@Adstar Correct. That was my point. God is a word meaning to pour, libate.
Edit To Add: God is a title, like lord. God in English means literally libate, pour, in Hebrew it means mighty/strong. Lord means having authority, usually, but not always granted. Landlord. Jehovah is a spirit being. Supernatural. The Bible calls him God and Lord. Jesus was a mortal man, and he is called god and lord. Moses was called God by Jehovah, as were the judges of Israel. Jesus wasn't supernatural. I often use the term King, which was also used to describe Jesus and Jehovah. Charles is a king, but not my King. He is King of the Brits. So, though he isn't my king he is still a King.
Saying there are no gods is like saying there are no lords or kings. It's just silly.
1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we'd all be theists) 2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere) 3. there is no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and postulating their existence explains nothing... it doesn't even explain itself. 4. therefore i have no gods (I'm an agnostic atheist)
No belief needed No devotion needed No burden of proof
Yes, it does... mathematics demonstrates proofs, whereas science never tries to prove anything.
Evidence is natural selection
I'm unsure what you mean by that... could you perhaps clarify it for me? Natural Selection is the mechanism that drives the process of evolution, and was at the heart of Darwin's great contribution to science. Evolution has long been posited (even the Ancient Greeks discussed it, but there was no identified mechanism whereby it could operate. Darwin changed that.
What you really don't need to postulate is alleles
Alleles aren't a postulation. An allele is one of two or more different versions of a gene that can exist at a specific location on a chromosome... or do you believe that genes and chromosomes are postulations? If you like I can tell you a simple way to see your own DNA at home.
no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of...
Which is the point where you step away, I note
Look, they're obvious, but it isn't my place to say
Oh but it is... it absolutely is. Not only your place, but also your obligation. Please go right ahead and detail my atheist dogma and my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion.
Yes, it does... mathematics demonstrates proofs, whereas science never tries to prove anything.
That's what I said.
'm unsure what you mean by that... could you perhaps clarify it for me?
Confirmation bias. People naturally select the evidence supporting their beliefs.
Alleles aren't a postulation.
Everything is a postulation.
Which is the point where you step away, I note
Step away?
Oh but it is... it absolutely is. Not only your place, but also your obligation. Please go right ahead and detail my atheist dogma and my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion.
@hippyjoe1955 I agree atheism is a religion in the sense that a religion is defined, not only by Webster but also Oxford, as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." Most people don't think that way though because they have an ideological proclivity either towards a simplified atheistic or theistic paradigm.
@PathwayMachine In the not too distant past atheism was more evangelical than most Christian. It has tamed down a bit since it can't offer any meaningful explanations about the big questions in life but it is still very very common.
@PathwayMachine You have a a choice . Science and nature, or magic and faith. Which is more reliable? Science has been proven the more consistent. It is POINT OF VIEW Which you use to determine what is the correct answer. I know, several people who insist on creationism, And insist evolution is false, despite what actual evidence says.their point of view demands faith over facts.
In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist'. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. Sam Harris
@Bumbles A god doesn't have to be metaphysical. Or supernatural. Or controlling anything. Or a creator. A god only has to be worshipped. A god can be any of those things, but it doesn't have to be anything other than worshipped. It doesn't have to exist.
@Bumbles Correct. Like Paul said at Philippians 3:19: They are headed for destruction. Their god is their appetite, they brag about shameful things, and they think only about this life here on earth. As I said earlier, the most common gods historically have been money and sex. The Christian cross, for example. Jesus didn't die on a Roman cross like we see the Christians carry. That is a Roman phallic symbol. A fertility symbol. A false idol. A god.
@PathwayMachine Science already carries its own evidence with every assertion (see the scientific process), religion does not. Regarding this specific issue (existence of deities) science has no saying altogether, as we're outside the physical/measurable plane, the only ones who mindlessly bring it on are always people motivated by religion, not people of science. At most philosophy would care about a/theism, but not science.
And no, the burden of proof is on those who assert something is different than observable reality, observable reality being that neither me nor anyone else has ever seen a deity and proven their existence. That's the ground zero.
You can have faith in that the same way I can have faith in the existence of a space teapot that orbits Earth, just too small to be seen but definitely there. Faith isn't evidence, and my hypothesis would be (rightfully) discarded by anyone who thinks that an orbital teapot makes no sense, especially with zero evidence but one guy telling them "trust me bro, either trust me it exists or trust me you'll rot in hell".
Science already carries its own evidence with every assertion (see the scientific process), religion does not.
Okay. That's a claim. The burden of proof is on you. That's a lot of work. Or a lot of speculation. Let's make it easy for the reader, assuming there is one.
1. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system.
2. You don't use science for anything. You don't practice science anymore than you do religion. You only assume, in ignorance, that science, rather than any other god, is on your side. It makes you feel smart. Like a religious person feels the illusion of moral superiority. It's an illusion. Demonstrable. I will demonstrate that at the end of this post.
Summary: Science and faith are similar in that they are both the practice of ignorance. Science because it is looking for one type of answers it doesn't have and faith because those answers, which are of a different kind, can never fully be achieved. Without faith science couldn't operate. Without science religion has no problem.
Important definitions provided by Oxford's Dictionary:
A. Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. B. Religion: A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. C. Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained or knowledge of any kind.
Regarding this specific issue (existence of deities) science has no saying altogether, as we're outside the physical/measurable plane, the only ones who mindlessly bring it on are always people motivated by religion, not people of science.
1. Who are we?
2. There are millions of deities (gods) within the physical/measurable plane.
3. Mindlessly? Not mindlessly, ideologically. Which is what you are doing here.
Summary: Ideology blinds the atheist using the false application of science instead of using science to actually investigate their ideological fixation.
And no, the burden of proof is on those who assert something is different than observable reality, observable reality being that neither me nor anyone else has ever seen a deity and proven their existence. That's the ground zero.
Ground zero? A central point in an area of fast change or intense activity? I have observed and proven the existence of many deities. Several in this thread. But as I've also stated all the while, a deity doesn't have to exist to be a deity. A deity (god) is anything or anyone worshipped, i.e. respected, venerated, above anything else. Kim Jong Un. Eric Clapton. The Cross. According to the Bible Moses and the Judges of Israel and the Sumerian King Tammuz (Nimrod) were God(s). Even if those people didn't literally exist they would still be gods that exist in that sense.
Evolution, specifically one Biblical kind becoming another (bird into a lizard) has NEVER been observed. What has always been observed is the Bible's kinds producing their own. So, while the Bible has no problem with evolution in the observable sense, i.e. things change, there is variation, Evolution beyond that is not observable reality as you describe it above. Evolution is, as such, supernatural. Above what we observe in nature.
You can have faith in that the same way I can have faith in the existence of a space teapot that orbits Earth, just too small to be seen but definitely there.
No. We can't have faith in that because we know it not to be true. You conflate faith with stupidity. That's your ideology.
Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
You and I don't know if there is the alleged teapot, but we can assume it's absence. If someone claimed the teapot to be their God it would then be a god, whether it existed or not. Does that make sense? Jehovah, my God, the God of the Jews, the Bible, wouldn't be a God anymore if no one worshipped him even if he did actually exist, but neither you nor I can say with any certainty that he does or doesn't exist.
The only difference between me and you is that I have studied the subject for over a quarter of a century. Prior to that I was an atheist (without gods) for as long. You only assume, unscientifically, that that specific God and the supernatural doesn't exist.
I say that's fair. A reasonable and logical conclusion. Though it differs from my own, my approach is far more scientific than yours.
Faith isn't evidence, and my hypothesis would be (rightfully) discarded by anyone who thinks that an orbital teapot makes no sense, especially with zero evidence but one guy telling them "trust me bro, either trust me it exists or trust me you'll rot in hell".
First, I want to thank you for a refreshingly intelligent and thoughtful debate. I would have a couple points to make regarding the last part of your statement.
I agree faith isn't evidence. Faith is often misunderstood by unbelievers even though they have faith in many aspects themselves. I often (and even in this thread, maybe you didn't see) use the Latin word credit to demonstrate faith. The Latin word credit means, literally, one believes. From that word come credible, credential, accredited, credence, incredible, credulous, discredit, incredulity, etc. One is given credit by a loan because the creditor believes the borrower will return it. He doesn't know that, he believes it. So, if the creditor doesn't believe the borrower will repay the loan he has no faith. It's not a question of existence or ignorance, it's a question of belief or disbelief.
Subjective.
Jesus said, figuratively, that faith could move mountains. This was also literally true because nearly 200 years after Zechariah’s prophecy was given regarding Tyre, it was fulfilled. In 332 BCE Alexander the Great marched his army across Asia Minor and, in his sweep southward, paused long enough to give his attention to Tyre. When the city refused to open its gates, Alexander in his rage had his army scrape up the ruins of the mainland city and throw it into the sea, thus building a causeway out to the island city, all of this in fulfillment of prophecy. (Ezekiel 26:4, 12) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC))
In a more modern sense, fi you've seen a mountain mining operation you've seen faith (and literally credit, i.e. business loans) moving mountains.
Now, I promised I would demonstrate your ignorance supported by ideological fixation. Keep in mind that, as I've said elsewhere, there isn't anything wrong with being ignorant of religion and faith. If you have no interest in the subject the only contention begins, outside of ideological fixation, after you've made a claim you then have the burden of proof with. Unlike my claim that evolution as I described it has never been observed. I can't prove that. But there is no evidence it has been observed.
Regarding your mention of "rotting in hell" my contention is it is uninformed and probably a good reason for your disbelief in ignorance. Hell is an English word that means cover/conceal. So, in 1611, when the KJV was written that's how it was used. To hell potatoes meant to put them in a cellar or bury them underground. A book heller put the cover on a book. To hel (one l) a house meant to cover a portion with tile. Similar words sharing the same root meaning are hull, the covering of a nut or portion of a ship. Hall a covered building for gathering people or storing goods, hill, whole, heal, etc. The word appears in the Bible translated accurately from the Hebrew sheol and Greek hades, both of which mean basically a grave. According to the Bible Jesus went to hell, God is in hell figuratively, and everyone who has or will ever live will go to hell. The grave. There is no suffering in hell, nor any moral distinction. Rich, poor, righteous, unrighteous, all go to hell and are unconscious there. (Ecclesiastes 9:4-6, 10; Proverbs 15:11; Psalm 139:7, 8; Amos 9:1, 2)
Jewish theology was distorted by the influence of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE because unlike Tyre, mentioned above, the Jews opened the gates to him and showed him the Biblical prophecies referring to him.
Image: Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem, by Sebastiano Conca: C. 1736
Christianity had the same fate when they were likewise influenced by Constantine the Great in 325 CE. So the Bible stuff you think is foolishness comes from "great thinkers" in Greek philosophy like Aristotle, Socrates and Plato and elsewhere. Not the Bible. And your right about that stuff. It is foolishness. The Bible doesn't teach the immortal soul (Socrates), trinity (Plato), hell (Dante, Milton), all good people go to heaven, Jesus died on a cross (Constantine), Easter (Pagan goddess of fertility Astarte), or Christmas (Winter solstice, Dickens).
But then again, religions aren't the only ones to adopt such foolishness from Greek philosophy. Science did as well. Evolution comes from Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaximander, and Anaxagoras.
@AdmiralPrune Why is gaytheism the wrong impression to have given? As a formerly practicing homosexual I can attest to the fact that homosexuals are more often inclined to the spiritual than heterosexuals.
@PathwayMachine Ignorance and superstition have definitely influenced human history, unfortunately. As to the rest of what you say, it's pretty meaningless.
@BlueSkyKing Because atheism, without the idealism, simply means without gods. You can believe in gods and be without them. Similar to my not believing in politicians but being apolitical. I don't believe in politicians, though I know they literally exist and therefor I have no political affiliation. You have faith? Swell, but the demons know and yet shudder.
