I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also? (page 12)

bohm

EdenOne: Just trying to see if I can follow your logic. Suppose I consider the idea that santa exists in the andromeda galaxy with flying raindeer. There is no evidence for or against that idea, so should we then not be abentists with respect to santa?

wizzstick

a) "What can be said about God (or deity) is that it's absent".
b) The definition of absent was given: something for which no evidence of presence has been found.
c) This definition of absence has not been refuted yet. It does NOT presuppose existence.
d) Both claims that "God exists" or that "deities don't exist" are so grandiose, that demand extraordinary and unequivocal evidence.
e) Theists provide evidence for the existence of deity that can be debunked, while atheists don't provide any evidence for the non-existence of God.
f) Therefore, the most sound assertion is that God is absent, or not present. This is verifiable and adheres to reality more closely than theism or atheism, and reflects the skeptical approach more accurately.

Once again, you're happy to provide a definition of 'absent' yet not of 'God' or 'deity'.

Why?

cofty

b) The definition of absent was given: something for which no evidence of presence has been found

It is a nonsensical definition.

absence

ˈabs(ə)ns/

noun

the state of being away from a place or person.

Both claims that "God exists" or that "deities don't exist" are so grandiose, that demand extraordinary and unequivocal evidence.

You have repeatedly used me as the poster-child of what you call this "aggressive atheism" and yet I have never made this claim.

No god that has ever been proposed in the history of humanity is supported by any evidence.

EdenOne

There is no evidence for or against that idea, so should we then not be abentists with respect to santa?

The reasoning is that, since there is a possibility, albeit remote, that Santa lives in Andromeda (LOL!), anyone who holds a personal belief in that and doesn't attempt to determine other people's lives except its own around that belief, shouldn't be subject to aggressive contempt. Let that person be. Just as the aggressive behavior of religious fundamentalists towards non-believers is inexcusable, so is the aggressive behavior of atheists towards theists when they state their beliefs. Why is there this drive to be confrontational for no good reason? Is there a war going on that I don't know about?

Eden

EdenOne

It is a nonsensical definition.

Why? Show me why you think its illogical.

From the same online source:

"3. the non-existence or lack of."

In my definition, the lack of God (absence) in the observable cosmos is the only thing we can confidently say about it. It doesn't say anything definitive about his existence or non-existence.

From another source: (Merriam-Webster)

a state or condition in which something expected, wanted, or looked for is not present or does not exist : a state or condition in which something is absent

: a failure to be present at a usual or expected place

No god that has ever been proposed in the history of humanity is supported by any evidence.

Cofty and Wizztick, that may be true for the type of "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" deity that you so fondly oppose to, but fact is, I have shown you a different type of deity, complete with a priesthood, temple and followers, and its existence is entirely verifiable by evidence. And you dismiss it just because it doesn't fit on your own definition of 'deity'?

Eden

bohm

EdenOne: I am not going to persecute anyone for what they believe. I am simply trying to explore your definition -- according to what you say, we should be abenteists with respect to santa living in the andromeda galaxy?

EdenOne

we should be abenteists with respect to santa living in the andromeda galaxy?

Not exactly, because one can accurately pinpoint the origin of that story:

"The legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas. It is believed that Nicholas was born sometime around 280 A.D. in Patara, near Myra in modern-day Turkey. Much admired for his piety and kindness, St. Nicholas became the subject of many legends."

Since there's sufficient evidence that Santa Claus' story has been developed and embellished from a real life character, and we know pretty accurately how it came to present form, there's no need to be 'absentheist' about it, and it can be dismissed as legendary stuff. The same cannot be said about the origins of human belief in deities, although it's tempting to conjecture about it. And yet, if someone decides to believe Santa Claus in a flying sledge driven by raiders is real, who am I to aggressively go after such person?
Eden

wizzstick

Cofty and Wizztick, that may be true for the type of "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" deity that you so fondly oppose to, but fact is, I have shown you a different type of deity, complete with a priesthood, temple and followers, and its existence is entirely verifiable by evidence. And you dismiss it just because it doesn't fit on your own definition of 'deity'?

NO!

Once you've defined God or a deity as the sun, totem poles, people etc. then you can discuss whether (a) they are or are not a God or a deity and (b) whether they are or are not absent and what that means with regards them being god/a deity.

But given you refuse to define what you (not other people) mean by (a) we're stuck!

It really is that simple.

Terry

Religious faith operates in much the same way as spackle used to shore up cracks. The crack is a gap between actually existing planes of fact-based knowledge. As Science fills in information, the cracks narrow and the use for 'spackle' correspondingly diminishes.

Religion was man's first effort at philosophy attempting to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values. The problems arise by turning man's attention in wrong contexts: supernatural domains of invisible persons and uncaused causes.

The Christian versions of God point to a different sort of 'future' toward which mankind is said to be heading. As we know, from being Jehovah's Witnesses, the religious future nullifies any expenditure of effort toward THE PRESENT. Education, social progress, humanitarianism is, therefore futile.

Descriptions of the supernatural realm of God consist of negatives. Religious teachers tamper with reality and dampen ration thinking. They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.

A lingering and improbable fear is at the root of God belief like monsters under the bed or in the closet. Somewhere between wishful thinking and a vague sense of gratitude for what we can't explain rests the longing to put a face on our irrationality.

That's my opinion; your mileage may very well vary.

wizzstick

Since there's sufficient evidence that Santa Claus' story has been developed and embellished from a real life character, and we know pretty accurately how it came to present form, there's no need to be 'absentheist' about it, and it can be dismissed as legendary stuff.

I could re-do the above for the traditional idea of God:

Since there's sufficient evidence that the God story has been developed and embellished from real life tribal beliefs, and we know pretty accurately how it came to present form, there's no need to be 'absentheist' about it, and it can be dismissed as legendary stuff.

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

Share this