Who is an atheist?

Who is an atheist?

There are 9352 comments on the The Sydney Morning Herald story from May 30, 2010, titled Who is an atheist?. In it, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that:

In my last blog there was a moderately spectacular blue between various parties .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald.

xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#9496 Aug 20, 2013
Jedi Mind Trick_ wrote:
<quoted text>Good question.
Here is the reality, the atheist is always in the state of know nothingness. With the Christian, at first he believes but if he is resolved to that he soon knows.
Here is an example. Do you believe that man walked on the moon? If so, why? If not, why not? I have watched many movies where the actors were on the moon. Wait, no they were not. What you believe is that it was not staged. Has anyone confirmed to you that is was not staged or do you just not require that proof.
okay, now I tell you or someone else that they have experienced the knowing of God, He has spoken and talked with us or them. Do you believe or do you choose to not believe. Why would they stage such a lie?er
To further examine. Does a random lay person who tells you about God have more or less to prove or a need to deceive, or does the government has this need or desire. Read Hitler's Mein Kampf. It is man's belief in God and authority rested there, which hinders any man or government which wishes world dominance and due to that alone the Jews became subjects of extermination. Why? They could never be deceived by Hitler or a pope.
Now, I am not suggesting such a trickery concerning the moon. I am simply asking why you have not explored such a possibility of trickery.
get back to your padded cell,chunky boy,,your BS posts are boring!!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9498 Aug 20, 2013
UidiotRaceMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>Chinese - MAndarin or Cantonese
Chinese Immigrants in the United States
By Aaron Matteo Terrazas and Bhavna Devani
Migration Policy Institute
Click here for larger version of map. Due to compatibility issues, you may need to download the map for it to load properly.
Related Articles:
•China: From Exceptional Case to Global Participant
•After-School Institutions in Chinese and Korean Immigrant Communities: A Model for Others?
•Becoming American/Becoming New Yorkers: The Second Generation in a Majority Minority City
•The "Brain Gain" Race Begins with Foreign Students
June 2008
Source Spotlights are often updated as new data become available. Please click here to find the most recent version of this Spotlight.
The 1980 census recorded the foreign born from China as the 10th-largest immigrant group in the United States. By 2006, the number of Chinese immigrants had increased nearly fivefold, making them the third-largest immigrant group in the United States after the Mexican and Filipino foreign born.
Although half of the immigrants from China have settled in just two states — California and New York — their numbers are increasing rapidly in states such as Wyoming and Nebraska, which previously attracted relatively few Chinese immigrants (for more information on immigrants by state, please see the 2006 ACS/Census Data Tool on the MPI Data Hub).
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/d...
Thanks!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9499 Aug 20, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
There are only three positions POSSIBLE regarding existence of god
1. God exists = theist.
2. God doesn't exist = atheist.(absence of god, not absence of belief of god)
3. Don't know = agnostic.
That is how majority use the words theist, atheist and agnostic.
Dictionaries should be updated, to keep things simple and clear and unambiguous.
You got things **exactly** backwards.

You seem to think dictionaries **control** definitions.

That is the exact opposite-- they ***report*** common definition usage.

Simplifying a dictionary would sever no useful purpose, except to render it less accurate.

**People** control how words are used, not dictionaries.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

#9500 Aug 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You got things **exactly** backwards.
You seem to think dictionaries **control** definitions.
That is the exact opposite-- they ***report*** common definition usage.
Simplifying a dictionary would sever no useful purpose, except to render it less accurate.
**People** control how words are used, not dictionaries.
The Irony!

Agree that dictionaries report usage, which is why I posted the prevalent usage of the words theist, atheist, and agnostic. And think the definitions in the dictionaries are outdated and NOT reporting correct usage.
(however did you miss that!)

How you conclude the way you do about me (and Ben Masada too), is totally beyond me. If you read carefully the post you qouted, how did you follow this post from that. The exact opposite should be evident to anyone versed in critical thought, as I gave you the prevalent usage and asked the dictionaries be updated, as people are not about to change their usage and go back a fifty years so as to conform to backdated definitions of the 3 words in question.

Where as it is you that happily foresake prevalent usage to resort to digging up obviously obsolete (and ambigious) definitions in the dictionary of your liking, to absurdly argue that one can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time,(ie both know and not know of gods nonexistence at the same time).
.
====÷=÷
.
[Also note the con, as children learn the meanings of words from dictionaries too many a timea, as well as from contemporary usage, so things are not totally black and white.]
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

#9501 Aug 21, 2013
The ambiguity:
Is
Atheism= absence in the BELIEF in god
or is it
Atheism=(position of) ABSENCE OF GOD

(to believe= hold an arument as valid without need for supporting logic or empirical evidence)

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Leicester, UK

#9502 Aug 21, 2013
I think there are two forms of atheism and three ways to arrive at them.
First there is weak atheism, it is the disbelief in the existence of God due to either no good evidence for God (weak agnosticism) or no way to get good evidence for God (strong agnosticism).
The former weak atheism due to weak agnosticism makes a negative claim, a claim which requires no evidence just like the evidence from the other side. Where as the latter weak atheism due to strong agnosticism, makes a positive claim that there is a boundary to human knowledge, and thus must prove it's self through evidence of its truth and not the absence of falsifying evidence.

Second there is strong atheism the atheism of my preference, it is the belief that God does not exist.

Finally a point which must be repeatably shoved down the throat a fundamentalists and lying apologists, the majority of people who call themselves atheists are atheists due to weak agnosticism. Do not say that all atheists believe that God does not exist you can say it about me, but I am a minority in a minority do not paint everyone with the same brush, don't get me wrong I know you won't listen and you'll try to anyway just don't cry to me when people call you a liar. Thank you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9503 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
The Irony!
Agree that dictionaries report usage, which is why I posted the prevalent usage of the words theist, atheist, and agnostic. And think the definitions in the dictionaries are outdated and NOT reporting correct usage.
(however did you miss that!)
How you conclude the way you do about me (and Ben Masada too), is totally beyond me. If you read carefully the post you qouted, how did you follow this post from that. The exact opposite should be evident to anyone versed in critical thought, as I gave you the prevalent usage and asked the dictionaries be updated, as people are not about to change their usage and go back a fifty years so as to conform to backdated definitions of the 3 words in question.
Where as it is you that happily foresake prevalent usage to resort to digging up obviously obsolete (and ambigious) definitions in the dictionary of your liking, to absurdly argue that one can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time,(ie both know and not know of gods nonexistence at the same time).
.
====÷=÷
.
[Also note the con, as children learn the meanings of words from dictionaries too many a timea, as well as from contemporary usage, so things are not totally black and white.]
Did you know, that the word "gay" when originally applied to homosexual men, was a derogatory term?

That is-- it was used by mainstream people to denigrate homosexuals.

But the gay men turned the tables and **owned** that word-- they took it over, and re-defined what it means.

Now? They happily embrace the term used to describe them.

----------

The same thing is happening with the word 'atheist'.

It **used** to be that godbots tried to force-fit a Strawman onto non-believers with the word.

There are very, very few people in the world who have **faith** in the idea of "no gods".

Yet, religious folk keep trying to **force** that false claim onto **all** atheists, everywhere, regardless.

But-- modern atheists (the correct usage: they do not have faith at all of gods, and are non-believers by **default**) are fighting that false image. They are no longer content to remain silent by the wayside while bigoted theists have their way with the world.

As a result, the word "atheist" has taken on the correct--**descriptive** meaning of the majority of folk it should apply to.

Atheist means not having any faith in any superstitious things, including (but not limited to) gods.

Having **faith** that there are no gods? Is a kind of theism all of it's own: a theism of no gods. Almost Zen, really...

But it's not atheism according to people who self-identify as "atheist".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9504 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
The Irony!
It's not irony if you post in such a way, that your intended meaning(s) never come through or are obscured.

Blame me, if you like, but I do find your writing style rather difficult to get through.

I will make an effort to do better.

Sorry.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9505 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
The ambiguity:
Is
Atheism= absence in the BELIEF in god
or is it
Atheism=(position of) ABSENCE OF GOD
(to believe= hold an arument as valid without need for supporting logic or empirical evidence)
The former describes **all** of the atheists I've ever read about, or have met here or otherwise.

I've never met anyone with your **second** position.

But.

The majority of **believers** I have met,**falsely** accuse me and other atheists [non-believers] with being in the **second** category.

It's why I get annoyed when I see incorrect usage of the word "atheist".

I and other non-believers like me, are fighting to change the meaning of the word to it's **proper** setting.

And in so doing, begin to **explain** our position to believers.

Once the majority of believers can understand that atheism is a position of **not** faith?

It is my hope that mutual understanding can result-- as a bare minimum.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

#9506 Aug 21, 2013
@Benjamin Frankly:

Both your forms of atheism are actually agnostism, as you yourself say.

My contention is the real problem (and a source of much confusion) here is in the deficiency of language and definitions (of words like atheism). My definitions are clear and I think that is how most people use them too.

So you too slip from atheism to agnosticism almost seemlessly and almost use them interchangeably.

Then the various positions you site can be debated on easily. And a lot of the challenges from theists will also just fade away. As well as any self proclaimed atheist will have to be forthcoming with proof of his position that "god does not exist" and on failure, know himself to be an agnostic (position of "dont know").

Re: strong atheism= the belief that god does not exist-
I am a rationalist. Which means I do no belief, period. Not in the position that there is a god or the position there is no god. Without proof, a rationalist has the only option to say I do not know (agnosticism). You say you believe there is no god, so that makes you an irrational atheist. ie you belief IN you say there is no god.
(unless you used the word 'believe' loosely, and have a reason to qualify your position, which case I humbly request you to share such reason proof).

I have conclusive proof that a god (as defined), can not exist, so it follows that it does not exist, which makes me a rational atheist.

That is, what ever position you take, you are still be a beliver of that position (if with no proof), or have sound supporting reason for your support of the position, in which case you KNOW. Both beloevers and rationalist can be atheist (hold that there is no god).

Seems to me, apart from the problem due to ambiguity from informalism of language and definitions, people take up strong positions where as they do not really have suffutient knowledge / proof to support the clear position "there is no god". So when they call themselves atheist, they are always incecure, have to hide behind inadequacies of language, much to the glee of the religious, who have no such problems. They are believers and have no onus to put forth any proof for their position of "god exists".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9507 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
... They are believers and have no onus to put forth any proof for their position of "god exists".
Not true.

If they wish to convince non-believers to their cause? They must provide proof-- whatever form it may take.

This is not a trivial task, either-- more and more of the world is becoming secular, so convincing non-believers is becoming more and more something they **must** do.

The fact is?

Anytime someone **defines** a god with attributes, desires, behavior patterns, etc?

Then it becomes possible to test such a god for reality--or not.

So far?

All such **defined** gods have been shown to be myth; typically because the assigned attributes contradict each other, or contradict some established principle of the universe itself.

So it is quite possible to prove (a) given god(s) is(are) false, just using the definitions of said deity(ies).

All without resorting to faith or statements OF faith.

Once you show that the book-definition is a false definition? Then all justification for that god vanishes.

Again, no faith is invoked at any step of the process.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

#9508 Aug 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The former describes **all** of the atheists I've ever read about, or have met here or otherwise.
I've never met anyone with your **second** position.
But.
The majority of **believers** I have met,**falsely** accuse me and other atheists [non-believers] with being in the **second** category.
It's why I get annoyed when I see incorrect usage of the word "atheist".
I and other non-believers like me, are fighting to change the meaning of the word to it's **proper** setting.
And in so doing, begin to **explain** our position to believers.
Once the majority of believers can understand that atheism is a position of **not** faith?
It is my hope that mutual understanding can result-- as a bare minimum.
Again, the position of "not faith", it just works out to be same as agnostic same as non belief same as position of no knowledge.

Which is a fine position to have for a rationalist,(when our big egos are not in the way).

That is different from the clear ('strong'according to Benjamin Frankly) position of atheists as in there is "no god" or absence of god. But I think my definitions leave no scope for any confusion. They are also already how mosr people use the words.

Yes, the position that a god does not exist is rare, and only those who can qualify themselves should take up that position. I can. So I am an atheist of the rationalist variety.

So now you have met one.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

#9509 Aug 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not irony if you post in such a way, that your intended meaning(s) never come through or are obscured.
Blame me, if you like, but I do find your writing style rather difficult to get through.
I will make an effort to do better.
Sorry.
No need to apologise at all.

And perhaps I should be the one apologising. I know well of my inadequacies in conversation, and using informal languages like english. But let us blame it all on the dictionary compilers instead. And all the more reason why we need to rationalize language, remove ambiguities and double triple definations, which will propagate as you use those words further to define other words. Yes formalization of language will be immensely benifitial, help make better laws, deal with religions, prevent loopholes in policy, bring general clarity in every field being discussed under the sun.
.
.
.

I am also not familiar with religious terminology, and can't figure out any consistent way to use them, even when debating against them, which is not very often as it is like banging you head against the wall.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Leicester, UK

#9510 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
@Benjamin Frankly:
Both your forms of atheism are actually agnostism, as you yourself say.
No I did not say that! I said weak atheism is CAUSED by either weak agnosticism or strong agnosticism. As for strong atheism where I flat-out say I believe that God does not exist, how is that a plea to ignorance because that is what agnosticism is, an agnostic says "I am ignorant of any good evidence for X" most people then go on to state "because I'm ignorant of any good evidence for X I cannot believe in X, I must instead disbelieve".

I made it quite clear what I meant, I don't care about the vagueness of the words I used when you start to get other people's definitions, I made my own clear definitions I don't want to know about other peoples definitions unless they argue that they are better than mine.
Pro tip read someone's post thoroughly instead of picking out keywords only and giving your own textbook answer.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

#9511 Aug 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true.
If they wish to convince non-believers to their cause? They must provide proof-- whatever form it may take.
This is not a trivial task, either-- more and more of the world is becoming secular, so convincing non-believers is becoming more and more something they **must** do.
Well their agenga is theirs to decide.
.
Then again, I have met some theologicians who remarkably fall silent when you really corner them, which makes me think they are really not staunch theists but really practitioners of the 'art of double think". And they just will emphasise strongly that god fear is the only source of morals (reasons for being good in personal life) today. Seems like they are saying if and when we can replace god by something more viable, we all can let god slowly go into a long sleep.
The fact is?
Anytime someone **defines** a god with attributes, desires, behavior patterns, etc?
Then it becomes possible to test such a god for reality--or not.
So far?
All such **defined** gods have been shown to be myth; typically because the assigned attributes contradict each other, or contradict some established principle of the universe itself.
So it is quite possible to prove (a) given god(s) is(are) false, just using the definitions of said deity(ies).
All without resorting to faith or statements OF faith.
Once you show that the book-definition is a false definition? Then all justification for that god vanishes.
Again, no faith is invoked at any step of the process.
Exactly.( now you are talking!)
.
For eg:
If god is defined as an entity with the attribute of omniscience, then it is not difficult for the average undergraduate student of physics conversant in SToR, or even the uncertainty principle taught in high school here, to disprove that any such entity can even exist.
.
PROOF: GOD CAN NOT EXIST-
For example, ToR (theory of relativity) shows clearly that information can never be transmitted at a speed faster than the speed of light. And this has also been experimentally proved and every communucation satellite uses relativistic correction, hence every long distence call we make is proof of this concept.
**
So, in a universe that is many billions of light years big, no entity can exist with current knowledge of a region of space any distance away.(If a star explode in Andromeda galaxy, a god, along with the rest of us, will have to wait 300 million years for the information to reach him).
.
Hence omniscience is just not possible. So a god as defined, CAN NOT EXIST.
**
.
.
.
Which is why you had Einstein famously say he did not believe in a personal god!
.
So that leaves the staunch theist with the option of a much stupider god.(and scurry to fudge definitions, and the absence of formalism of lang. allowes him that. Else he would have had to let go of the word 'god' altogether as redefining is not allowed, take up some other symbol.)
.
[Again, the need for formal rational languages where it is a necessary constraint that all words be well defined]
.
Then god will really be on the run.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

#9512 Aug 21, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
No I did not say that! I said weak atheism is CAUSED by either weak agnosticism or strong agnosticism. As for strong atheism where I flat-out say I believe that God does not exist, how is that a plea to ignorance because that is what agnosticism is, an agnostic says "I am ignorant of any good evidence for X" most people then go on to state "because I'm ignorant of any good evidence for X I cannot believe in X, I must instead disbelieve".
I made it quite clear what I meant, I don't care about the vagueness of the words I used when you start to get other people's definitions, I made my own clear definitions I don't want to know about other peoples definitions unless they argue that they are better than mine.
Pro tip read someone's post thoroughly instead of picking out keywords only and giving your own textbook answer.
Again you use words like faith and belief to declare you position, a rationalist should never do that (as in that is very disconcerting to a rationalist like me). Since to believe or have faith is to hold to a position with no care for logical or empirical evidence.

You keep saying you believe that a god does not exist. I rather you say you KNOW that god does not exist. So immediately you would expose your position to requests for qualification (which I have already asked for assuming you meant 'know' in place of 'believe') failing which you would have to give up your position, take up agnostic positions perhaps.(weak strong whatever).

And again, the state of disbelief is the same as the position of an agnostic. You are more difficult than those religious €¥&#8361;÷@^& (trying desperately not be rude to them these days, and you wouldn't have wanted to meet me a just a few years ago).

Also how can agnosticism CAUSE! atheism (weak or strong). The position of "dont know" does not by itself proffer any support to the position of "does not exist".(I had let that one go).

Maybe I am not getting you! Again I blame the absence of properly defined words. You gave your own definations and that is the approach of all rationalists and as did I. Maybe I am not getting you (yet).

Is the distinction between 'can not exist' and 'does not exist' what you are alluding to?. I say that the position 'does not exist' automatically follows from 'can not exist'.(Anyone well versed in Temporal Logic can jump in here).

I also used this logic in the PROOF THAT A GOD CAN NOT EXIST, I presented in my reply to Bob of Quantum faith. I proved the later ie A god can not exist, the former is just a natural follow, ie a god does not exist.

Which is why I am a rational atheist.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9513 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to apologise at all.
Yes-- there was. I falsely misrepresented you in my mind, and on here, in a way that I now see was wrong.

For that, I am sorry-- I really should be more careful.

Since you and I,(non-believers of various stripe) are in the minority with respect to the world at large, it behooves me to avoid making an enemy of someone who is an ally.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9514 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to apologise at all.
And perhaps I should be the one apologising. I know well of my inadequacies in conversation, and using informal languages like english.
Again-- my fault-- I really should have looked at your location, and recognized that English wasn't your native language.

My arrogance as an American, here-- it's a common fault-- I get used to most posters being either UK/Australia or in the USA. Which share a common root-language.
one cube parsec wrote:
But let us blame it all on the dictionary compilers instead.
Yes, let's. Those b*stards! They killed Kenny!

(sorry-- reference to an American TV show, called South Park)

<grin>
one cube parsec wrote:
And all the more reason why we need to rationalize language, remove ambiguities and double triple definations, which will propagate as you use those words further to define other words. Yes formalization of language will be immensely benifitial, help make better laws, deal with religions, prevent loopholes in policy, bring general clarity in every field being discussed under the sun.
That is a very laudable goal. It's been tried in the past-- with little or no success.

Google the history of Esperanto for an example of such an attempt, and perhaps some reasons why it failed as an idea.

I suspect that humans are simply too chaotic.

In fact? The only real strictly formalized, zero ambiguity languages that humans engage in?

Is mathematics: the completely artificial and symbolic representation of mathematical principles.

Alas, it's nearly impossible to communicate **emotional** content, just using maths...

<grin>
one cube parsec wrote:
I am also not familiar with religious terminology, and can't figure out any consistent way to use them, even when debating against them, which is not very often as it is like banging you head against the wall.
Thank the random nature of the Cosmos, that you are **not**.

You are fortunate to not have been exposed to this ugliness when you were small.

I was, alas, and it taints my thinking even today-- I must be on constant guard against falling into "religious-think", even now.

What's worse? There **IS** no consistent terminology from one religion to the next-- not even among similar brands.

... meh.

About the only common word they each have? Is the word "god".

But-- that does not mean that they all think the **definition** of this word is the same-- it's not even close.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9515 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
Well their agenga is theirs to decide.
.
Then again, I have met some theologicians who remarkably fall silent when you really corner them, which makes me think they are really not staunch theists but really practitioners of the 'art of double think". And they just will emphasise strongly that god fear is the only source of morals (reasons for being good in personal life) today. Seems like they are saying if and when we can replace god by something more viable, we all can let god slowly go into a long sleep.
<quoted text>
Exactly.( now you are talking!)
.
For eg:
If god is defined as an entity with the attribute of omniscience, then it is not difficult for the average undergraduate student of physics conversant in SToR, or even the uncertainty principle taught in high school here, to disprove that any such entity can even exist.
.
PROOF: GOD CAN NOT EXIST-
For example, ToR (theory of relativity) shows clearly that information can never be transmitted at a speed faster than the speed of light. And this has also been experimentally proved and every communucation satellite uses relativistic correction, hence every long distence call we make is proof of this concept.
**
So, in a universe that is many billions of light years big, no entity can exist with current knowledge of a region of space any distance away.(If a star explode in Andromeda galaxy, a god, along with the rest of us, will have to wait 300 million years for the information to reach him).
.
Hence omniscience is just not possible. So a god as defined, CAN NOT EXIST.
**
.
.
.
Which is why you had Einstein famously say he did not believe in a personal god!
.
So that leaves the staunch theist with the option of a much stupider god.(and scurry to fudge definitions, and the absence of formalism of lang. allowes him that. Else he would have had to let go of the word 'god' altogether as redefining is not allowed, take up some other symbol.)
.
[Again, the need for formal rational languages where it is a necessary constraint that all words be well defined]
.
Then god will really be on the run.
Brilliant! I agree totally, here-- the current human understanding of the Universe precludes an omniscient deity.

Your explanation is quite valid, and one I hadn't considered-- excellent.

The one I most often use?

Is based on Quantum Mechanics-- at the quantum level of our universe, particles exist in multiple states simultaneously-- indeed, this is a **requirement** for QM to function as we understand it.

It's essential that for any given sub-atomic particle, it's state is not known--

-- for once known, all the simultaneous states collapse into a single state, typically rendering the particle non-viable as an active particle: it is either destroyed, or changes into something else.

The **consequences** of that? If we had an all-knowing god?

Such a deity would cause the universe to **collapse** into a singularity, no longer existing as it is now.

----------

That is **two** proofs that you cannot have an omniscient god in the present universe.

And a god that is **not** in the universe? The old dodge "god is outside the universe"?

Does not work either-- if god is **outside**, then god cannot-- by definition-- interact with the universe at all. May as well not exist, then.

To interact with the universe, god **must**(at least in part) be **inside** the universe-- which puts it's limitations (no omniscience) back into place.

"And **poof** god vanishes in a puff of logic."

(to quote Douglas Adams)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9516 Aug 21, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you use words like faith and belief to declare you position, a rationalist should never do that (as in that is very disconcerting to a rationalist like me). Since to believe or have faith is to hold to a position with no care for logical or empirical evidence.
Both faith and belief in English have multiple meanings.

There is **religious** faith/belief.

And there is **evidential** faith/belief.

The former is what all religions use: they have zero facts, so they just **wish** or decide something is "real".

Often, religions also refer to books-- the **sole** justification being that the books are ... old. As if being old magically transforms them somehow.

But so far? All such books can be examined with a critical eye, and found to be quite flawed.

I would expect a book either written by, or inspired by an actual **god** to be....

.... of superior quality.

None of these books comes even close; all are poorly written and clearly just a mish-mash of conflicting ideas and stories.

Not godly.

----------

The **second** sort of faith? Is based on **experience** and **facts**.

For example:

I could say I have faith in chairs and chair-like objects. My faith is such, that I willingly sit down in a chair, never considering if it can actually hold me up-- that's faith.

But it is faith based in lots and lots of chair sitting, coupled with lots and lots of observation of other people's chair sitting.

In short? My faith in chairs and chair-shaped objects is based in my own experiences in the real world.

I can **verify** my faith in chairs at any time, too-- by testing a chair to see if it will hold me up.

That is a faith of a different stripe than **religious** faith--which is 100% authority-based.

Some authority has **declared** that X is "true".

There can be no real testing of X-- you must blindly accept that X is true.

A very **very** dangerous game to play, too...

... because X can be ...

.......... anything!

Up to and including MURDER!

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 min PELE78 48,425
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 14 min RiccardoFire 44,656
What attracts white women to black men? (Mar '07) 27 min Johnny 11,539
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 37 min Yankster 2,035
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 46 min MUQ2 281,243
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 58 min MUQ2 382
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 1 hr WasteWater 18
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Cory 646,503
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr The Hangman 971,627
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Toby 105,572
More from around the web