it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
If i'm elaborating on a new mathematical equation, and it's not working, I may say: "Something is missing here" in the sense of "something is absent". When I finally crack the equation, the bit that was missing, or absent, had never been there before. And yet, its absence was noticeable. As you can see, for something to be "absent" doesn't have to necessarily be pre-existent.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Fukitol, I gave both the classic and the popular notions of agnosticism. There are others, but I think those will sufffice to illustrate the point. As for definitions, if you find anything unsound with my definition of "absent" other than it can't be found in a popular online dictionary, you're welcome to elaborate.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Let me put it this way: If Joe says: "there is a deity in the universe", and Jack says: "there is no deity in the universe", let me ask you, who has the heaviest burden of proof? Because in order to conclude beyond question that there is no deity in the universe, Jack must scan the entire universe to make good on his claim. As for Joe, if he finds a deity lurking on the nearest planet, his search for evidence is over. Therefore, the heaviest burden of proof falls on atheists, not on theists.
This is not to say that Theists are right and Atheists are wrong. This simply means that the Atheist demand for evidence from Theists is a fallacy because they make the same grandiose claims without providing any evidence to back it up. It's better to be a absentheist, by far.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Agnosticism in its formal aception is that God, if exists, cannot be known. A more modern and prosaic notion is: "I can't decide if God exists or not". Absentheism leaves open the possibility that a deity exists and can be known. Or doesn't exist. Or exists and cannot be known. What is saying simply is this: God's presence can't be attested here and now. (hence, the term "absence" because the possibility of presence also exists), and that's all we can say about deity that can be demonstrated without resorting to grandiose claims about the existence or non-existence of deities.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Do you find anything unsound with my definition? Please elaborate. Or is this a case of a fallacy of authority?
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
No, Cofty, it is you who can't read what I write and keep resorting to strawman fallacy.
Aten was a sun-god without human traits or antropomorphic qualities. It was there in the sky for everyone to verify. It doesn't matter if you or I agree if Aten could hear hymns or be placated. That's not the point. The sun didn't just represent an invisible being in the spiritual realm called Aten. The sun was Aten. And the sun exists. So too Aten exists. Just because you don't agree with one definition of what constitutes a deity, doesn't force reality to oblige with your wishful thinking.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Invisible isn't the same as absent. Strawman again.
As for a definition of "absent": something for which no evidence of presence has been found.
My problem is that atheism purposedly mistakes lack of evidence for evidence of non-existence. No research broad enough has been made of the entire universe and all physical dimentions that can soundly conclude that "No deities exist". That's why it is such an extraordinary claim that relies simply on probability. The simplest explanation that is grounded on reality is: "The only thing that can be said about God is that it's absent".
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Galaxie,
Of course I understand your critique, but to say "god is absent" is not the same thing as "god exists but is absent". The first is open to God's existence or lack thereof. Whomever or whatever God may be, we cannot find evidence at the present time. And that is all we can say about it - unlike atheism, that makes a grandiose claim about the existence of God that is at least (if not more) extravagant claim than theism. Because theism claims that "something", albeit wrong, is evidence in favor of God, while atheism claims that "nothing" is evidence against God.
The example of the sun-god is an anedoctical example given to satisfy Cofty's demand for a definition of God, which he claimed he could deconstruct. When I gave the example, he couldn't refute the evidence that the sun does indeed exist and has been worshipped for its face value - a source of heath, light and nourishment for life. Of course, this is NOT the type of God that Cofty is used to defy. This one really exists. it's there in the sky. Does it do what the Egyptians credit it for? Doesn't matter. It still exists and it is a deity for those who worshipped it.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Their God existed indeed and it was there in the sky for everyone to see. If you don't agree with them about their God's ability to interact with them, that's a matter of opinion. If the point is debating existence, I say their God did indeed exist, and there is evidence to back it up.
However, Cofty, you're resorting to your usual strawman fallacy here. The point of absentheism isn't asserting the existence or non-existence of deities. It simply is asserting that the only thing that we can confidently say about them - and back it up with evidence - is that they're absent. If you want to do your tired number of grandiose claims that God doesn't exist, then be prepared to provide overwhelming evidence for it. The kind of evidence you usually demand from theists.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Atheism isn't a statement, it is a response.
BS - it is a statement, to wit, that "no deities exist". Perhaps it's not your brand of atheism, but it is certainly the main claim it makes. If you're skeptical, that doesn't make you an atheist, you're perhaps closer to being an absentheist. Otherwise you too have to back up your grandiose atheist claims with overwhelming evidence.
eden
