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

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

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

EdenOne

Cofty

Maybe I missed something, but you said:

If an Israelite was to bleed an animal without killing it - as the Maasai do - and take the blood to the altar, the blood would have no sacrificial value for the simple reason that no life had been taken.

Now, I do agree with you on this, but I haven't seen this clearly stated in any scripture of the OT. Only later the writer of Hebrews claims that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22) And yet, even there's a connection with animal sacrifices where the animal was slaughtered so that the blood was shed, I still am struggling to see an instance in the OT that says that the blood of a living animal is unsuitable to be presented in the altar.

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,

there are things that one can say "so-and-so is 100% true". Simply put, the existence or non-existence of deities isn't one of them, for the reasons stated before. If one wants to measure the amount of belief in a scale, fine. I wouldn't know how to grade such scale, so I refrain from it. Dawkins probably does it better.

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

I see you have changed the subject yet again.

Nope, I'm explaining why this thread was started. My argument still stands:

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.

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

Wiki refers to a god that is defined as "omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent" .

Wrong.

"The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods." - Wiki

This isn't dependent of a definition of a deity as "omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent". I'm sure you CAN read.

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,

You propose a very reasonable approach to the issue here, and I appreciate that. The whole point of my little discussion here isn't about me finding the wheel, or having a revelation when I woke up yesterday [Jonathan Drake totally fell for the "it downed on me" thing ... LOL]. The point I argue is that BOTH claims "god exists" and "god doesn't exist" are logically unsound because both are unsupported by evidence and therefore, dogmatic assertions such as those should be avoided and a position of skepticism with room for reasonable doubt should be left open. The aggressiveness that modern atheists display in their crusade against theism, as Cofty plainly keeps demonstrating, is unwarranted, and should be seasoned with some respect for those who hold different beliefs. Aggressive atheists sometimes make an ass of themselves and alienate people who might be inclined to re-evaluate their theist positions simply because they don't want to become this kind of jesters on a crusade type of people, the extreme opposite spectrum of fanatical evangelists that alienate people of reason. That's all this thread is all about, in fact.

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

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

Since you asked for it:

From Wiki:

"Positive atheism (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods. Some strong atheists further assert that the existence of gods is logically impossible, stating that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false. Metaphysical naturalism is a common worldview associated with strong atheism."

Once again, atheists don't say that. How many times will you ignore things that don't suit you?

Say that again...?

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

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.

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

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