Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That might be true if I had a "view of diety". I leave that definition to those that claim such a thing exists. I make no claim.
Oh cut the crap! The only essential requirement for a deity is to be our Creator. That there IS a Creator (we are not specifying any attributes thereof) is indisputable. You prefer to consider it an unconscious, impersonal, mechanistic Nature (whatever the hell that is), but it is our Creator, hence our deity! Your assumptions about its attributes are the pseudo-theory that evokes your atheism, NOT any rejection of the alternate theistic set of attributes.
Oh cut the crap! The only essential requirement for a deity is to be our Creator. That there IS a Creator (we are not specifying any attributes thereof) is indisputable. You prefer to consider it an unconscious, impersonal, mechanistic Nature (whatever the hell that is), but it is our Creator, hence our deity! Your assumptions about its attributes are the pseudo-theory that evokes your atheism, NOT any rejection of the alternate theistic set of attributes.
You are way off the mark, most god(s)/deities are not claimed to be our creator. So you are entirely WRONG claiming that to be an ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT. It is one of many potential attributes, but hardly a requirement.
Dictionary Definitions:
deity
dē′ĭ-tē, dā′-
noun
1. A god or goddess.
2. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
3. God. Used with the.
Further, you have NO proof there is a CREATOR. You have no proof that deliberate effort was used to make us, rather than passive interactions with net results. You believe a consciousness is responsible for deliberate activity, that simply can not be established.
creator
krē-ā′tər
noun
1. One that creates.
2. God. Used with the.
3. One who creates, in any sense of that word, or brings something into existence; especially, one who produces something out of nothing; specifically (with a capital letter), God considered as having brought the universe into existence out of nothing.
Oh cut the crap! The only essential requirement for a deity is to be our Creator.
No, that is once again your question begging that means most gods are not gods. Zeus, Ares, Thor, all Even atheism there is an ultimate creator responsible for everything
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That there IS a Creator (we are not specifying any attributes thereof) is indisputable. You prefer ...
Not a preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
... to consider it an unconscious, impersonal, mechanistic Nature (whatever the hell that is), but it is our Creator, hence our deity!
Or not, if you do not need to play silly word games that would entail most gods not being gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your assumptions about its attributes are the pseudo-theory that evokes your atheism, NOT any rejection of the alternate theistic set of attributes.
More ad hominems from you instead of addressing the actual arguments.
Your view that there is no flying spagetti monster, is conjecture.
No. You are misunderstanding atheism. Atheism is NOT a position that things definitely don't exist. THAT would be conjecture.
Atheism is simply, "I don't accept theism is proven, that a god exists, because the evidence does not sustain that claim." It is NOT a claim that "no god(s) exist", that would be silly, because it is impossible to prove a thing does not exist, some place, some where, some time. That would be a conjecture claim, and as such, pure atheism does not make.
Do you believe there is a blue cup inside of the planet Jupiter? I mean who knows, space debris, random chance, other, could have afforded one to be there. But it would be silly to insist one does without proof, and illogical to insist one does not, since there is no reasonable way to discover evidence one does at this time. Same thing. Lack of belief, does not constitute an opposing belief, only a neutral position.
No. You are misunderstanding atheism. Atheism is NOT a position that things definitely don't exist. THAT would be conjecture.
Atheism is simply, "I don't accept theism is proven, that a god exists, because the evidence does not sustain that claim." It is NOT a claim that "no god(s) exist", that would be silly, because it is impossible to prove a thing does not exist, some place, some where, some time. That would be a conjecture claim, and as such, pure atheism does not make.
Do you believe there is a blue cup inside of the planet Jupiter? I mean who knows, space debris, random chance, other, could have afforded one to be there. But it would be silly to insist one does without proof, and illogical to insist one does not, since there is no reasonable way to discover evidence one does at this time. Same thing. Lack of belief, does not constitute an opposing belief, only a neutral position.
You're right, people are not understanding the definition of atheism. However, there are staunch atheists who are sure there is no god or gods and they usually are difficult people to talk to. Just like there are certain religious folks who claim that are just as sure that their deity is real.
But, like you said, atheists mostly take the position that the likelihood of there being a deity is not true and really it's the only stance to take since there is no empirical evidence. I feel that way too. I agree that it's a neutral position to take, which actually makes a lot of us agnostic atheists.
Last edited by Northsouth; 07-27-2022 at 09:46 AM..
Reason: edit to add
You're right, people are not understanding the definition of atheism. However, there are staunch atheists who are sure there is no god or gods and they usually are difficult people to talk to. Just like there are certain religious folks who claim that are just as sure that their deity is real.
But, like you said, atheists mostly take the position that the likelihood of there being a deity is not true and really it's the only stance to take since there is no empirical evidence. I feel that way too. I agree that it's a neutral position to take, which actually makes a lot of us agnostic atheists.
Can we agree that both theism and atheism require FAITH?
Can we agree that both theism and atheism require FAITH?
From the other thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Again you need to define faith. I have faith a bridge will not collapse as I go over it because the fact they usually do not is evidence the next bridge will also not collapse. I have faith my wife is not cheating on me based on what? The first is evidence based faith, the second is not.
As we may not agree on the evidence, I'll agree with your 2nd example
Althougjh I have faith, belief, and the knowledge that my wife is not cheating on me..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
