What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2012, 08:59 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2012 09:23 PM by PoolBoyG.)
What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Term 1 = There is no evidence of a god having existed, currently existing, or can exist in the future. There is no evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.

Term 2 = There is no evidence of a god having existed, or currently existing. HOWEVER, there is evidence that a god could exist. There is evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 11:15 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Atheism for term one. However I would like to assert that term one is not being reasonable. We have no way of knowing what "god like mechanisms" would really look like since we have no basis of comparison.

Possible Deism for number two. It's also unreasonable as stated above.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 12:32 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 12:35 AM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(10-04-2012 11:15 PM)Godless Wrote:  Atheism for term one. However I would like to assert that term one is not being reasonable. We have no way of knowing what "god like mechanisms" would really look like since we have no basis of comparison.

Possible Deism for number two. It's also unreasonable as stated above.
I have to disregard your "unreasonable" comment on that basis that we do have a basis for comparison because the term "godlike" exists. We all have a definition or idea of what a "god" is and what abilities are attributed to it. The ONLY issue here is coming up with a definite agreement on what those abilities include and what to discard, and how those powers are manifested.

For instance we can come to agreement that one godlike ability is to generate matter from empty space. But how is that exactly done? No mechanism for it has been put forward, and no mechanism for it can be put forward. There is no evidence for it.

As for Atheism being the term, i'd like to agree. But as I understand it is that atheism is a belief - a belief there is no god. My understanding is that the word belief means "with out evidence". So this "belief" definition of atheism is just as unreasonable and idiotic as a "theist belief". Can people back up that the definition for Atheism doesn't require belief, but evidence like the definition for Term 1?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 01:33 AM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Pretty much every unbiased dictionary says this:

a·the·ist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief doesn't require belief. It is a lack of belief. Due to the fact that there is no evidence for there being a god, we go with the default position of not believing. I don't believe in a green horse with horns and horseshoes made out of magma until I have proof that such a thing exists. Without proof, the default position is to not believe it. Theists apply this principle to everything *but* their own god. Atheists are simply more consistent. When a theist asks you to accept something on faith (no evidence) and you ask him/her if they are willing to accept the toothfairy on faith, they take offence because they take it for granted that the rules don't have to apply to their god. It's called a special pleading fallacy and it doesn't sit well with us.

When you're describing the godlike attributes, you're conjuring definitions out of thin air. Kind of like this: What is tiny, horny, black and eats rocks? A tiny horny black rockeater.

We don't know that gods exist, we don't know that universes can be created, but now, after your definition, a god is something that creates universes. It's a non-explanation and an argument stopper.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Malleus's post
11-04-2012, 04:31 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 04:59 AM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(11-04-2012 01:33 AM)Malleus Wrote:  When you're describing the godlike attributes, you're conjuring definitions out of thin air. Kind of like this: What is tiny, horny, black and eats rocks? A tiny horny black rockeater.

We don't know that gods exist, we don't know that universes can be created, but now, after your definition, a god is something that creates universes. It's a non-explanation and an argument stopper.



It's a response to godlike attributes. The definition is real because the word exists. You are applying attributes that separates any other "thing" from a "god". "This is a god, this is not. This other thing is not a god, but this thing is". Everyone may have their own definition, and can provide a generalized definition that puts several claims up to see if evidence supports it.


Replace 'god' with anything else. Santa.

"There is no evidence of a santa having existed, currently existing, or can exist in the future. There is no evidence for mechanisms that would allow for santa like abilities."

Santa is defined, because the word exists - we have concepts surrounding it, and attributed to it. The only disagreement would be what concepts to include and what not to include. Lets use the US Santa model instead of, say, an Icelandic Santa. Flying reindeer's, navigating the globe and reaching each household in 24hrs, base of operations at the North Pole, etc.

These are declarations, and you can weigh whether they have evidence for it. Were reindeers ever able to fly? Can they currently fly? Will they ever be able to fly? By what mechanisms are they able to fly - magic? For Term 1, there is no evidence for any of the Santa claims. There is no Santa. The person knows there is no Santa because there is no evidence supporting the claims made for a Santa.


Now, for the Icelandic Santa...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 05:00 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 05:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(11-04-2012 12:32 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  I have to disregard your "unreasonable" comment on that basis that we do have a basis for comparison because the term "godlike" exists. We all have a definition or idea of what a "god" is and what abilities are attributed to it. The ONLY issue here is coming up with a definite agreement on what those abilities include and what to discard, and how those powers are manifested.

For instance we can come to agreement that one godlike ability is to generate matter from empty space. But how is that exactly done? No mechanism for it has been put forward, and no mechanism for it can be put forward. There is no evidence for it.

As for Atheism being the term, i'd like to agree. But as I understand it is that atheism is a belief - a belief there is no god. My understanding is that the word belief means "with out evidence". So this "belief" definition of atheism is just as unreasonable and idiotic as a "theist belief". Can people back up that the definition for Atheism doesn't require belief, but evidence like the definition for Term 1?

The fact that a word, "godlike" exists means nothing. It has as many meanings, as there are sets of brain chemistries, (brains), using it, and are ALL anthropomorphic projections of either human qualities, or exaggerated human qualities. That linguistic string is actually meaningless. So we CANNOT come to agreement on that. It means NOTHING. There are as many gods as there are people who think about gods. Which one are YOU talking about ? Gods have no "abilities". If they have "abilities", that would imply they DON'T have others, (or qualities of them), which means they are not infinite. Also if they DO have abilities, the some ole same ole crap about the need for them to be made mainfest, (ONLY in spacetime), is required. Existence requires spacetime, or that word is meaningless, (thus a god cannot be the creator of everything, if it "exists" in the dimensions in which it "exists"). Define "existence". We get it. We see what you're up to here. Your belief crap about atheism is NOT true. "The absence of belief is not a belief in absence". Sorry. We weren't born yesterday.

Gotta run. But surely you're not talking about THIS god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 05:22 AM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Godlike could also mean, has a throne and command of a nation... for instance, Julius 'ficken' Cesare was God. Rulers of other nations in history were considered God according to their populous. Just because the term God or Godlike exists, doesn't put a definition to it until you add something to it.

Can we come to agreement that Godlike ability is to govern with an uneducated population? I think that mechanism is still possible if you can control their education and the information passing among the populous.

Okay just use Santa: For term 1, the statement is A-Santa.

For the #2: It's also an A-Satan, atheist comment.. It stands to be so until you describe what a mechanism would be. If you postulate that life exists or since the universe had a beginning as a mechanism for God, as some people do, then it is possible but not probable.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 07:49 AM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?

(11-04-2012 05:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that a word, "godlike" exists means nothing. It has as many meanings, as there are sets of brain chemistries, (brains), using it, and are ALL anthropomorphic projections of either human qualities, or exaggerated human qualities.
Quote:Godlike could also mean, has a throne and command of a nation...

All common definitions of god, and more importantly the characteristics and abilities of gods portrayed in their books are the gods being discussed. We are presented with concepts surrounding them, and abilities attributed to them.


When people say chair, a normal persons knows very well what they mean, and know they don’t mean a lamp, or a sandwich. Some chairs are different than others, but they share attributes that can be generalized. But if you'd like to approach each chair individually, so be it. The out come is the same. US Santa, or Icelandic Santa...

Please comment on the Terms, and provide labels, since this is the purpose of the thread.

Quote:
A-Satan
Ha, Freudian slip or mistake? I kid. Would it be the same or would it be more akin to agnosticism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 09:05 AM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
When people say chair they mean roughly the same thing because chairs are real and most of us have seen one. When you describe your invisible friend you can say that a certain quality is invisible-friend-like but the fact that you were able to come up with such a concept doesn't prove that it means anything.

Anyway, if you are going to debate semantics and do lawyer talk you won't find many people to respect that around here. I don't mean to compliment you, but you're looking more and more like a waste of time.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Malleus's post
11-04-2012, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 09:22 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(11-04-2012 07:25 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  
(11-04-2012 05:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that a word, "godlike" exists means nothing. It has as many meanings, as there are sets of brain chemistries, (brains), using it, and are ALL anthropomorphic projections of either human qualities, or exaggerated human qualities.
Quote:Godlike could also mean, has a throne and command of a nation...

All common definitions of god, and more importantly the characteristics and abilities of gods portrayed in their books are the gods being discussed. We are presented with concepts surrounding them, and abilities attributed to them.


When people say chair, a normal persons knows very well what they mean, and know they don’t mean a lamp, or a sandwich. Some chairs are different than others, but they share attributes that can be generalized. But if you'd like to approach each chair individually, so be it. The out come is the same. US Santa, or Icelandic Santa...

Please comment on the Terms, and provide labels, since this is the purpose of the thread.

Quote:
A-Satan
Ha, Freudian slip or mistake? I kid. Would it be the same or would it be more akin to agnosticism?
(I re-read your second post on the topic and it is much more clear. You are claiming Atheism is the statement, there is no God, The majority of atheists don't seem to agree that it is that, or that the 1st comment actually says that. I explained it in the rest of this post I already wrote.)
It depends on which agnosticism you describe. Maybe it does fit better to the Huxley agnosticism, but that idea doesn't sit well with me to this point. It was clearly coined to be way hide from atheism. I don't know the true understanding of how people describe to it. I know some people here aline themselves to that idea. I can't judge the position to say statement 2 fits it.

I usually think of agnosticism as just the lack of knowledge. I think they are both atheist and agnostic statements.

I think there isn't even a difference between the general statements: In regards to Strong or Weak atheism. The first statement is not really strong atheism. It isn't the label of I believe there are no Gods. Saying there is no evidence is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. If going on the Dawkin's scale, I would think the 2nd comment isn't even weak atheism; both statements would fit under 6Big Grine-facto atheism.

Not until I am explained what the mechanism belief would be, can I describe the second statements claim as anything else.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: