< 1 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Evolution of Religion and Language

 
The Voice of Reason
 
Avatar
 
 
The Voice of Reason
Total Posts:  109
Joined  09-01-2013
 
 
 
11 January 2013 21:43
 

I do not deny that the human mind is capable of creating fictions which, in the truest sense, can actually help that person deal with real life.  I have only to look at how sometimes trauma victims’ minds blank out horrific events, or they even become schizophrenic as a result of trauma.  Similarly, a person who believes in “faith” could, no doubt, benefit in certain ways from that in certain, specific circumstances.  But, that person, the trauma victim and the believer, are still harmed by their impaired mental faculties none the less.

 
 
santhosh
 
Avatar
 
 
santhosh
Total Posts:  1318
Joined  01-06-2011
 
 
 
11 January 2013 22:02
 

.

[ Edited: 21 January 2013 17:08 by santhosh]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 00:23
 
stardust91977 - 11 January 2013 09:02 PM
GAD - 11 January 2013 07:40 PM
stardust91977 - 11 January 2013 04:40 PM

In other words, atheism is a lack of belief, not a declaration of fact about what is possible or impossible in or beyond the universe.

Sorry but no atheism not a “lack of belief” and is fact a declaration of fact that there is not a single iota of evidence that delusions and inventions of the human mind are real.  Nor are you being the person of reason you think you are by claiming that you can not deny that such delusions and inventions of the human mind could be real.


The prefix a- means without and theism means belief in God or Gods. Without belief.

How reasonable are you being in denying that simple little tidbit of fact?

Also, have you at some point found evidence that the possibility of the universe having a someone/others creator is just a delusion or invention of the human mind? If so you should publish in a science journal, as the question of a creator or not is scientific one and the world will be anxious to get your report.

Sorry again but your word play is simply an antiquated artifact of poor reasoning. Weak atheism is inconsistent and self-contradicting and you are simply parroting it without any reasoning of your own.

 
 
santhosh
 
Avatar
 
 
santhosh
Total Posts:  1318
Joined  01-06-2011
 
 
 
12 January 2013 01:17
 

.

[ Edited: 21 January 2013 17:08 by santhosh]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 01:30
 
stardust91977 - 12 January 2013 12:17 AM
GAD - 11 January 2013 11:23 PM
stardust91977 - 11 January 2013 09:02 PM
GAD - 11 January 2013 07:40 PM
stardust91977 - 11 January 2013 04:40 PM

In other words, atheism is a lack of belief, not a declaration of fact about what is possible or impossible in or beyond the universe.

Sorry but no atheism not a “lack of belief” and is fact a declaration of fact that there is not a single iota of evidence that delusions and inventions of the human mind are real.  Nor are you being the person of reason you think you are by claiming that you can not deny that such delusions and inventions of the human mind could be real.


The prefix a- means without and theism means belief in God or Gods. Without belief.

How reasonable are you being in denying that simple little tidbit of fact?

Also, have you at some point found evidence that the possibility of the universe having a someone/others creator is just a delusion or invention of the human mind? If so you should publish in a science journal, as the question of a creator or not is scientific one and the world will be anxious to get your report.

Sorry again but your word play is simply an antiquated artifact of poor reasoning. Weak atheism is inconsistent and self-contradicting and you are simply parroting it without any reasoning of your own.

There is no word play in saying that atheism means being without belief in God or Gods. That you would sit there trying to twist this as though there is is ridiculous. My atheism is based on the lack of evidence for the existence of a someone creator, not the ridiculous notion that, based on that lack of evidence, I can now know with any surety what, if anything, let alone who, if anyone, exists beyond this universe, and what they may or may be capable of doing. 

Do you want me to reason that out for you.. you know, the way we can’t know what we don’t know but can lack belief in things that others say they know?

So your atheism is not a choice it is based on your ignorance?

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 02:15
 

Atheism is actually based on ignorance. We have no knowledge of God, based on evidence, thus we are atheistic to it’s existence.

The argument from incredulity works both ways. What we have no knowledge of we can attribute to God, or we can attribute to no proof for God.

The Reasonist philosopher concludes a possible god based on incredulity (ignorance). An Empiricist philosopher rules out God on the basis of no experience or observation (evidence)

If we have no knowledge of God, we are ignorant of his existence.

So, we live our lives ignorant and agnostic about the existence of Go. Thus we are in actuality….Atheists, because we go about our daily lives unconcerned about God, whether we understand knowledge either way.

IMO this is the Epistemology of the God concept.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 02:50
 
Epaminondas - 12 January 2013 01:15 AM

Atheism is actually based on ignorance. We have no knowledge of God, based on evidence, thus we are atheistic to it’s existence.

The argument from incredulity works both ways. What we have no knowledge of we can attribute to God, or we can attribute to no proof for God.

The Reasonist philosopher concludes a possible god based on incredulity (ignorance). An Empiricist philosopher rules out God on the basis of no experience or observation (evidence)

If we have no knowledge of God, we are ignorant of his existence.

So, we live our lives ignorant and agnostic about the existence of Go. Thus we are in actuality….Atheists, because we go about our daily lives unconcerned about God, whether we understand knowledge either way.

IMO this is the Epistemology of the God concept.

So, then, your atheism is not grounded on reason but on ignorance.  And what gods is it that you are ignorant of? It can not be the human invented gods written in all human holy books, those gods are required to be knowable. So you are ignorant of gods not invented? Or are you talking about unknowable gods as a conception?

 
 
santhosh
 
Avatar
 
 
santhosh
Total Posts:  1318
Joined  01-06-2011
 
 
 
12 January 2013 06:31
 

.

[ Edited: 21 January 2013 17:09 by santhosh]
 
dacecain
 
Avatar
 
 
dacecain
Total Posts:  255
Joined  07-10-2012
 
 
 
12 January 2013 07:12
 
Epaminondas - 12 January 2013 01:15 AM

Atheism is actually based on ignorance. We have no knowledge of God, based on evidence, thus we are atheistic to it’s existence.

Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you meant Agnosticism and agnostic here?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 07:46
 
stardust91977 - 12 January 2013 05:31 AM
GAD - 12 January 2013 12:30 AM

So your atheism is not a choice it is based on your ignorance?

Of course it’s a choice. It’s a choice not to believe those who claim to know that someone must’ve created the universe, and for what I consider to be really good, solid reasons—lack of evidence on the part of theists being just one. What does any of that matter, though? I still have no way of knowing what exists beyond my scope of experience, and so far that doesn’t include any information to lead to the conclusion that there are no beings with the ability to create big bang events or play some other role in creating a new universe. 

That is hardly an inconsistent or self-defeating position for an atheist and person of reason to be in. Can be those things at times, but this is not one of them.

Atheists who want the rest of us to go to some extreme to deny theism, which hasn’t a leg to stand on with many of us anyway, are a riot. What’s the big deal? Did some supposed authority tell you what it is we’re all supposed to think and walk and talk like and now you’re uncomfortable?

So then atheism is not a “lack of belief” based on ignorance or lack of knowledge it is a choice grounded by facts i.e. a declaration of facts.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 08:04
 
dacecain - 12 January 2013 06:12 AM
Epaminondas - 12 January 2013 01:15 AM

Atheism is actually based on ignorance. We have no knowledge of God, based on evidence, thus we are atheistic to it’s existence.

Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you meant Agnosticism and agnostic here?

To be consistent atheism must be positive.

 
 
dacecain
 
Avatar
 
 
dacecain
Total Posts:  255
Joined  07-10-2012
 
 
 
12 January 2013 08:32
 
GAD - 12 January 2013 07:04 AM
dacecain - 12 January 2013 06:12 AM
Epaminondas - 12 January 2013 01:15 AM

Atheism is actually based on ignorance. We have no knowledge of God, based on evidence, thus we are atheistic to it’s existence.

Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you meant Agnosticism and agnostic here?

To be consistent atheism must be positive.

Hello GAD, I’m afraid I don’t understand. Is there any chance you could explain what you mean here, perhaps providing the inconsistencies of negative atheism for comparison. Thanks.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5181
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
12 January 2013 17:16
 

I tend to agree with GAD here. Language is a devious thing but when someone self-applies a label, even one of negation, there is a positive assertion being made. The idea that atheism is simply a null state is popular with many current speakers because it sidesteps a lot of complicated questions. But it also paints a person as unformed. I think its a rhetorical evasion.

In order to make any sort of claim or argument I think you need a foundation. Something that grounds and correlates the evaluations you make about the world. And the concepts that you appeal to when trying to make a case for something. A universe without god or gods is fundamentally different place than one with. Its fine to plead ignorance with regard to questions about metaphysics but I don’t think its reasonable to discount the signficance of qualitative judgments and where they come from… hopefully that makes sense.

The reason this is important, in my view, is because human culture is largely drawn from theistic and mythological origins. Language is part of culture and language, it increasingly seems, is directly informative of the very cognitive ability to manipulate these concepts at all. So, in asserting atheism, we are not simply discounting some arbitrary fantastic claim. We are shedding our skin. And taking a deliberate step toward another phase of human history. I think we should acknowledge the gravity of that. Own it.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 18:26
 
dacecain - 12 January 2013 07:32 AM
GAD - 12 January 2013 07:04 AM
dacecain - 12 January 2013 06:12 AM
Epaminondas - 12 January 2013 01:15 AM

Atheism is actually based on ignorance. We have no knowledge of God, based on evidence, thus we are atheistic to it’s existence.

Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you meant Agnosticism and agnostic here?

To be consistent atheism must be positive.

Hello GAD, I’m afraid I don’t understand. Is there any chance you could explain what you mean here, perhaps providing the inconsistencies of negative atheism for comparison. Thanks.

Try this.

The gods of humanity are either real or they are not. So ask yourself, are they real or not? Work through the possible answers and see where negative atheism falls.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2013 18:35
 
Brick Bungalow - 12 January 2013 04:16 PM

I tend to agree with GAD here. Language is a devious thing but when someone self-applies a label, even one of negation, there is a positive assertion being made. The idea that atheism is simply a null state is popular with many current speakers because it sidesteps a lot of complicated questions. But it also paints a person as unformed. I think its a rhetorical evasion.

Exactly.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >