What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

But, the absence of belief in gods isn't atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the belief in gods. It is a direct response to theism, and the main reason I consider atheism to be so foolish. It's not really a belief system; it's more an attack on any belief system that features deities.

(a) I do think belief in deities is foolish.
(b) I do challenge said belief systems.
(c) I am an atheist.

I don't do either (a) or (b) because of (c).

(d) I'm skeptical of unsupported claims.

It would be more accurate to say that I am (d), and thus (c).

Atheism is a state; a product of skepticism. I don't agree that it is a "response."

A
R
T

1 Reply

Cyracuz wrote:

But, the absence of belief in gods isn't atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the belief in gods. It is a direct response to theism, and the main reason I consider atheism to be so foolish. It's not really a belief system; it's more an attack on any belief system that features deities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To say there are no deities is not an attack, but mere affirmation of fact. The thought stops at the end of my tongue, unless provoked. It could only be considered an attack if used in offensive ways, which it is not. I will not attempt to take away your faith, but I expect that you in turn will not try to instill in me your beliefs.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Atheism is a state; a product of skepticism. I don't agree that it is a "response."

Of course it is a response. There is nothing else it could be. So is skepticism. Even when it's only masquerading as skepticism.

Quote:

I do think belief in deities is foolish.

You have a low opinion of the human race. What makes you think that universal atheisism from 20,000 BC to now could have produced the computer you type your silly assertions onto?

Quote:

I do challenge said belief systems.

Like when? Thinking you challenge belief systems is not the same as actually challenging them.

You look well rabbiting about being skeptical of unsupported claims when the very same post is nothing but.

Quote:

I am an atheist.

As long as you don't behave like one it's pretty harmless. What people are concerned about is 310 million atheists behaving like atheists and thus requiring a Department of Homeland Hygiene.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Which is, of course, no response to the content ot the post. A post made because, as Cyracuz shows. there are plenty of bullshit artists ouit there, and it is worth responding just to show that it is bullshit.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

"Frank Apisa" wrote:
Okay, so some atheists think that atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

So you agree I'm correct.

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES,

Some atheists think that atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. I have never denied that...nor have I ever suggested that is not the case.

Quote:

"Frank Apisa" wrote:
How could someone be without gods if gods exist? So declaring that one is without gods…IS suggesting that no gods exist.

It wasn't the atheists who called themselves atheists it was the theists. It was a pejorative term that theists called atheists. Now do you understand?

Nope…not at all. What the hell are you trying to say here?

Quote:

"Frank Apisa" wrote:
Actually, “without gods. But that is minor.

Not according to the link above. In my opinion they are correct and you are wrong.

Actually, I think I am wrong on this. It may very well be singular rather than plural. I acknowledge that. In any case, as I said "It is minor."

Quote:

"Frank Apisa" wrote:
However, to be without gods absolutely requires that there be no gods…otherwise you are WITH gods. So, the assertion that one is without gods is an assertion that there are no gods.

Wrong again for the reasons I've given above. You as I've said before are completely wrong.

Yes, I know. You are very good at telling me that I am wrong. Unfortunately, I am not wrong on this point.

If there are gods (one of the possibilities)…then there are no people without gods no matter what they say.

We do not know. Maybe there are no gods…and we are all without gods.

Atheists are not people without gods…they are people who claim to be without gods. There is a difference.

Quote:

The 'without gods' atheists let go of the concept of god. This is possible for example:

We have all let go of the notion that the earth is flat. We don't think about it. It is a redundant concept. We are 'without the concept' of a flat earth.

Agnostics as you are who are agnostic about everything can't do this because the earth may still be flat and a god or some other supernatural event or creature may just create the illusion that the earth is not flat. You don't have enough evidence to say either way.

The Earth is not flat…and being agnostic about everything does not mean what you are attempting to make it mean in order to ridicule it.

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST. I suspect you do not know either.

I DO NOT KNOW THAT NO GODS EXIST. I suspect you do not know either.

I am unwilling to make a guess on the matter because I do not see unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. I suspect you are making a blind guess that there are no gods. That is your right...and the right of anyone who enjoys making blind guesses.

Quote:

We atheist and theists and the rest of the world excluding agnostics just leave it to common sense and science coupled with history to lead our lives.

The last thing in the world you are doing is using common sense and science, igm. If you were, I suspect you would be acknowledging that you do not know if there are gods or if there are no gods.

But it is nice that you get comfort from thinking you are using common sense and science.

Quote:

I should join us before you go crazy.

I have no idea of what the hell that means.

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Oops, you trapped yourself.

You're claiming to be an agnostic always, but you've clearly demonstrated this is not true.

You've given a specific example of religious compliance as well.

You've taken a religious position, but fail to call it such. Perhaps because it's your personal religious construct, and perhaps because you realize religious thinking isn't logical and you are uncomfortable accepting your position as such.

What in the hell are you talking about????

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

The only reason you consider any gods are because someone has said they exist. There is no difference.

You seem rather sure of that. You are, however, wrong.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Which is, of course, no response to the content ot the post. A post made because, as Cyracuz shows. there are plenty of bullshit artists ouit there, and it is worth responding just to show that it is bullshit.

I am taking you quite seriously on this, Set, because if anyone should know "bullshit"...you are that person.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

And thanks for sticking with me, Set.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It wasn't the atheists who called themselves atheists it was the theists. It was a pejorative term that theists called atheists. Now do you understand?

Nope…not at all. What the hell are you trying to say here?

I guess you did not take my advise and study the Wikipedia link that IGM shared with us yesterday?

Etymology

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[93]

The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[94] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[95] and again in 1571.[96] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[97] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme, and appears in English about 1587.[98] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[99][100] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[101] theist in 1662,[102] deism in 1675,[103] and theism in 1678.[104] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism came to be contrasted with deism.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[9] In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God;[105] atheist meant not accepting the current conception of the divine.[106]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[107] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God"

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

What in the hell are you talking about?

I'm glad you asked. It goes back to the field, and in this case no unicorns, you say:

Frank Apisa wrote:

For the record, if the sign read, "If you cross this field, GOD will strike you dead!"...I would not cross. Not because I fear any gods...or any invisible unicorns...but because I take warnings seriously.

Well, I'm glad that's on the record.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But knowing me, I would probably still say to both flying spaghetti monster and GOD, “**** you, scumbag, take your best shot.”

And in that light...TO ANY OF THE GODS CURRENTLY BEING WORSHIPED HERE ON EARTH...(which I acknowledge I do not know exist or do not exist)...**** YOU. If you have rewards for me if I do what you want...**** YOU. Shove the rewards up your ass. If you have punishments for me if I do not do what you want me to do...**** YOU TWICE AS MUCH.

But... this is on the record too.

So can you really claim to take warning seriously? Oh wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. Here's the warnings about the field you're already in.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:13-16

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die ... And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick ... And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. 2 Samuel 12:14-18

All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men ... whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Matthew 12:31-32
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness Mark 3:29

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Luke 12:10

Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. 1 Timothy 1:20

I stood ... saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. Revelation 13:1

These are pretty clear. Specific warnings not to blaspheme. Warnings that you ignore. Ignore... well, sort of. If it's a field, then you'll comply because you

Frank Apisa wrote:

take warnings seriously

...because....

Frank Apisa wrote:

of fear

...at least you'll say so on the internet as to avoid what you know is a hole in your position.

So Frank, the warnings are posted. Do you comply or not? It seems it's easy to say you'll not walk through the field, because you can perform mental gymnastics about why you don't need to cross the field. However, when the posted warnings start to effect your life, you don't care in the slightest to comply, and in fact you'll blastpheme in caps lock!

You don't live your stated philosophy, so your debate with me or anyone else is only the sideshow to what you must debate with yourself.

Lastly, the "I could be wrong!" thing you profess each post is cute, but it's meaningless until you declare something to be right or wrong about. Saying you "don't know" doesn't satisfy this. You're not possibly wrong about if you know. That's a fact. It's fact for us all.

If you don't include gods among the things you do believe in, you satisfy the only strict criteria of being an atheist. You seem to have a certain repulsion to the word, so you're adverse to admit it, or construct an overly elaborate position around the fact that you don't believe in any gods. Such overly elaborate castle walls often leave you boxed in, and in this case, logically trapped because the rationale you've employed ironically relies on religious thinking (something you loathe to accept).

The trap is your cognitive dissonance on being an agnostic about everything, always. You clearly do not fit such a philosophy.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The only reason you consider any gods are because someone has said they exist. There is no difference.

You seem rather sure of that. You are, however, wrong.

Educate me then, Frank. How do the ideas of gods get into people's minds, and how are their qualities attributed if not through social means?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I guess you did not take my advise and study the Wikipedia link that IGM shared with us yesterday?

RL...I have read the linked piece...and the information in the OnLine Etymological dictionary...MANY, MANY times during the last decade or so. I have actually been debating these questions for four decades...on the Internet for about 15 years.

Not sure why you think you are giving me new information, but I have offered almost everything there in posts of mine through the years.

I still do not understand the comment. What on earth does any of that have to do with my comment: “How could someone be without gods if gods exist? So declaring that one is without gods…IS suggesting that no gods exist.”

The fact that at some point atheists were called atheists by theists as a derogation is of no consequence in my comment.

Many atheists INSIST that they are atheists because if the “a” prefix before “theist” means the word is “without a belief in GOD.” It happened right here, when Art wrote:

Having no gods amongst the list of things I believe in, satisfies the only necessary definition of atheist. http://able2know.org/topic/189772-5#post-4971507

That is utter nonsense…we both know that. But no real need to discuss it.

So why don’t we just get away for all this nonsense and deal with the underlying consideration:

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST. Do you?

I DO NOT KNOW THAT GODS DO NOT EXIST. Do you?

I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A MEANINGFUL GUESS IN THE MATTER. Do you?

Let us discuss that…and get away from trying to ridicule agnosticism.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Wow...he just did it again.

Quote:

If you don't include gods among the things you do believe in, you satisfy the only strict criteria of being an atheist.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Moses...I could care less. A warning on a sign in a field...or a warning from a cop with a gun...I care!

If you have a problem with that...you have serious problems.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Educate me then, Frank. How do the ideas of gods get into people's minds, and how are their qualities attributed if not through social means?

Sorry, Art, I didn't realize you've never had an independent thought of your own.

I probably can't explain such a thing to you...but you ought really to give it a try.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Many atheists INSIST that they are atheists because if the “a” prefix before “theist” means the word is “without a belief in GOD.” It happened right here, when Art wrote:

Having no gods amongst the list of things I don't believe in, satisfies the only necessary definition of atheist. http://able2know.org/topic/189772-5#post-4971507

That is utter nonsense…we both know that. But no real need to discuss it.

It's a logical structure Frank. I don't have a second list of things I believe in. I only have one list: Things I believe in. No gods or supernatural things are on that list.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST. Do you?

I DO NOT KNOW THAT GODS DO NOT EXIST. Do you?

I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A MEANINGFUL GUESS IN THE MATTER. Do you?

Let us discuss that…and get away from trying to ridicule agnosticism.

Got CAPS LOCK, bro?

A
R
T

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Moses...I could care less. A warning on a sign in a field...or a warning from a cop with a gun...I care!

If you have a problem with that...you have serious problems.

I don't have a problem--you do.

We're both in the field doing things that the religious say they've warned us not to do.

You claim to respect warning signs no matter if it's a rabid field mouse, unicorn, god, or a cop with a gun.

Me, I respect the warning of a cop, but can exclude the other's painlessly. I'm able to accept my own ability to reason and judge appropriately. It doesn't make me close-minded to be able to sort between the two.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Educate me then, Frank. How do the ideas of gods get into people's minds, and how are their qualities attributed if not through social means?

Sorry, Art, I didn't realize you've never had an independent thought of your own.

I probably can't explain such a thing to you...but you ought really to give it a try.

I'll accept your non-answer as concession on this point. If you're unwilling to engage, don't post just to beat your chest.

I have plenty of independent thoughts, but you've granted special consideration to gods because of their perceived role in the "nature of existence." Such a role is only considered because it has been attributed to gods by religions.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Typo:

"I don't have a second list of things I believe in. I only have one list: Things I believe in."

should have read:

"I don't have a second list of things I don't believe in. I only have one list: Things I believe in."

A
R
T

1 Reply

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know