By the way, EricH...what do you say "atheist" means...and why do you say it? — Frank Apisa

I'm pretty sure that I am using something very close to your definition - someone who denies the existence of a god or gods.

The universe is small, and we're just very advanced beings that perceive it as if it were big; the beings that see it for it's true size are what you call God and I call other beings.

You are most assuredly in over your head here, and this latest post is only further proof of that- the burden of proof applies to anyone making assertions, such as those you made. And not only do you have the burden of proof for your claims, but epistemic justification as well- assertions such as you made require sufficient evidence in order to be justified, i.e. reasonable. Lacking sufficient evidence/argumentation, you are not only shirking your burden of proof in the context of this discussion board, but are adopting unreasonable beliefs- mere guesses. So, until you put on your big-boy pants and start taking things seriously, you can hang out in the kiddie pool all by your lonesome.

I'm not doing that, what I am talking about is any processes involved in the origin of the Big Bang.

Again, explicitly self-contradictory. Origin of the Big Bang = cause of the Big Bang = temporally prior = nonsense, i.e. "north of the North Pole".

Enai De A Lukal
180
↪Frank Apisa You are most assuredly in over your head here, and this latest post is only further proof of that- the burden of proof applies to anyone making assertions, such as those you made. And not only do you have the burden of proof for your claims, but epistemic justification as well- assertions such as you made require sufficient evidence in order to be justified, i.e. reasonable. Lacking sufficient evidence/argumentation, you are not only shirking your burden of proof in the context of this discussion board, but are adopting unreasonable beliefs- mere guesses. So, until you put on your big-boy pants and start taking things seriously, you can hang out in the kiddie pool all by your lonesome. — Enai De A Lukal

I am not in over my head...and I am tired of your silly insults.

This is our last conversation.

I don't see scientists trying very hard to settle the matter one way or other. — TheMadFool

The best contemporary science - (neo-darwinian) Natural Selection, General Relativity & Quantum Field Theory - is the overwhelmingly preponderant body of evidence that is inconsistent with - rules out to several or more decimal places - any (super-natural) "creator".

In fact, scientists, at least those who make the headlines, seem to be making an effort to disprove god

No. Scientists seek to disprove science. Period. The existence of a "creator" - super-natural anomaly - demonstrated by direct or indirect observations, would, in fact, be such a fundamental disproof.

A point of clarification: I am a materialist as a consequence of being an atheist (entailed by anti-theism) and not the (usual) other way around. So for starters, 3017, read Epicurus (or Lucretius) and Sextus Empiricus. Read Hobbes and Spinoza too. And maybe, in more contemporary terms, Feuerbach, Deleuze, Dennett, Haack, Stenger, Deutsch, Metzinger, Rovelli, and Meillassoux (or, as I prefer, Brassier). That is, if you want to understand something of what I understand and thereby how I can, with sufficiently strong warrant, claim that theism is not true. (Of course, historical & scientific literacy as well as varieties of entheogenic experiences (i.e. ecstatic techniques) also help.) You make it quite clear, however, that understanding (let alone knowledge) isn't what you're after. :shade:

Are you concluding that universal, or absolute time is a product of the Big Bang event? Because that is the only logical conclusion from your position.

Or in other words you are saying there is, there cannot be, any other existence than the products of the Big Bang event. How do you know this?

I am not in over my head... — Frank Apisa

Well, in that case, here's a hanging softball:

Given, Frank, that you do not know whether or not "any gods" exist, which "gods" do you believe in (trust) or worship daily (i.e. hope will protect or "save" you)?

Hint: I'd bet you answer the same as I do. :smirk:

180 Proof
1.5k
I am not in over my head...
— Frank Apisa
Well, in that case, here's a hanging softball:

Given, Frank, that you do not know whether or not "any gods" exist, which "gods" do you believe in (trust) or worship daily (i.e. hope will protect or "save" you)? — 180 Proof

None, 180. No worship...no fear of being "damned"...no fear requiring protection or salvation.

Fact is, I WOULD guess that if there are gods...none of them would need or want to be "worshiped"...and none would suggest a need for salvation or "protection from."

Hint: I'd bet you answer the same as I do. :smirk:

I do not need hints...I have posted that comment elsewhere in this forum. I certainly have in every other forum in which I am a participant.

If you are anywhere near as intelligent as I think you are (when you are not angry with what I post)...I would bet the same way you want to bet. That we answer that question essentially the same way.

So for starters, 3017, read Epicurus (or Lucretius) and Sextus Empiricus. Read Hobbes and Spinoza too. And maybe, in more contemporary terms, Feuerbach, Deleuze, Dennett, Haack, Stenger, Deutsch, Metzinger, Rovelli, and Meillassoux (or, as I prefer, Brassier). That is, if you want to understand something of what I understand and thereby how I can, with sufficiently strong warrant, claim that theism is not true. (Of course, historical & scientific literacy as well as varieties of entheogenic experiences (i.e. ecstatic techniques) also help.) You make it quite clear, however, that understanding (let alone knowledge) isn't what you're after, 3017. :shade: — 180 Proof

Mmmm, let's see, I did a cursory read and I'm not too impressed with just a few of them:

Dennett: a discruntled atheist who wrote a political atheist book called Consciousness Explained wherein he ends at the beginning; consciousness is a mystery (thus his book say's nothing and a waste of money). The only credit worth giving him is his euphemism for metaphysics, and that being Qualia. So he really doesn't explain anything, does he?

Rovelli: Another political activist (supposed physicist) who was charged in conjunction with his political activity for crimes of opinion related to a strange book. The “new political order” of which Rovelli dreamed never materialized. “The movement failed because it was based on a very bad reading of reality,” he said. The only credit to give him is his views on time being an illusion. And so, if time is an illusion, tell me 180, how does that square with your atheism? You explain time for me, and if you can successfully, you may win the Pulitzer for fiction LOL.

Stenger: He maintained that if consciousness and free will do exist, they will eventually be explained in a scientific manner that invokes neither the mystical nor the supernatural.[citation needed] He criticized those who invoke the perplexities of quantum mechanics in support of the paranormal, mysticism, or supernatural phenomena, writing several books and articles to debunk contemporary pseudoscience. So tell me 180, rather than digress to mysticism, why don't you explain conscious metaphysical phenomena to me?

Spinoza: Now, there is a little bit of common ground, imagine that! What is it about Spinoza that appeals to atheism? (Also, Epicurus, correct me if I'm wrong, disagreed with the Anselm's omni-stuff associated with the mind of God. As a Christian Existentialist, no exceptions taken. And so your point would be what, that our existence is unknown?)

That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

Well if you are as intelligent as you think you are, then you will agree that 'if A = B and B = C, then A = C', right? :sweat:

So:

If Frank Apisa's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,

If 180 Proof's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,

and no g/G-beliefs = atheism (i.e. a-theos, without g/G),

Then Frank Apisa's g/G position = 180 Proof's g/G position;

Therefore both Frank Apisa's g/G position & 180 Proof's g/G position = atheism.

Capice, Signore? :smirk:

We seem to have dueling definitions here.

I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. Per Frank's definition, atheism is an active denial/rejection of g/G-beliefs - which is distinct from simply having no opinion/belief one way or the other.

I.e., denial is a form of belief.

Of course the word belief is very slippery. . . :chin:

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Well if you are as intelligent as you think you are, then you will agree that 'if A = B and B = C, then A = C', right? :sweat:

So:

If Frank Apisa's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,

If 180 Proof's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,

and no g/G-beliefs = atheism (i.e. a-theos, without g/G),

Then Frank Apisa's g/G position = 180 Proof's g/G position;

Therefore both Frank Apisa's g/G position & 180 Proof's g/G position = atheism.

Capice, Signore? :smirk: — 180 Proof

Your reasoning is wrong.

You acknowledge that "a-theos" means without a god...but then start to insert that "belief" thing. Essentially, you are acknowledging that it means "without a god" but then want to have it mean "without a 'belief' in a god."

Not the same thing, 180.

I am not an atheist.

In any case, better we explain our position rather than try to use a descriptor.

Here is my position:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Describe yours...and we can discuss the significant differences between our positions.

Comprende, Senor?

EricH
169
↪180 Proof
We seem to have dueling definitions here.

I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. Per Frank's definition, atheism is an active denial/rejection of g/G-beliefs - which is distinct from simply having no opinion/belief one way or the other.

I.e., denial is a form of belief.

Of course the word belief is very slippery. . . :chin: — EricH

I agree with that last part...the word "belief" is very slippery.

Many, but not all people who use the descriptor "atheist" do indeed "believe" there are no gods. Many actually assert it, as in, "There are no gods."

EVERY person I have ever known or know of who uses the descriptor "atheist" does "believe" (at very least) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. That is such an important element to "atheism" that it should always be incorporated into its usage. (It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none...and make almost no more sense to "believe" it is just as likely that there is a GOD as that there are none.)

I hope that explains my position a little better. If you still have questions, please ask them.

I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. — EricH

Oh you're right about Frank's idiosyncratic 'definition'; but who cares? Words (concepts) belong to conventions of usage with long histories - they don't just mean, Humpty Dumpty-like, what one says they mean. Thus, Frank maladroitly equivocates & goal post shifts from thread to thread on the basis of his lazy Frankisms. Besides, if you read the prior post where I stipulate his as well as mine and everyone's agnosticism with respect to "any gods", what's at issue is the degree to which there are "any gods" that Frank believes in or worships, to which he's answered "None". And that position is indistinguishable from contemporary atheism in general, the derivation from ancient atheism in particular.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

This statement by Stephen Roberts (who?) exhibits the shift from the ancient (poly / heno - theistic) ἄθεος to contemporary (JCI monotheistic) atheism. To wit: whether or not one is agnostic about "any gods", there are "gods" one lives without, that is, doesn't worship, doesn't believe-in - at least one, or some, or all but one, or "none" (as Frank confessed).

As I've said quite a few times, I'm not interested in persuading you (or anyone), Frank, but to expose your (everyone's) misuderstandings, fallacies & nonsense / bullshit, and have a little fun (at your expense :razz: ) while I'm at it. Yeah, over your head is an understatement. :sweat:

↪Frank Apisa As I've said quite a few times, I'm not interested in persuading you (or anyone), Frank, but to expose your (everyone's) misuderstandings, fallacies & nonsense / bullshit, and have a little fun (at your expense :razz: ) while I'm at it. Yeah, over your head is an understatement. :sweat: — 180 Proof

I most assuredly am not in over my head.

But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.

Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm.

... atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie. — Frank Apisa

"Petty stuff" like these ad hominems.

But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.

Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm. — Frank Apisa

Agreed. The tale-tale is indeed, when they get angry and resort to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of frustration about their lack of justification(S).

Kind of like 180.

180 Proof
1.5k
... atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.
— Frank Apisa
"Petty stuff" like these ad hominems. — 180 Proof

Totally outclassed.

Don't worry about it. You will never be able to recognize it.

3017amen
2.1k
But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.

Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm.
— Frank Apisa

Thanks, Amen.


Agreed. The tale-tale is indeed, when they get angry and resort to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of frustration about their lack of justification(S).

Kind of like 180. ↪180 Proof — 3017amen

(It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none.. — Frank Apisa

We're sort of in the same ballpark definition wise.

That said, this "either/or" aspect of your definition may need some adjustments. Suppose someone thinks it 49% probable that there is a God and 51% otherwise. By your definition this person is not an atheist, yes/no? If this person IS an atheist, then what is the percentage separating atheist & non-atheist?

Just my 2 cents. You could revise your definition so that if a person thinks there is a non zero probability of Gods, then that person is not an atheist.

BTW - I hope you see that this is partly tongue in cheek. . .

EricH
170
↪Frank Apisa
(It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none..
— Frank Apisa

We're sort of in the same ballpark definition wise.

That said, this "either/or" aspect of your definition may need some adjustments. Suppose someone thinks it 49% probable that there is a God and 51% otherwise. By your definition this person is not an atheist, yes/no? If this person IS an atheist, then what is the percentage separating atheist & non-atheist?

Just my 2 cents. You could revise your definition so that if a person thinks there is a non zero probability of Gods, then that person is not an atheist.

BTW - I hope you see that this is partly tongue in cheek. . . — EricH

I do see the "tongue in cheek" aspect, Eric, but at the same time, I see the question as meaningful. I thank you for it, because it gives me a chance to mention something I should have said earlier.

An "atheist" is simply anyone who uses the descriptor "atheist" to describe him/herself. The "certainty" or strength of conviction that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods" is actually not all that important. If a person says, "I am an atheist"...he/she is...regardless of those considerations.

I might also acknowledge that the one strong thing atheists who assert there are no gods have over agnostics is...they might be correct.

We just do not know if they are or not.

I would prefer that everyone just eliminate the use of descriptors in this area...and merely present his/her position without reference to theist, atheist, agnostic, ignostic, or the like.

Probably ain't gonna happen.

I would prefer that everyone just eliminate the use of descriptors in this area...and merely present his/her position without reference to theist, atheist, agnostic, ignostic, or the like. — Frank Apisa

Like you said - it ain't gonna happen. But regardless - sometimes the specific reference is useful. E.g., you might want to say something like:

"I consider myself to be a [whatever]. For more information [some philosopher] expresses things quite well: <some URL>"

Also - it takes up space & time to repeat yourself. I personally find it much simpler to say I'm an ignostic (possibly with a link to wikipedia) - then to have to spout out a paragraph or two every time it comes up in conversation. If a persons ask what that means then you can explain.

Probably ain't gonna happen. — Frank Apisa

No probability here. It ain't.

Perhaps this is a game of exposing weaknesses in the positions of others, while acknowledging the validity of the differing positions, where they have been adopted, to the adoptee.

Mine is more like an astrolabe in which I fine tune the orientation for the purposes of a particular path of enquiry, while entertaining the presence of g/God, from a stance in which the existence, or not of said God is irrelevant. I threw belief out a long time ago.

I threw belief out a long time ago. — Punshhh

Belief in what, exactly, may I ask. I suspect belief in the material existence of. But there is also belief as belief - the Christian Creed at least. "We believe...". Going around saying God exists is ignorance in action, in terms of being a Christian - also a heresy.

So what does the "We believe..," mean? Or, what is it good for? I leave that to you, in part because if you've dismissed that too, then what is the tether that keeps you attached to anything?

For clarity's sake, I reject the supernatural on three-fold logical grounds. One, their ain't no supernatural. Two, it won't do to call the supernatural natural in any sense. And three, making the supernatural natural destroys the godhead of god. That leaves the regulative power and utility of a pretty good idea - always a work-in-progress - based in reason. and reason alone.

Arguments? My corner man is Kant and his friends.

Belief in what, exactly, may I ask. I suspect belief in the material existence of. But there is also belief as belief - the Christian Creed at least. "We believe...". Going around saying God exists is ignorance in action, in terms of being a Christian - also a heresy.

Belief in God as presented in the human body of teaching. If one were to take all the gods believed in by people and distill it down to the essence in common between them. Any precise definition is an irrelevance for me. You see I see humanity very much in the sense of as one person subdivided into millions of individuals, we are the same, like clones. So what we think and believe is the same, with different accents. When one starts to analyse what we think and believe as in philosophy, or psychology, we are attempting to hold ourselves outside this being/person and look in from outside. I suggest that this analysis can distort our understanding of these beliefs and ideas and that philosophers and psychologists ought to seek a rounded perspective rather than a radical one, or they might retreat into their own little world.

Anyway you won't become embroiled in a struggle over the definition of God, or the existence of the supernatural with me, because I have reduced the issue to two clear positions for the/any answer given by one of these individuals is of little importance. The positions are;

Is our origin in a happenstance of dust, or a Shakespeare puts it, a "quintessence of dust".

Or is our origin by design, presuming some creator of some kind, which does not need to be defined.

So which is it?

It is self evident to me that philosophy cannot answer this question and that it is both the greatest puzzle in the predicament of mankind, while also beings his/her Achilles heal.

Is our origin in a happenstance of dust, or a Shakespeare puts it, a "quintessence of dust".

Or is our origin by design, presuming some creator of some kind, which does not need to be defined.

So which is it? — Punshhh

Neither.

It is self evident to me that philosophy cannot answer this question ...

It's a pseudo-question (lacks specificity, parameters, etc for determining what would count as correct answers) for starters. And philosophy concerns questions of concepts (analytical / dialectical descriptions) and not questions of how things are (theoretical explanations); assuming the latter is akin to a category mistake.

It's a pseudo-question (lacks specificity, parameters, etc for determining what would count as correct answers) for starters.

But the question remains, whatever a philosopher says. What you say, is evidence that philosophy can't answer, or address the question, not that the question is invalid.

You see, what God means to people amounts to more than the domain of the intellect. There is lived experience, events and agency involved. As such a theist is engaged in real/lived events, things inaccessible to the intellect, or intellectual analysis, because this analysis is limited, as the intellect is limited.

The intellect is primitive in comparison to the nature in to which it was recently born.

But the [pseudo] question remains, whatever a philosopher says. What you say, is evidence that philosophy can't answer, or address the question, not that the question is invalid. — Punshhh

"Evidence?" Okay. :roll:

Btw, read the post again. My 'answer' was/is neither - because "the question is invalid" (i.e. "origins" is a question for science and not for philosophy).

I agree that the question is not presentable in a way that it can be answered philosophically. But it is a philosophical question by dint of being an existential issue for all humanity. If it is swept away by way of being invalid, or something like that then philosophy will be incomplete, while staring at an estranged elephant in the room.