Posts by EdenOne

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

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

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

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

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

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

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

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

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

EdenOne

Wizzstick, still you didn't counter my example of Augusus Caesar as an example of a verifiable deity whose existence was real.

Eden

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

EdenOne

To say that something is absent presupposes that it exists.

You're warping the logic with nonsense. If I ask: "Is there a unicorn present in this room or is it absent from this room?" - I'm not asserting or even validating the existence of unicorns. I simply stop short of even discussing it. I'm simply verifying the fact that no unicorn could be found to be present in the room. I'm not making any assertions about the existence or non existence of unicorns. Stop twisting logic with non sequitur reasoning.

Eden

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

EdenOne

“Civic Religion” is the term coined to describe a system of worship whose cult is rendered to a human ruler in the form of homage, tribute, loyalty and allegiance. Examples can be found in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. Romulus, considered the founder of Rome, was deified and worshipped as the deity Quirinus. Julius Caesar was the first roman living ruler to accept the title of “divine”, when a statue of himself was erected in the temple of Quirinus is 45 BC with an inscription: “To the invincible God”. When Julius Caesar died, he was elevated to the status of god in equal standing with the pantheon of roman gods (a process called ‘apotheosis’) and a cult to Jupiter Julius, complete with a temple was established. But it was with his successor, Octavian Augustus, that the imperial cult became fully established. After a string of catastrophes, Octavian brought peace, stability and prosperity to the romans, and such feat was considered so extraordinary that only a divine being could accomplish that. There was no way to explain a power so great without appeal to a divine nature residing within Augustus. As adopted son of the divine Julius Caesar, Augustus started by styling himself as “son of God”, and later accepted and actively promoted the construction of temples dedicated to the worship of himself as a divinity. Mandatory sacrifices to the genius of the emperor were made compulsory, and upon his death, on 14 AD, by an official decree from the roman senate, Octavian Augustus Caesar was included among the pantheon of roman gods, and received a temple and priests. For centuries to follow, the cult of the emperor, this form of “civic religion” thrived both in the city of Rome and in the roman provinces.

Coin with the deified effigy of Augustus, son of the deified Julius Caesar.

Status of deified emperor Octavian Augustus.

Temple to emperor Augustus in Nimes, France.

So, here’s my question: Was Octavian Augustus a fictional character or a real being? Since we all can agree that his existence was a verifiable fact, it is also an undeniable fact that he was considered a deity and received worship from humans and a religion, temples and a pristehood were established in his honor. Just as Yahweh or the deified Jesus Christ or Aura Mazda or any other deity that you can think of. Therefore, here is a deity that exists, or, at least, that existed at one point in time. And here is the problem with the atheist proposition: It requires a certain kind of deity to be feasible. Namely, it requires a spiritual, superhuman deity that claims special powers not commonly held by humans. This is the kind of deity that atheism claims that doesn’t exist. However, their proposition stumbles and hits a brick wall when a different kind of deity is being discussed. Deities DO exist, because what makes a deity is the willingness of human beings to worship said entity. Anything and anyone can be a deity just as long as anyone has some kind of rationale for establishing its cult.

The type of deity that atheists take such pride in debunking may or may not exist. But the proposition that “deities don’t exist” is plain simply a mystification . They can exist, even if, as Simon said, the possibility that they exist in the form that we expect them to exist is so hugely remote that we chose to embrace the notion that it may just as well be inexistent. However, because we haven’t made a research so wide as to scan the entire universe and all the known physical dimensions (not to mention those dimensions who aren’t known yet, but merely theorized that exist), no one can say with a 100% degree of absolute certainty that “no deities exist”. As per the example above, they do exist. Hence, I stand by the proposition that “The only thing that can be said about God is that it's absent”- absentheism.

42

she passed faithful to the end to them!

by jookbeard in

just found out (second hand of course) and by someone on here that my faithful jw mum passed away within the last couple of days, dont know the exact day, and what cause, she spent the last few years living with my fanatical sister, she was 65 and survived my father by 10 years, bitter, angry and hateful till the end and never as so much enquired or asked how her 2 grandchildren ever were , they are 5 and 7!

feeling a mixture of emotions right now, they were lousy parents in all honesty, she suffered health wise so maybe its for the best, dont even know when the funeral is!

EdenOne

Sorry to hear about that, I can fully understand your mixed feelings. This crazy fundamentalist religion can surely bring out the worse of some people. My condolences.

Eden

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

EdenOne

It's been a nice chat, but it's late and I'm no deity and need my beauty sleep, otherwise tomorrow I'll surely need to abuse coffee to get me going.

Nite nite, it was interesting. Keep this discussion going, by all means.

I leave the popcorn bowl behind for you.

Eden

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

EdenOne

Hindus, Aztecs, Native Americans, and many others will have different concepts of their deities, different from the monotheistic religions we're accustomed to. Some religions believe that God is the entire universe; others believe that God encompasses and also transcends the entire universe. Others believe that God is the collective mind of all living forms on earth. We find atheism usually very concerned about discrediting the deity of the monotheistic religions, and then extrapolating and making blanket statements about every other form of beliefs in deities. They may be right in the end, and perhaps no deities exist. But their logic is just as flawed as the theistic view, as atheism cannot provide hard evidence for the non-existence of deities. They can correctly point out the lack of evidence for the existence of God, but then they make the epistemological leap into the absolute claim of the non-existence of God. That's a fallacy of non-sequitur. Followed by numerous examples of strawman fallacy to hide the embarrassing fact that their claim is at least as logically extravagant as the theist claims.

That's why the proposition of absentheism is much more reasonable and the simplest explanation that can be backed up by empirical evidence: "All we can say about God is that its absent".

Eden