I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne 284 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  wizzstick

  The Sun, people etc. all exist. They are real. It's a separate discussion as to whether they are a deity.
  
• 

  wizzstick

  Many teenage girls worship One Direction.

  Therefore One Direction are deities?
• 

  bohm

  Re. Augustus Ceasar, I think it is a bit obtuse to say that Augustus Ceasar is a diety who existed. Now I don't know too much about what people thought about AC, but clearly they were either (1) factually mistaken about his nature or (2) using a different definition of deity than that of christian theism.

  If (2), the example has no relevance for christian theism or the other large religions. If (1) this does not demonstrate a deity existed in any meaningful sense. By this standard then both aliens, bigfoot, the reincarnated elvis, the lock ness monster and xenu the galactic overlord "exists" because some people have believed so based on misinterpretations of the evidence.
• 

  EdenOne

  Bohm,

  I agree with your reasoning in general, but you also can agree with me, that science also operates with probabilities. For example, Einstein's general relativity theory has worked well so far for science, and has allowed scientists to perform spectacular feats, but there are phenomena in the universe that the general relativity theory is unable to explain accurately, especially when it comes to extremely small particles, or extremely large portions of the physical universe. However, because the general relativity theory works in most cases, it is widely accepted and is used to explain how the physical universe works, even to predict speculatively certain phenomena that haven't been observed yet, or others that, having been observed, don't seem to fit the theoretical model entirely but can be partially explained by it. This is why scientists are open to the possibility that there are other explanations to the way the universe works, namely, the holy grail of fusing the general relativity theory with quantum mechanics.

  The same sort of extrapolation is required when atheists discuss the existence of deity. They have a skeptical model that has worked this far - because no deity of the sort of the bible deity has been sufficiently validated by evidence so far - but it's merely a logical extrapolation that "no deities exist". That model has worked so far, and I may agree that it might continue to work. But I think that it's a more sound reasoning to prudently claim that "god is absent", because it leaves room [albeit a very remote probability] that a deity may exist somewhere within the universe that we haven't been able to observe yet. Because we have been always operating under the assumption that a deity has to interact with humans. What if it doesn't? What if a deity has started life and then left it to develop on its own? What if a deity doesn't require worship? What if a deity doesn't care a bit if we live or die? Sure, all of this is speculative, and by now you should know that I'm not apologetic of theism. But I find a huge logical flaw in the modern atheistic claim that "no deities exist" because it negates the very rational thinking that science is based on.

  Also, please note that I agree with you when you say:

  The problem is that how easy it is to confirm (or rule out) the existence of X should not affect our belief if X exists.

  This is true. Still, as you point out, it's a matter of belief. The theist claim that God(s) exist, and the atheist claim that "no deities exist" are both a matter of belief. None of these propositions is soundly rooted on evidence. The first is based on false evidence, and the latter is based of the lack of evidence.

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  Eden - You are impervious to reason,logic and sensible use of language.

  Your response to every valid argument in this thread has been to ignore it and restate your illogical position.

  Absence presupposes existence.

  the modern atheistic claim that "no deities exist"

  Atheism doesn't assert this. I have told you that numerous times.

  Show me a reference in context where an atheist has said "no deities exist".

  No deity ever proposed by anybody ever in the history of humanity exists.

  Your attempts to conflate the sun - or a Roman Emperor - with a god is a wilfully dishonest venture.
• 

  EdenOne

  Wizzstick,

  Cofty is constantly challenging non-atheists to define a God, so that he can debunk its existence. Turns out that Cofty is setting up a straw man, because he has predefined what a deity is and must first convert someone else's notion of deity into his own definition, so that he can then debunk its existence. That is a type of straw man fallacy that I won't buy. I already gave an example of a verifiable deity - Augustus. Now you say it's not "meaningful". By your logic, one can never win, because if the definition of God is the christian bible God, you say "there's no evidence of such God"; but if a different kind of deity is offered, you then say "it's not meaningful". That's pure simple dogma.

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  Cofty ... has predefined what a deity is and must first convert someone else's notion of deity into his own definition, so that he can then debunk its existence.

  This is a lie as you well know.

  Define your god and I will debunk it. I have repeated this numerous times.

  Your dishonesty is becoming intolerable. I am out of this thread.
• 

  cofty

  Here is what your argument sounds like to everybody else...

  1. My car is a perpetual-motion machine.

  2. My car exists.

  3. Therefore I have proven that perpetual-motion machines exist.
• 

  EdenOne

  In science, isn't it true that belief is proportionate to the evidence available? And certainty is only possible where is unquestionably warranted by evidence? How can an atheist make such a huge claim as "no deities exist" or demand from theists more evidence for the existence of a deity than the proportional evidence that they can produce to assert the contrary? If the ominous claims that "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" are equally extraordinary, why do atheists demand from theists the kind of evidence that they cannot provide for the contrary statement? Why does the burden of proof must lie solely on the theist camp?

  My problem is that aggressive atheists cannot escape the problematic issue that there is no logically sound atheism. There is only skepticism. There is only doubt. There is only question. And there is the assumption that God probably doesn't exist and therefore, my life won't be affected by belief in such entity. And if you agree that this is all we can have (and that's my proposition with absentheism) then you can't be an atheist in the narrow sense of the term, and everyone who makes the ominous claim that "deities don't exist" - or hides that claim behind convoluted discourse - is as deluded from reality as a theist that claims that their particular God exists.

  Eden
• 

  EdenOne

  Here is what your argument sounds like to everybody else...

  So now you can confidently say that you know how my argument sounds to EVERYBODY else? What an ominous claim.

  Eden