Atheism

Why did you just lump all atheists together?

Werent you reading what you quoted ? Because Atheists do it to Theists . If you dont like it, dont do it to others .

Not to mention that you're not even "lumping them all together" to begin with, eh, Ionus?

If atheists can't agree, as a group, then they can't. It's a simple fact which, by it's nature, affects the entire class, not just a few here and there.

News for the whacko's. It's theists who constantly argue about definitions as they apply to Atheism and Atheists. Atheists have no such issues. We don't give enough of a ****.

Nothing "Frank like" about that. NOTHING!

But there are atheists (like Edgarblythe in another thread) who assert that there are NO GODS. Those kinds of people ARE asserting a guess about whether there are or are not any gods in the REALITY of existence. They happen to be making guesses in opposite directions...which means the guesses are not the same. But both are asserting guesses.

So what constitutes a Theist and what are they ? Love your command of the English language by the way, learned at home did we ?

Yeah, they are slippery little suckers . Atheists all have a different definition of what they are, no wonder they think all Theists can be criticised as a group, they are just plain ignorant .

I was seriously tempted to stop reading after this headline:


Why "finally"? There either exists at least one god or there doesn't. If there does, atheism is misguided, no matter who subscribes to it. If there doesn't, it's spot-on, no matter who subscribes to it. The rest is arguing ad hominem, irrelevant to any substantive discussion.

Allow me this rare moment to agree completely with you, Thomas.

     It is not that easy, and besides that everything depends on the definition of God, and in the general case the above claim is definitely not true. The possible scenarios are much more: the Universe might have Intelligence within itself (that I don't know whether it could be called God or not); the Universe might have Intelligence outside itself (which may be God, but it may be some other form of Intelligence that is distinguished from God); our own intelligence has hardly appeared out of nowhere and out of nothing as the Big Bang 'theory' is trying to convince us; we may not be the first and still the best ILF in the Universe ... and the only one; the Intelligence of the Universe might have universal properties of rebirth from one ILF into another, for example - we may be simply the next ILF in the relay race, and if this is the case the ILF before us that has handed in the torch to us might be interpreted as our God, and we will be God to the next ILF ... if we suceeedd to make it and to set it into operation; Time itself may be some kind of Non-deterministic Turing Machine operating on 'auto-pilot' that might have some intelliegence as well, etc. ... We simply don't know. We don't even know whether the possible options for that are finite or infinite.
     So, God is very relative conception and without exhausting the search space of all possible interpretations of God one could hardly claim that there is no God. In the general case, one cannot prove universal negative - there is no God for any interpretation of the world - no matter what the definition and the conception of God might be.
     So, perhaps there is no God, but there may be as well. Perhaps the Universe has always existed and the Intelligence of the Universe has always existed, no matter whether this may be interpreted as God or not. The perpetuous existence of the Intelligence in the Universe could hardly be excluded by the naivistic explanations of the Big Bang 'theory'.
      What shall we do then? We may bet on the Pascal's wager - according to which we will be much better off if we believe in the existence of God than in the non-existence ... and approach based exclusively on pure pragmatics.

I know a lot of people here find it suits their purposes to write you off as some kind of crazed idiot, Herald, but I don't. So far, I haven't seen you say anything that would warrant that conclusion.

You've made some worthwhile points in this post, but you have not really supported this claim:



By "the above claim" I must assume you are talking about the one from Thomas you quoted, i.e.:



You are saying that the "either" part is "untrue," and that therefore simultaneously saying that "there is NOT at least one god that exists," AND that "there IS at least one god that exists." You are necessarily saying that BOTH of these mutually exclusive claims are "true."

Simply throwing in some observations about definitional problems, along with the word "relative," does nothing to support your position, I'm afraid:



I agree with you here, but that hardly makes Thomas' claim "definitely not true."

I agree completely with Tomas and Layman here!

     Yes, unless one proves that all the possible cases are restricted exclusively to God and no-God, no one can claim 'either at least one God or no God'. Unless one can guarantee that all the other cases are excluded, except for [1] and [2], one cannot claim either [1] or [2] .
     Example: Unless one excludes all the other possible colours of the light spectrum (1024 on my screen), one cannot claim that a colour may be either red or blue, for example. Such claim would be absolutely irresponsible as math logic ... and as science respectively.

Try "red" or "not red"...and you may see what Thomas and Layman were trying to get through!

     It is not exactly so. If one has a fizzy definition of God, he cannot make claims of the last resort like: 'There either exists at least one god or there doesn't.'.
     Example: Suppose you don't know what colour is, what is the meaning of the claim: 'There either exists at least one colour or there doesn't' - you will be just talking to move the air ... and to nothing else.

Herald...desperation is showing on your part.

Doesn't look good.

Either there exists at least one god...or there are no gods.

Either there exists at least one "x"...or there are no "x's.

Jeez!

     Yes, perhaps this analogy is better, but what do you mean by no-God - this 'non-red' may have any interpretation along the whole light- ... and RF spectrum?

     If you don't have a definition of God, I doubt that you will ever be able to explain what does 'no-God' is supposed to mean.

Respectfully, Herald...try "x" as the target...and it will become apparent.

Either there exists at least one "x"...or there are no "x's."

It really works...and the need "to define in order for it to work" is an artificial construct.

Make "god" be whatever you will...and either at least one exists...or there are none.

     No, it is not exactly so. In your previous example with the colours, what does infra-red is supposed to mean: is it non-red light or is it non-light at all?
     Yes, the components of the RF spectrum could be viewed as either red light or non-red ... RF frequency, but that non-read does not carry any information about the IR and the UV part of the RF spectrum, for example.
     When you say no-God this does not suppose automatically that the Big Bang 'theory' should be accepted by default by excluding all the other possible case scenarios.