Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Deba...

Since: Jan 14

United States

#61 Feb 23, 2014
Honeythorn Gump,
I quite appreciate your effort, your high intelligence and open-mindedness.
I would crave your indulgence to help link up with Topix, how all my religio-philosophical books can be made freely accessible to fellow discussants through a special arrangement between Topix and Lulu, i.e. my co-publisher.
If you have access to one of the books, i.e.'Who Is This God?- The Elephant And The Ten Blindmen', you will have a clearer understanding of this ultimate philosophical concept of God.
Up till now, restrictive, relative philosophies have been developed to conceptualize God, with corresponding allegorical representation via the story of 'The Elephant And The Three/Six Blindmen',
Whereas, the true concept of God includes and complements all the congruous components of every other concept the world over.
Meanwgle, you have only succeeded in identifying just one aspect of our take from the pantheistic stand-point alone; Name any other SENSIBLE concept, and it will be complementarily tolerated.
Honeythorn Gump

London, UK

#62 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Honeythorn Gump,
I quite appreciate your effort, your high intelligence and open-mindedness.
I would crave your indulgence to help link up with Topix, how all my religio-philosophical books can be made freely accessible to fellow discussants through a special arrangement between Topix and Lulu, i.e. my co-publisher.
If you have access to one of the books, i.e.'Who Is This God?- The Elephant And The Ten Blindmen', you will have a clearer understanding of this ultimate philosophical concept of God.
Up till now, restrictive, relative philosophies have been developed to conceptualize God, with corresponding allegorical representation via the story of 'The Elephant And The Three/Six Blindmen',
I understand the "The Elephant And The Ten Blindmen" analogy. The problem is, it assumes "God" exists. You assume "God" exists. Theists assume "God" exists. Personally I don't feel the need to assume the existence of any magical, creator being be it natural or supernatural. I cannot speak for other atheists, however, I will take a wild guess and say many of them feel the same way as I do.
jide oni wrote:
Meanwgle, you have only succeeded in identifying just one aspect of our take from the pantheistic stand-point alone; Name any other SENSIBLE concept, and it will be complementarily tolerated.
I was pointing out your views match those of Pantheism.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#64 Feb 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"I assert that atheism is a rejection of the supernatural claims of religion."
Atheism has nothing to do with religion, or rejection of religion.
As I have often suggested, atheists should learn what the term means before they join its ranks.
Atheism is the belief that no god exists. That's the starting point for honest discussion.
You're missing the point, as you often do. The definitions of words vary with time and context. Within this thread, which is a "debate" between jide oni and the rest of us about his contention that atheism has been destroyed, oni's definition of the word is crucial to the debate. If he agrees with your definition (or mine), well and good. If not, he must assert his own. Before that is established, no usefu; discussion can follow.

Logic 101.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#65 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Our world is a natural world; any religion that subscribes to the 'fact' of a supernatural deity, is not a true religion, but merely a corpus of myths and fairy tales.
A true religion should be a reflection of God/Nature here on earth.
If God is conceived as the perfect manifestation of intelligence, observable through the operation of the natural laws, then all arguments put up by Atheists should be weighed against the laws.
Where an Atheist's submission runs foul of the natural laws, the Atheist's point of view nakedly stands to be thrown out; Whereas, in the case of an Atheist's valid point, naturally will such a point be accommodated within the body of the laws, as naturally pointing to the existence of a natural universal Force.
The protracted rift between Atheists and Theists is due to the fact that there can never be any resolution, where one side is anchoring on faith.
But where reason meets with reason, happy resolution is certain, since truth and reason are bed-fellows, but not so with faith.
...and here is where your argument fails. Like Buck, you see language as fixed and unchanging. It is not. The meanings of words change through time as usage changes--ask any lexicographer. Moreover, the word that describes a specific demographic group is best defined by polling members of that demographic, not by polling that groups avowed enemies. To ask believers what "atheist" means is akin to polling KKK members about non-whites or anti-Semite about Jews.

The definition that you present is only valid in the context of monotheism. While that is prevalent in much of the modern world, it is not universal. Nor is the concept of that one god from one context to another. Even within Christianity there is much confusion about the nature of the god that they worship. God is love? Not according to some sects, whose main focus is on Old Testament vengeance.

The definition that you present is more like the Force popularized by the Star Wars movies of Spinoza's concept that Einstein once mentioned. But Einstein denied any intelligence or intentionality in that concept--it was more an expression of awe of the Universe itself. Many atheists share that awe--it is magnificent--but don't see any god behind or within it. And, of course, some atheists simply don't concern themselves with astrophysics at all. We're not all scientists, after all. Most of us are just ordinary folk who don't accept the improbable on faith.

But even within your more narrow definition, I don't see how you can support your contention that atheism is destroyed.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#66 Feb 23, 2014
Natural laws, i.e. the laws of the hard sciences, are easily accepted, but have no demonstrable relations to the god that you propose. Those relation to softer sciences are less tangible and not subject to the level of certainty that your argument requires.

Where are you going with this?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#67 Feb 23, 2014
..."those relating to..."

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#68 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
What then is Atheism?
atheism is the awaiting of proof for the god you claim

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#69 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
NightSerf,
Much ado about nothing. Your post falls far short of target, in spite of its length.
Please try and go through my thread once again, perhaps the essentials will dawn on you. I am saying this because the questions I am expecting from the floor are not forthcoming.
If you do a repeat reading and yet you could not come up with the pertinent reaction, I will give you a list of intelligent sounders.
E.g. I made the claim that there is no evil in the world. Don't you have something to say about this?
I find nothing attractive in your parameters, possibly you should try defining them again,

I suggest English language

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#70 Feb 23, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
The Abrahamic God, the Hindu Gods, all the pagan Gods.
Do you know of any religion where the Gods don't demand worship?
the one he proposes to this thread

he will collect the tithes later

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#71 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
My dear NightSerf,
You, Truthseeker, Seentheotherside, Topix Mods that have tolerated this thread thus far, and other like minds in Topix Forums, have naturally unconsciously been making your input towards the establishment of the new world order.
Nobody has the monopoly of knowledge. We are all children of the universe. We are all equal before God, except that we did not start off at the same time. We are all abundantly endued with an equal dose of life force, but with different amounts of self-application.
Mow, back to your Question as to my own concept of God:
I don't conceive a deistic, personal, humanlike god, but a loosely unrestrictive, immanent and transcendent under-/intra-/supra-current of Force. For nomenclature approximate, we would descriptively consider the God as the Universe, Universal Energy, Universal ntelligence, universal mind, the cosmos, life, nature, the all, the one etc., i.e. any tag that smacks of his all-inclusiveness will do, nothing restrictive about him/her/ them/it
Baruch Spinoza

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#72 Feb 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"I assert that atheism is a rejection of the supernatural claims of religion."
Atheism has nothing to do with religion, or rejection of religion.
As I have often suggested, atheists should learn what the term means before they join its ranks.
Atheism is the belief that no god exists. That's the starting point for honest discussion.
you are wrong

but than again

you are almost always wrong

why do you post under so many persona?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#73 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Folks,
Any point making fuss over what is as plain as the back of your hand?
An average person knows who an Atheist is; and it is the generally accepted definition that should serve as our basis for discussions.
A Theist either believes in God, or claims to know that God exists; while Atheists uphold the direct opposite view, i.e. an outright denial of the existence of God.
Up till now, the discussions have been between reasonable doubting Thomases and the unreasonable credulous ones; i.e. between reason and faith.
Whereas, the present thread marks a total departure from the erstwhile reasonable doubt vs unreasonable credulity polemic, towards an eventual knowledge of God in His absoluteness.
With regard to supernatural claims of religion, let me quickly say that any claim to an actual existence of supernatural entities is simply a vestige of primitive, superstitious world views of the cave-man of yores.
The God I know is a natural God, The supernatural are figments of imagination.(to be contd)
to be clear

I am a rational skeptic --- I do not accept as fact that for which there is no evidence.

I have found no god claims that are demonstrable. There for there are no god claims which I credit.

as to the definition of " atheist." That belongs to the theists, they invented the word, my understanding of the original meaning : a combination of "not one of us" along with a strong pejorative. for each theist the definition of "atheist" is as different as the gods they believe in.

NOW: When you find that I do not accept your god claim without evidence, you may call me an atheist, I take no insult, but do keep in mind : that : I do not claim "no god exists" I merely observe that there has never been any evidence advanced for the existence of a god.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#74 Feb 23, 2014
Honeythorn Gump,
No doubt you must have possibly read the story of the three/six blindmen, and its assumption of the existence of God.
That Theists also assume that God exists, is incontestable.
Whereas, it is doubtful if you have ever read 'the ten blindmen' story, where I do not assume that God exists, but that God exists beyond mere belief.
My concept of God transcends all those concepts that see God as a creator, be it a supernatural or natural creation.
I believe once a point is made, it is needless to go on repeating it.
Several of the reactions to my thread appear not to address the real issue.
For example, I have stated that God never created anything, that the supernatural have no actual existence, that there is no evil within the confines of nature, that God is everything, i.e. all conceivable things put together, that God is not just any particular thing or things - therefore, leaving enough room for discussion.
If fellow discussants can put truth-hunt above personal ego, all will be well.
Honethorn Gump

London, UK

#75 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
where I do not assume that God exists,
So you do not assume "God" exists.
jide oni wrote:
but that God exists beyond mere belief.
Yet here you are assuming "God" exists.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#76 Feb 23, 2014
Nightserf,
That language changes with time is such a trite statement, at least in a world where virtually everything unceasingly goes through change.
For us to be able to get down to business in earnest, please tell me, in as few words as possible, what exactly is Atheism.
And I can assure you. I couldn't have missed my aim, no matter how divergent the current meaning of Atheism might prove to be from the norm.
Honeythorn Gump

London, UK

#77 Feb 23, 2014
jide oni wrote:
For example, I have stated that God never created anything, that the supernatural have no actual existence, that there is no evil within the confines of nature, that God is everything, i.e. all conceivable things put together, that God is not just any particular thing or things - therefore, leaving enough room for discussion.
Discussion about what? If you do not believe in a supernatural deity and think of nature as "God" you are a Pantheist. Pantheism is a form of atheism.

[QUOTE who="
If fellow discussants can put truth-hunt above personal ego, all will be well.
[/QUOTE]

From my perspective the best tool for understanding the world around us is science.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#78 Feb 23, 2014
Nightserf, Tell me which of the man-made laws is comparable with the natural laws, in terms of consistency, universal lattitude/application and degree of inviolability.
And having done that, tell me the human source of the human laws.
Then, tell us which ones naturally gain ascendancy over the others - human beings or the natural laws?

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#79 Feb 23, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
atheism is the awaiting of proof for the god you claim
That has been done, now waiting for you counter-proof.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#80 Feb 23, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I find nothing attractive in your parameters, possibly you should try defining them again,
I suggest English language
You are a distraction.

Please give way to the Nightserfs, that serious matters can be meaningfully discussed.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#81 Feb 23, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
to be clear
I am a rational skeptic --- I do not accept as fact that for which there is no evidence.
I have found no god claims that are demonstrable. There for there are no god claims which I credit.
as to the definition of " atheist." That belongs to the theists, they invented the word, my understanding of the original meaning : a combination of "not one of us" along with a strong pejorative. for each theist the definition of "atheist" is as different as the gods they believe in.
NOW: When you find that I do not accept your god claim without evidence, you may call me an atheist, I take no insult, but do keep in mind : that : I do not claim "no god exists" I merely observe that there has never been any evidence advanced for the existence of a god.
Quite a conviction-laden evidence has been given. It's now for you invalidate it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr ChristineM 11,075
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 20,717
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr ChristineM 245,188
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 3 hr thetruth 14,671
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 7 hr Shizle 23
John 3:16 14 hr Thinking 98
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 23 hr Thinking 19
More from around the web