Who come first the theist or the atheist

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by arauca, Dec 24, 2011.

  1. ZAV Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
    The wiki page did not counter my claim. I said that Elohim can be either plural or single, and that the verb determines it. So did thw quote from Wiki you presented. How is that a contradiction?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Militaristic atheist? Must be a hell of a weak army.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Yes, it is the usual problem that comes with (strong) atheism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Correct. God is simply a nonsensical proposition for which there can be no evidence. You might as well look for an invisible pink unicorn.

    And why would he? Empiricism is for finding things that are real. If you want to find an invisible pink unicorn, your imagination is the best tool.


    It's still open to evidence of things that do effect our natural, measurable, physical, everything. I trust in the material world, but do not have an absolute faith in it. Empiricism leaves room to debunk itself.
     
  8. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were saying "elohim" is always singular. So what is the specific passage we are referring to?

    What is your take on the following:

    כו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.

    I believe the following means "god", but also means "elohim":
    אֱלֹהִים

    So within the context of this passage is "elohim" singular or plural? Many would say that use of "us" and suchlike is evidence of polytheism, pointing toward plurality of power/power of god/s. Can you counter that? or indeed any of the other content within the article by Abrams?

    Even without this the Bible is clearly a polytheist text. Father, son and holy spirit. Not to mention catholic tendency to pray to Mary as if she were a god too. Polytheism if I ever saw it.

    It's obviously not as cut and dry as you state, otherwise why the forthcoming contention/alternative-interpretation on the subject?
     
  9. ZAV Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
     
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    @ZAV

    I saw my name taken in vain in scattered posts you’d made, so came to say:

    YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ…..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    oke:

    Hopefully that won’t trigger a tsunami or crash the stock market again.

    I’ve got a tow rope if you need help getting out of the semantic quagmire you’re bogged down in. :itold:

    Grab ahold of any of the Bronze Age artifacts lashed on to the bumper of your getaway car and pull and you’ll be free :bravo: before you can say “monotheism”.

    My curio shop shelves were already loaded down, and now there’s a delivery van here unloading 1,000 Asherah figurines. Unless you propose that these were archetypal Barbie dolls, I’m going with the conventional wisdom that says they exemplify polytheistic expression by Hebrews.

    For centuries the Abrahamic religions generally were built up on foundations of the Genesis myth, attributing pantheism and animism to the wayward inventions of reprobates, after humans had purportedly already been in contact with their putative one true God. That foundation has crumbled due to the soft ground of its own quagmire. And apologists who go in to shore it up with pilings only find more artifacts, bringing the old traditions down even harder. Talk about archaeological ruins.

    If you want to dwell on Hebrew--since we are exploring beginnings--you at least should be tracing paleo-Hebrew to its Phoenician roots. If you like, there’s a manuscript I can get you from the collection at Qumran. Really, though, I have such a surplus in stock, and you seem so empty-handed: go ahead and take one of the simulated vellum souvenirs. Use them to protect your fine traditional furniture from getting scratched by the Asherah statuettes you’ll want to take home later, to offset all that Victorian décor and liven up the hearth a bit.

    All your ruminations on Bible text won’t yield any artifacts earlier than Qumran anyway so you can just reshelve all the books you were rummaging through on Aisle 1, if you don’t mind.

    So: what have you got to trade for…Tiamat? She’s one ugly beastie, but, hey, that’s our mom, too, so show a little respect and bring her a fitting gift. How about some pearl of lore from your reliquary of goodies from ancient mythology, maybe even earlier? Something befitting a ferocious sea-monster /slash/ she-monster whose sushi-fied body was strewn across the sky to light the Miky Way. Go for it bard, play us a tune.
     
  11. ZAV Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
    AID- Childish outbursts do nto prove you are intellectually superior. Your argument about Elohim was wrong. The rest will be delt with later.
     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Whatever do you mean oh Great Patronizing One.

    If it means I am supposed to emulate you, then no, I will not put the paddles to your dead argument. Call the coroner, get grief counseling, and try to let go. :bawl:

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

    The atheists came first. The OP has been captured and our invisible flag of nothingness waves proudly on yon hill. :cheers:

    Since there is no physical evidence presented by the Tories that even remotely points to the origins of humankind expressing a monotheistic worldview, we are again left to wonder: what was all the blunderbuss about? :shrug:

    Next!
     
  13. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    How can one have FAITH that God does NOT exist? He is God, he can be there right in front of your face and you wouldn't know it. Atheisim is ignorance. Most atheist are scientist, and philosophers. By nature God is perfect, and created everything; nature, time, self, etc. So we can not know of him if He DOES NOT want us to know of him. The question is, does God not want us to know that he exist? I believe that God wants us to have faith in him, not know of him as a test to good and evil.
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That would indeed seem odd. If the question is sincere, then I can only conclude that your ability to reason through this is impaired by a disconnect between your own beliefs and the conversation you are exploring.

    Atheism is the belief that reality is completely defined by nature, and the disbelief in any supernatural sentient being that rules over it. In other words, there are mysteries that remain to be explained, but atheists do not attribute these to any God.

    Theism is the disbelief that reality is completely defined by nature, and the belief in some supernatural sentient being that rules over it. In other words, there are no mysteries that remain to be explained, because theists attribute these to some God.

    Beyond this are variations such as polytheism, pantheism, animism, the henotheism we mention particularly in the history of Judaism, and other forms of mystery attribution such as shamanism, animal worship and others normally associated with the occult.

    So it is not a FAITH in God's NONexistence, as you put it, but a belief that, lacking evidence of a supernatural sentience, it merely does not exist.

    That may be difficult for you comprehend since you are looking at the atheist through the lens of your own disbelief (that nature runs itself). In this regard, the atheist tends to think of you as the one who is disavowing something reasonably logical about reality.

    But it is not logical to the atheist that a supernatural sentience would possess a sexual identity, since we know from studying nature alone that this is a biological feature associated with animal reproduction. Furthermore you are requiring the supernatural sentience to possess an anthropomorphic (human-like) persona, which requires an unusual digression in logic, for example, maleness is generally associated with the male hormone testosterone. What could that possibly have to do with the ruler of the universe? It's hard enough for the atheist to find a cause or evidence for God, so this is quite a bit harder to accept.

    But you believe he is supernatural, so he is not physically present. You don't know of his presence, you just feel very strongly about it. You have no physical evidence of his presence, obviously, it's your logic dictating that he is present, otherwise some other belief you have would break down.

    I understand that. That's one of the main reasons atheists cannot cannot accept your belief. It requires too much digression from logic.

    What is the atheist ignoring? Untestable claims? That is not the definition of ignorance, just common sense.

    Historically, theists have famously ignored some of the best evidence of experts, believing instead that the world was flat, the center of he universe, and that all the species were created in seven days. This would better fit the definition of ignorance.

    I'm not sure about that, but without a doubt, a training in science or philosophy will develop one's ability to reason and test inferences. To that extent, these folks would tend to answer their own questions about nature, so that the supernatural cause would tend to disappear from their world view.

    I think atheists generally would agree that this appears to be a common belief among theists, but that it exceeds all of the best evidence available, and so this can be attributed to superstition.

    This hide-and-seek game attributes some of the worst of human qualities to this highest of idealized entities. So it seems absurd to an atheist.

    Interesting twist you put on this. Why would the perfect entity engage in what an atheist might call a childish game? The reasoning that concludes this has again digressed so far from logic that atheists reject it as unreasonable.

    Yes and atheists simply don't believe in that.

    So now you see that the atheist doesn't necessarily come after the theist. The paleolithic man that began worshiping the gods who send lightning lived a long time before the idea of this personal God ever arose.
     
  15. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Unless, of course God created nature as well. God IS natural.

    We have no idea what reality is. Yes, our world is defined by nature because God let nature take its course, because he too believes in nature.

    Well, everything is attributed to God. But we did it, and we discovered it in this world, doesn't mean God isn't watching.

    How do you know the evidence is lacking? I think we all carry the evidence in our face, one just needs to understand what they are looking at. We are dealing with God, nothing like anything to happen before, or anything that will happen hereafter can compare to him. He can bend a atom, he's God.

    I think you are illogical to dis-believe in God for any reason, you have never spoken to him, but I claim to, and I claim to be a honest man.


    Got it covered:
    Me: Are you man or woman?
    YHWH: I identify more as a male.

    Or does mankind display a YHWH-like persona?

    YHWH does not have sexuality, there isn't anything for him to bilogicaly reproduce with to make a little YHWH jr. He identifies as a male because of his personality, which is very passive, and very faithful.

    Cause? YHWH caused the universe...

    No I believe he is the most natural thing in the universe.
    I talk to him every day.

    HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE FOUND! If he is known to man then everything he has worked for goes out the window.


    They are ignoring the fact that they can't disprove God's existence, they can only prove that we can not see him above us. I claim I talk to him every day, and in fact im looking at him right now, you just have to know what he looks like.

    Your ignorant to the fact that if I existed then I would have been on team science, not ignorance. Just because most people, atheist, and theist alike are retarded does not mean that God does not exist.

    What is supernatural? Shooting fireballs out your ass, apparently. However, what if we have always been able to shoot ass fire, and we just didn't know how to? Then what? It becomes natural. Trust me, God is not supernatural, we are lacking.

    He's not hiding, we just don't have the ability to perceive him. I talk to him every day. Why does he not show himself? Well, then everyone see's him and everyone plays ass kiss even the rapist and murderers so they can exist for an eternity. This would result in imperfection for the rest of existence in God's eyes, allowing the natural murderers and liars into Heaven.
    Interesting twist you put on this. Why would the perfect entity engage in what an atheist might call a childish game? The reasoning that concludes this has again digressed so far from logic that atheists reject it as unreasonable.

    Im sorry, but atheism is ignorance, I have clearly showed why. Main point is He is God, he can do what he wants when ever he wants and it would be moral, and natural because it is theoretically his creation, everything. Luckily we inherit our morality from him.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    In order for anyone to understand you, they either need to recognize the words you use because they are commonly understood and they reasonably match the dictionary, or, if you have your own terminology, then you would need to define the terms first, before you can hope to be understood.


    For example:


    Maybe this statement alone best defines the difference between your ideas of God and the ideas most commonly held. For example, if I go to the dictionary:

    The word "God" is commonly understood to refer to a supernatural being. So by changing that definition, you cut the cord between yourself and any other person trying to understand you.

    This is why I am having difficulty understanding you. You seem to be speaking a foreign language. The words that you write are recognizable, but I do not recognize the special definitions you have decided to give them.

    You might as well be speaking Greek.
     
  17. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    God is natural. You do know what the world natural means, right?
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    How do you expect to be understood if you arbitrarily swap one word for another?

    If you say God is natural, then God is a person (you?), who lives and dies as a human, with no spirit or afterlife, just decomposing in the soil, and with no role in Creation or control over anything. Is that your definition, if so, how have you come to determine this?

    No one could possibly guess this is your meaning unless you establish how your language stands apart from common speech.
     
  19. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    No, sorry you are dead wrong my friend. GOD IS NATURE. Have you discovered all the knowledge in the world? How can you possibly define what is natural when we can discover shooting thunderbolts out of your shoes was completely natural all along. If God exist then he is nature, because he discovered it in the first place.

    Explain in vivid detail why humans are natural, but a god, or the God would not be a natural occurence? If anything, humans aren't part of nature. Where oh where did we find a neuclear missile tree?
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    from god
     
  21. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Hi ZAV

    I have to say I was quite impressed with your POV and demeanour in post #406. Thanks for the reply, and taking your time to explain some of the intricacies of christian belief; I have to admit I know little on this and was wholly out of my league there.

    But it was interesting nevertheless. I suppose, if christians want to state that their belief is monotheistic then that's their perogative.

    So are you a theist? and if so what is your faith?
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    One could replace "God" with any name or any noun and that argument would have the same effect: None.
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not want us to know that he exists so he does not reveal himself to us. But I am special so he has revealed himself to me. Therefore you must all trust me and believe me when I assure you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and wonderful and has fantastic plans for all of us. Please just have faith.
    The usual way of stating it is that God is part of the universe and God created the universe, but your statement that God is part of nature and God created nature is equivalent.

    This is the Fallacy of Recursion: If God created nature and God is part of nature, then God must have created himself. This is logically impossible, therefore your argument is fallacious. In fact if you had ever set foot in a university and taken Logic 101A you would have learned this within the first few weeks. Then you could have saved yourself the embarrassment being caught in a BONEHEAD FALLACY.
    One of the cornerstones of science is the Rule of Laplace:
    Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.​
    You have no evidence at all! You claim that God talked to you, and your so-called "evidence" is merely another claim: that you are an honest man. Since the existence of an invisible supernatural universe, from which fantastic creatures (such as God) and other forces whimsically (and often cruelly) interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, purports to falsify ALL OF SCIENCE (which is based on the premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior), your assertion is the most extraordinary that can be presented. Therefore you are obligated to provide us with some pretty damn good evidence.

    You have not done so. You are in the same category as a child who insists that Santa Claus exists because she wrote him a letter and he delivered all the presents she asked for, or that the Tooth Fairy exists because she put a tooth under her pillow and there was a dollar bill there in the morning. This category is populated by people who have not earned our respect. You have already been given more respect than you deserve, by members actually taking the time and trouble to respond to your little fantasy.
    Don't they say the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I know for sure that Leprechauns don't want to be found, it's clearly stated in Irish mythology. That's why nobody has ever seen one.
    There has to be some evidence for a claim, or else no one is obliged to disprove it. Otherwise all the scarce resources of science would be dissipated in disproving every crackpot theory. This is summed up in the scientific principleL
    It is not necessary to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the positive.​
    And what reason do we have to believe you? You could tell us there is a Klingon war base on one of Saturn's moons and they are planning to invade earth and enslave us all, and only you know this because they accidentally directed one of their transmissions to your cellphone. Should we trust you about that to? It is FAR MORE LIKELY than the existence of God. At least it does not require us to throw out everything that makes up the scientific method, from Occam and Newton to Einstein and Hawking.
    This is an ad hominem attack. Not only is it yet another Logical Fallacy that you would know about if you had a decent education, it is also extremely rude. Once you insult the people you are talking to, they will stop listening.
    You haven't shown dick. (You also can't write decent English, which doesn't improve your standing here at all. It's "I have shown," not "I have showed." Now I'm wondering if you even graduated from high school.)
    • You have zero evidence. All of your evidence is "I saw this..." or "I talked to that."
    • That wouldn't get you very far in court, and it won't get you anywhere in science. Evidence has to be peer-reviewed. We have to be able to recreate it to make sure you're telling the truth.
    That is an assertion, and an extraordinary one at that. Every assertion must be supported by evidence, and you have none. Every extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence, and your evidence is just the opposite: The ridiculous fantasies of a child.
     
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I thought maybe something else was going on with Knowledge91, so I just kept tugging on the line, thinking the reel would play out. But it just kept going.

    I'm sure you've been told this before, but you project the persona of someone we'd like to see do a screenplay. You have a way of grabbing one's attention, dropping lots of interesting ideas, and almost always mixing teaching moments with humor sure to evoke at least a chortle (in this case falling over belly aching peals of deserved laughter). I just thought I would give credit where credit is due. (translation: That is one of BADDEST ASS posts I have ever read!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ~Talk about grammar violations ~

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    ...meanwhile...back at the thread:...<<straightens tie, blots brow>>....

    ...Yes, Mr. Fraggle Rocker, I concur. The subject fails on all counts of fallacy. I still maintain that primitive people, desiring to explain the natural phenomena for which they had no science, invented religion. It fundamentally arises out of superstition, the disconnect between primitive observation and the hidden natural causes.

    /snort/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page