnel thoughts (like tunnel vision) which we all get sometimes.

Thats why i say i dont believe he really thinks that.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

I don't mind him either. I am probably jaded from seeing this debate from others (for years), and have made assumptions based on observable behavior. It is very possible I have observed wrongly, but in this thread, its been very much chr0naught apparently avoiding his own illogical biases, to appear informed. Like I said ,I may be wrong.

a reply to: Noinden

Having thought about it, being bias is having tunnel thoughts.

Guess me saying its not before was me being bias. Lol.

Coomba98

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i was interested to see chr0nauts take on ignosticism/igtheism but it would seem he has gotten bored and wandered off.

Sorry, life & stuff. I'm sure you know the drill.

The etymology of ignosticism is, firstly, a bastardized mix of Latin & Greek - a semantic impurity.

The Latin "ig" means, simply, 'not'. The Greek "gnosis" means 'to know'. The Latin "ism" refers to a; 'system, doctrine or practice'. So, my take on the definition of the word would be 'the system of not knowing' (which is different to the definition you supplied in the link, in a previous post). Ignosticism could be considered to be etymologically similar to agnosticism.

Similarly, igtheism is; 'the system of no god/s' (another mangling of roots as "theos" is Greek for 'god'!) and is very similar to atheism in an etymological sense.

However, igtheism and ignosticism have been defined as implying that athesim, theism and agnosticism all hang their definitions upon an assumed understanding of what "god" might be. Since there is no robust agreed definition of 'god', it is pointless to try and argue any case dependent upon the definition of 'god'. One must first define 'god' fully, if one cannot, then igtheism and/or ignosticism must be the default position.

However, to counter that, one might suggest that we DO have unique definitions that can only be applied to God or gods and therefore the 'ig' arguments are semantic pedantries.

So, it's a free-for-all. Pick your favourite flavour and run with that.

Of course there are protocols for defining things. Among these is the substantiation of whatever is being defined. In other words falsifiable data from repeatable experiments, that is if you expect the definition to have any practical application. Anyone suggesting that igtheism as an argument is pedantic clearly doesn't appreciate the importance of defining something before you attempt to confirm its existence. There are some doors you don't want to knock on without knowing what's behind them.

There is no requirement for falsifiable data in semantic definitions. Semantics can encompass absolutes (understood by all to be absolutes). One may define semantic concepts such as infinity or nothingness which are objective absolutes and cannot 'falsify' in the sense that Popper used to differentiate science from pseudoscience.

One could argue that, although we cannot falsify them, that they are meaningless or impractical. They are vital in our understanding of things.

So I would argue that there are attributes of God, which can only apply to God and are understood as having the same definitions to all who may consider them. The definitions are clear, nearly universal and specific. The fact that you can't measure gas pressure with an inch ruler alone does not mean it is an unreal concept (or if you consider it, a ruler is particularly useless in measuring the length of zero or infinity. It isn't the tool for the job - Mathematics and Philosophy are).

I thought the discussion was in concern to quantifiable definitions and hard data, not semantics.

Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

I'm not sure it is possible to communicate a quantifiable definition of something without using either logical or lexical semantics. Even the abstracted language of mathematics is a semantic construct (of the order of 'this symbol' means 'that concept or value').

Or are you suggesting that the only 'hard data' must be meaningless to be meaningful?

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

I find it hard to believe that you find atheism for the weak minded.

All atheism mean is 'the rejection of gods' given the lack of empirical evidence available.

Weak minds usually jump to conclusions and/or are gullible on certain subjects.

Dont take that to mean im saying your not intelligent as from your posts (excl atheism ones) show you to be an intelligent man.

Coomba98

Sure I have a bias.

Many have said, "but Atheism is a simply rejection of Theism". I ask you, is that reasoning or logic?

It side steps the question.

Saying, "It is, because it just is" closes the eyes to the holes in our knowledge, barring the topic for analysis, debate, ... or resolution.

Atheism has no predictive power as hypothesis. If there is no God, then, what?

The universe, as you have observed, is indicative of something. It IS objective proof of itself, of existence.

Another thing that is objectively true is that there is incredible implicate order in the universe. That is why science and mathematics works. Complex things do not do random things. For instance, observable objects don't suddenly disintegrate or come into existence at random.

That the order and existence was due to Creator is a possible hypothesis. Does Atheism explain why anything (or everything) exists and has order?

Also, the usual explanation given by those who also espouse Atheism for such order and existence, is that it is emergent from repeated small random events. Yet randomness provably does not produce order when the data set gets large - it remains random. Not only that, but the universe has been observed to always tend towards entropy, i.e: greater randomness and LESS implicate order. Yet implicate order is everywhere! So implicate order must be being continually introduced. Where might it be coming from? The usual description of "life" somehow magically doing it, does not cut it in terms of Physics or Mathematics where we can observe this order existing in the absence of life.

Atheism gives no answer.

Atheism is not useful, is not based upon evidence and is full of self-contradiction when rationally analyzed. How could I, in honesty, reasonably accept it? At least with Theism, there is a reason and purpose for implicate order, which is therefore discoverable.

But I also have subjective evidence of the existence of God (which, it is true, may be my personal delusion) but it weighs strongly in my beliefs and choices.

a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut.

That is not atheism digger.

Atheism is not a stance that makes predictions.

Its like, say i dont believe in vampires or werewolves or any other supernatural being, is being weak minded because it makes no predictions.

Its not a theory, its the default position.

Here is reality that i perceive it and what we have learnt in science. That is the default position.

Bring somthing alien into that and you really do need to prove it. Just like the Ancient Alien crowd.

It all comes down to reason. And reason is powerful. If your reason is good enough, then i will helplessly believe as you do. On any subject matter.


Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut.

That is not atheism digger.

Atheism is not a stance that makes predictions.

Its like, say i dont believe in vampires or werewolves or any other supernatural being, is being weak minded because it makes no predictions.

Its not a theory, its the default position.

Here is reality that i perceive it and what we have learnt in science. That is the default position.

Bring somthing alien into that and you really do need to prove it. Just like the Ancient Alien crowd.

Coomba98

Hypotheses and theories in science are useful, and considered evidenced by, their predictive power.

How could Atheism, if it is so incredibly deficient in so many areas, be the default?

Surely Agnosticism or Ignosticism should be the default in the case that we don't have evidence?

Also, is it rational to hold a belief absent of any evidence? It would still be a belief, just not a rational one.

So your disbelief in vampires, werewolves or other supernatural entities is valid as a belief, but you couldn't call it rational until it passes the test of rationality.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your still not getting it.

Atheism is a label that is very small.

The rejection of gods. Thats it. Nothing more.

If there was a word for rejection of vampires or werewolves etc etc id be just as much that word as atheism. Or the opposite of racism, that to.

These labels count just as much to me.

How does someone like me find out about life and make my beliefs in the many aspect of life?

Experience and science.

Understand?

Coomba98

a reply to: chr0naut

I apologise i did not explain a point right.

The correct saying is...

Atheism is 'part' of the default position.

Sorry.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Your still not getting it.

Atheism is a label that is very small.

Theism is one letter smaller.

The rejection of gods. Thats it. Nothing more.

If there was a word for rejection of vampires or werewolves etc etc id be just as much that word as atheism. Or the opposite of racism, that too.

Perhaps the word would be Aphantasmist? Also, Tolerance is the generally accepted synonym to Racism.

These labels count just as much to me.

How does someone like me find out about life and make my beliefs in the many aspect of life?

Experience and science.

Understand?

Coomba98

I totally understand.

But do you have experience or science to support Atheism?

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

I apologise i did not explain a point right.

The correct saying is...

Atheism is 'part' of the default position.

Sorry.

Coomba98

Can you then elucidate the entire default position because I could concieve of it being quite ambiguous and subjective.

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you have any experience and science to support:

* Vampires.
* Werewolves.
* Bigfoot.
* Giants.
* Unicorns.
* Pixes.
* Elves.
Etc etc? ... same principle digger, you just add gods.

And if gods exist it would be well known to all in a demonstrable way.

Coomba98

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

I apologise i did not explain a point right.

The correct saying is...

Atheism is 'part' of the default position.

Sorry.

Coomba98

Can you then elucidate the entire default position because I could concieve of it being quite ambiguous and subjective.

Sure i said above but here for ease.

Blank Slate... then:
Here is reality that i experience it and what we have learnt in science. To explain said experiences.

Bring somthing alien into that and you really do need to prove it. Just like the Ancient Alien crowd. Or vampire crowd etc etc.

That is the default position.

K slight edit on it. Could delve deeper but im sure you get the picture.

Coomba98

Back to the OP. And Creation of the universe.

Just because were humans who ask questions about everything doesn't mean its a religious question.

Sure religious people offer explanations of creation but that doesnt make the question of creation religious.

Coomba98

Now im not saying religious people are dumb.

Most advances in science has been from a religious person.

But were all human.

Hence our use of science.

Coomba98

Now im going to make love with myself.

Goodnight ATS.

Coomba98

😂

a reply to: chr0naut

Strange. I addressed all of that in my last post, but it was ignored and then the same argument was repeated by you. You don't seem to comprehend what atheism is.

Atheism is not useful, is not based upon evidence and is full of self-contradiction when rationally analyzed. How could I, in honesty, reasonably accept it?

Useful is irrelevant, but the same exact reasoning is used to justify not believing in god. It's not based on evidence and is full of self-contradiction when rationally analyzed. How could anybody reasonably accept it? You simply don't get that atheism exists because there is no proof for theism. You keep painting it as some belief system when all it is, is simply non belief in one thing. Atheists don't buy your claims, it's as simple as that. You don't need reasons, rationalization or evidence to reject something that has none of that to support it.

But I also have subjective evidence of the existence of God (which, it is true, may be my personal delusion) but it weighs strongly in my beliefs and choices.

I have subjective evidence of the existence of magical fairies. The difference is, I'm not buying it, and without objective evidence it is rational to not buy it. Disbelief in fairies doesn't predict anything or have application in science. It just is, since nobody has ever proven fairies or magic to be real. If you still don't get what I'm saying here you really need to do some reading on the subject along with burden of proof. Claims don't hold true until proven wrong. The existence of anything requires evidence or it can be logically rejected, you don't have to prove something does not exist. It is impossible. Do I really have to keep repeating this?