hatred for being an atheist

[Prawn Connery]

Here ya go connery.. pulled from google since none of the other explanations are getting to you.

atheist.. "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"

Not sure exactly what "disbelieves" means? well here you go again.. "be unable to believe (someone or something)."

read the definition of atheist 10 times.. 50 times.. 100 times, until you get it into your head. It should make sense by the 100th time.

athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.
- connery

how does this fit the atheist definition? Maybe I shouldn't get into this since others have already tried and failed, not because they're wrong.

Ah, the Google explanation - how could I have missed it

Here's a simple concept for you: your belief system is at the very core of your existance - you believe, therefore you are. If you do no believe, you cease to exist. All manifestations in this life are as a direct result of your belief in them. It is your innate belief in this life that casuses you to believe it is real.

Go on, try NOT believing in anything. And I don't mean saying "oh, that's not true, or "I don't believe in that", or "I have no beliefs". They're only words to the effect that you haven't thought through everything to its nth (you can't - none of us can) and so truly don't fully understand what it is you are making judgement on. I'm not talking about words. I'm talking about actual belief. It is not a word any more than say, "love" or "life".

Your lack of "belief" (as a so-called truism) in anything is a conscious decision. I have written this already, but hey, if you're into repetition, go right ahead and repeat everything you have ever been told (and not actually thought about) - which is basically what you are doing right now.

Easier to believe what one can perceive with the senses rather than mere thought, wishful thinking and hope.

Every thought is based on our sensory perception. If a brain was grown in a glass jar without any sensory input whatsoever - no heat or cold or sound or light or touch or taste or anyting - what would it think?

You may think it a moot point - how can you keep a brain alive without any external (sensory) input? But forget about the reality and think of the concept: what would a brain think if it had no reference to anything at all? Nothing.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Ah but what is a "circle"? Is not the whole world a circle? Do people not jerk all around it? In your eagerness to belittle you seem to forget that we are all on the wheel, and those you jerk today may end up jerking you tomorrow.

“Society is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Long, it is not so much society that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the genre, and some would say the defining characteristic, of society. The example of nihilism prevalent in Gibson’s Idoru emerges again in Neuromancer. But an abundance of discourses concerning the role of the writer as participant exist.

“Narrativity is part of the meaninglessness of truth,” says Lacan. Precultural Marxism suggests that society, somewhat surprisingly, has significance. However, any number of deconstructions concerning submodern discourse may be found.


The main theme of the works of Gibson is not deappropriation as such, but predeappropriation. In Count Zero, Gibson affirms precultural Marxism; in All Tomorrow’s Parties he reiterates structuralist discourse. In a sense, Lyotard promotes the use of precultural Marxism to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of sexual identity.


“Class is unattainable,” says Sontag. Lyotard’s essay on neodialectic modernist theory implies that the task of the poet is social comment. It could be said that Derrida suggests the use of precultural Marxism to read and analyse sexual identity.
Nihilism holds that language serves to marginalize the proletariat. Thus, Sartre uses the term ‘semiotic situationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality.


Marx’s analysis of nihilism states that reality is capable of deconstruction, given that truth is distinct from language. But the ground/figure distinction which is a central theme of Gibson’s Mona Lisa Overdrive is also evident in All Tomorrow’s Parties, although in a more subdialectic sense.

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

In my "eagerness to belittle" I see I was correct in assuming hypocrisy would be left at the door of your argument. Or perhaps you do see the hypocrisy, but like other intellectual narcissists, simply can't help yourself. "The Glacier" - or rather, how it came to be adopted as your moniker - certainly explains a lot.

The defining characterstic of the narcisist is that they only see the beauty in themselves. They may well have cause to admire their own endowments, but sadly, that fails to translate to the wider world around them. Isolated (though perfectly happy in their own company), and with a lack of empathy or any real connect to those around them, they appear to flounder in their own discourse: never quite addressing the needs of others, but rather, constantly trying to satisfying their own. After all, who is more important?

The world is indeed a sphere (it's not really a circle - that's a bit two dimensional), and hence what you are really describing is an ecosphere. This site is an ecosphere. An ecosphere within an ecosphere. And so, while it is all good and well to proletise about the interconnectedness of life (true), it's really just a homily that fails to address the social dynamics of this site and your own status amongst the fanboys.

Why is that important? Because for obfuscation to have its desired effect - much like your example above seems intended to do - you need to speak from an air of authority in the first place. Otherwise it's not obfuscation - it's just white noise.

It's an example of "let's throw everything out there" (you accuse me of "Gish galloping"? LOL! < not too old to use that) and hope it will suitably baffle the unintiated to the point of acquiescence.

That may work in circle jerk, but not in the wider ecosphere.

Anyway, enough of the ad hominem argument (only joking - the "belittling" never really ends, does it? Though I'm sure you don't feel belittled at all - so I'll use it tongue-in-cheek, seeing as you're not shy of it yourself . . .). Lobbing a few conflicting conceptual quotes does not an argument make. None of those ideas are yours and, as you have failed to quantify anything other than repeating the odd dated construct, you haven't actually explained what YOUR position is.

You seem to be insinuating - or asserting - that I am either an epistemological nihilist (an oxymoron, in my opinion), or simply someone who doesn't know how to read a dictionary.

I know what the literal definitions of words are (in their current meaning), so it's a bit of a waste of time trying to reiterate them (as most before you seem preoccupied with).

But what is so hard to understand about the dismissal of "God" - in whatever form (I'm repeating myself again) - as being an act of faith ("belief") in and of itself?

You say you have no beliefs (maybe you don't - you haven't expressly explained your own position). I say that is a belief itself. A "certainty" in the minds of those who prepose. You (they) are no different to those who profess to believe.


* I was going to address your other apparent pre-occupation with precultural Marxism, but as it's been many years - many - since I stopped reading Marx and started living him (admittedly post-cultural Marxism with Chinese characteristics), I'm kinda over it. I'm glad you enjoy Gibson. I'm not quite sure what classist socialist theory has to do with instrinsic belief systems, but I'm sure you will take the time to explain. Or maybe not.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Lol - yes, I've studied Descartes rather extensively, thanks!



Yes, facts are good. Established definitions are good, too. They allow rational people to continue on their discourse.



An anthropomorphic god would mean giving human like qualities to god, maybe instead of sneering and telling people they don't know about philosophy (when they have a degree in Phil. no less, LOL) and you should start reading about pantheism and Spinoza. Thanks!

You seem like a nice chap. And I apologise if I appear to be "sneering". I'm not. But if you're familiar with the underlying theories of anthropomorphism, then why can't you accept that ALL "God's" qualities are anthropomorphic, as they can only come from the minds of men? Now, if "God" had his own "God", that might be a different story . . .

If I were little younger, I think I would like to have studied binary code a bit more in-depth, as I am fascinated by the concept of all matter and energy - everything in the currently known universe (and other universes and beyond) - being made up of little pieces of "something" and "nothing' in their purest forms. And as you know, you can't have one without the other. Which merely proves that - in fact - there may well be no such thing as "nothing" - or "non" - and that is why it may well be possible for a "non-apple" to be an "apple" (again, I'm not talking semantics). If everyting in the universe were an apple (I mean a real apple - not the word), then what would a non-apple be? There's a good chance it would also be an apple . . .

And that's my last comparison of "apples" to "non-apples"

 

[Padawanbater2]

In my "eagerness to belittle" I see I was correct in assuming hypocrisy would be left at the door of your argument. Or perhaps you do see the hypocrisy, but like other intellectual narcissists, simply can't help yourself. "The Glacier" - or rather, how it came to be adopted as your moniker - certainly explains a lot.

The defining characterstic of the narcisist is that they only see the beauty in themselves. They may well have cause to admire their own endowments, but sadly, that fails to translate to the wider world around them. Isolated (though perfectly happy in their own company), and with a lack of empathy or any real connect to those around them, they appear to flounder in their own discourse: never quite addressing the needs of others, but rather, constantly trying to satisfying their own. After all, who is more important?

The world is indeed a sphere (it's not really a circle - that's a bit two dimensional), and hence what you are really describing is an ecosphere. This site is an ecosphere. An ecosphere within an ecosphere. And so, while it is all good and well to proletise about the interconnectedness of life (true), it's really just a homily that fails to address the social dynamics of this site and your own status amongst the fanboys.

Why is that important? Because for obfuscation to have its desired effect - much like your example above seems intended to do - you need to speak from an air of authority in the first place. Otherwise it's not obfuscation - it's just white noise.

It's an example of "let's throw everything out there" (you accuse me of "Gish galloping"? LOL! < not too old to use that) and hope it will suitably baffle the unintiated to the point of acquiescence.

That may work in circle jerk, but not in the wider ecosphere.

Anyway, enough of the ad hominem argument (only joking - the "belittling" never really ends, does it? Though I'm sure you don't feel belittled at all - so I'll use it tongue-in-cheek, seeing as you're not shy of it yourself . . .). Lobbing a few conflicting conceptual quotes does not an argument make. None of those ideas are yours and, as you have failed to quantify anything other than repeating the odd dated construct, you haven't actually explained what YOUR position is.

You seem to be insinuating - or asserting - that I am either an epistemological nihilist (an oxymoron, in my opinion), or simply someone who doesn't know how to read a dictionary.

I know what the literal definitions of words are (in their current meaning), so it's a bit of a waste of time trying to reiterate them (as most before you seem preoccupied with).

But what is so hard to understand about the dismissal of "God" - in whatever form (I'm repeating myself again) - as being an act of faith ("belief") in and of itself?

You say you have no beliefs (maybe you don't - you haven't expressly explained your own position). I say that is a belief itself. A "certainty" in the minds of those who prepose. You (they) are no different to those who profess to believe.


* I was going to address your other apparent pre-occupation with precultural Marxism, but as it's been many years - many - since I stopped reading Marx and started living him (admittedly post-cultural Marxism with Chinese characteristics), I'm kinda over it. I'm glad you enjoy Gibson. I'm not quite sure what classist socialist theory has to do with instrinsic belief systems, but I'm sure you will take the time to explain. Or maybe not.

The arrogant tone of this post is actually quite cute to be honest

You haven't been around this place very long, so you're forgiven for that much..

I've been reading Heis' posts for damn near 5 years now. Your accusation that they attract some sort of 'fanboy' type (which is a huge misconception/projection/belief in itself among theists because that's exactly what people like Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson do, and Christians think that since they do it, atheists do the same thing too..) of people is absurd. While you and your ilk flock around preachers and pastors because your book tells you not to question their authority, the authority garnered by members here is strictly earned, and you're talking about the goddamn godfather of earned authority on RIU. Seriously, check his posts, check his likes, his record speaks for itself. Among the active atheists on RIU, Heisenberg is probably the most level headed, rational person here. The posts that would make me or any other atheist get fed up and attack back are dealt with with a kind of patience I didn't know was possible before joining RIU.

Give the guy some goddamn credit.

I can hear you already.. "Look at this fanboy! Sucking his balls because he doesn't believe in God either.. just what I said..."

Except you fail to realize there is no standing allegiance between any of us, what we say is looked up, criticized, put in the spotlight and scrutinized. Heis, me, or any other atheist here who posts, says something that doesn't make sense or lacks consistency gets called on it. All of us here know that's the only way to better oneself, all of us here know there is no other way to grow.


Show a little respect

 

[tyler.durden]

^^ Awesome, Pad! Wish I could rep you for that post. Uh-oh, the circle seems to be forming again...

 

[Padawanbater2]

But what is so hard to understand about the dismissal of "God" - in whatever form (I'm repeating myself again) - as being an act of faith ("belief") in and of itself?

It's hard to understand/accept because you are wrong and simply can't accept it. It's an irrational question, it doesn't make sense.. You are misrepresenting the positions without realizing it.


"No gods exist" - Positive statement - gnostic atheist, ie. a person who believes God does not exist - faith based

"I don't know if a god exists, but I don't believe one does because the evidence available hasn't convinced me" - Negative statement - agnostic atheist, ie. a person who actively believes a god does not exist but holds the possibility of a god existing as he knows there is no way to prove a god does not exist.

"I don't know if a god exists, but I do believe one does" - Negative statement - agnostic theist, ie. a person who does not know if a god exists, but believes one does

"God exists" - Positive statement - a gnostic theist, a person who believes God exists.


Believing it is impossible to know if a god exists or not is not an act of faith, it is the only intellectually honest position to hold

 

[Prawn Connery]

Respect is earned - you got that right. Have a read of the tone of his first post to me. Have a read of just about ALL of your collective's posts towards me (with some exceptions). Reciprocity may be the only language some of you understand in the context of "respect". But that's all it is.

You make a lot of assumptions yourself. That I haven't been around long, for example. How would you know?

There are other assumptions. But I'm not about to point them out, because it amuses me to see you all jump to conclusions. No biggy.

Believing it is impossible to know if a god exists or not is not an act of faith, it is the only intellectually honest position to hold

Did you just say "believing"?

Sorry mate. You guys go and "Like" each other all you . . . er . . . like. Maybe the term "circular" (as in argument) was right after all. But that's just me: I'm happy to change my position where circmustance and new light dictate. I'm always open to new ideas. That's why I said knowledge is a state of flux. In fact, the only constant in life is that it is a state of flux - along with everything else you (and me) think you (we) understand.

Repeating it simply isn't going to make it any more "true". Yep, whatever "true" means.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Now, this all seems to be getting a little personal - as these things tend to do - so do you wish to continue debating people "like me" (whatever that means), or are you just here to say "+1" and all the egging on stuff that collectives do?

 

[Beefbisquit]

You seem like a nice chap. And I apologise if I appear to be "sneering". I'm not. But if you're familiar with the underlying theories of anthropomorphism, then why can't you accept that ALL "God's" qualities are anthropomorphic, as they can only come from the minds of men? Now, if "God" had his own "God", that might be a different story . . .

If I were little younger, I think I would like to have studied binary code a bit more in-depth, as I am fascinated by the concept of all matter and energy - everything in the currently known universe (and other universes and beyond) - being made up of little pieces of "something" and "nothing' in their purest forms. And as you know, you can't have one without the other. Which merely proves that - in fact - there may well be no such thing as "nothing" - or "non" - and that is why it may well be possible for a "non-apple" to be an "apple" (again, I'm not talking semantics). If everyting in the universe were an apple (I mean a real apple - not the word), then what would a non-apple be? There's a good chance it would also be an apple . . .

And that's my last comparison of "apples" to "non-apples"

Just because humans think of a property of something, does not make that something or the property of that something anthropomorphic or anthropomorphized. Unless someone assigns a human-like quality to something non-human, it has not been anthropomorphised regardless of your opinion of what antropomorphise means. You are not allowed to change the definition to suit your argument.

If everything in the universe was an actual apple, non-apples wouldn't exist. There are, by the very definition you are describing, no non-apples. Everything in the universe would be an apple, non-apples would not exist for a comparison to even be made or considered. You could state there is empty space in an apple, but that in and of itself is a property of an apple. The empty space between the atoms of the apple are intrinsic to the apple, and cannot be categorized as anything but the apple itself. Your argument doesn't make sense.

Look at your last sentence, you frame the scenario of the universe as 'only housing apples' (I will assume you mean space exists for an apple or apples to occupy said space), and then go outside your own predetermined definition of what is in the universe (special pleading) to ask 'what is a non-apple in a universe of only apples', and the answer to which you have already given us with the framing of your question is: there isn't a non-apple in a universe of only apples. If you want to define what a non-apple is, you first need to frame the thought experiment in a way that allows for non-apples to exist.

I have a hard time believing you have this difficult of a time understanding these concepts.

 

[Hepheastus420]

Ah, the Google explanation - how could I have missed it

you don't seem to understand what atheism means. So I figured a very simple explanation would be easy for you to understand. sigh, I was wrong. What's your issue with copy and paste? what difference does it make when the definition is the same whether I explain it or decide not to waste my time explaining? If I explained using my own words, you'd be lost as I tend to rant. So deal with the copy and paste already.

Here's a simple concept for you: your belief system is at the very core of your existance - you believe, therefore you are. If you do no believe, you cease to exist. All manifestations in this life are as a direct result of your belief in them. It is your innate belief in this life that casuses you to believe it is real.

I believe therefore I am? Lol.. I'm alive, the world is spinning. When I die, the world will continue spinning. When somebody ceases to exist.. ceases to think, wouldn't the world vanish according to your logic? This is why I try my best to only trust facts and be skeptical when it comes to things that only rely on "belief", "trust", and "faith".

Your lack of "belief" (as a so-called truism) in anything is a conscious decision. I have written this already, but hey, if you're into repetition, go right ahead and repeat everything you have ever been told (and not actually thought about) - which is basically what you are doing right now.

God damn right. I consciously decided to use "critical thinking" to choose what I should believe in and what I shouldn't believe in. You don't think I've thought of your topics? HA I've stressed myself out for years thinking on this. I've come to a different conclusion to you.

I consciously decide not to rely on faith alone. You have to use your thoughts to believe what is true or false.

Anyways, I was talking to you about one thing.. which is how you don't understand what an atheist is. You set that aside by posting " Ah, the Google explanation - how could I have missed it". Did you read it 100 times yet, smartass? Do you understand that you can have a lack of belief without fully rejecting the idea of a god?

 

[Beefbisquit]

Here's a simple concept for you: your belief system is at the very core of your existance - you believe, therefore you are. If you do no believe, you cease to exist. All manifestations in this life are as a direct result of your belief in them. It is your innate belief in this life that casuses you to believe it is real.

"I think therefore, I am" is in reference to being able to doubt everything in existence except ones mind. The only thing, in a philosophical sense, not a practical sense, that one can absolutely confirm exists, is ones self. However, it makes no sense to live like this, as our perceptions and technologies are the only basis we have for understanding the world around us.

"If you do not believe, you cease to exist", is somewhat true I suppose, because if you stop possessing a mind, you die. The part about 'all manifestations in this life being a result of direct belief' is complete bullshit. Things exist independent of belief, the moon doesn't stop existing just because humans stop existing. Since we are the only animals capable of complex thought, like self-reflection and introspection, when reduced to absurdity your argument basically boils down to: if humans stop existing and stopped perceiving the universe, the universe in turn would cease to exist.

Considering the universe is 14 billion years old... well...

 

[Prawn Connery]

If everything in the universe was an actual apple, non-apples wouldn't exist.

Exactly! What I actually said was if the universe was an apple itself, then there would be nothing else. An apple would be an apple. A non-apple would be an apple. "But," you say, "non-apples would not exist for a comparison". So by default, non-apples are still apples - aren't they?

Let's apply the same theory to "nothing". If "nothing" is not "something", then how can "nothing" exist? It might not make sense - does any paradox? - and yet, there you are. Something can't come from nothing if nothing exists, but nothing can't exist unless there is something to compare it to.

But what if "something" and "nothing" were actually the same thing? That would be pretty handy, wouldn't it? We could say that before the universe there was nothing, but at least that was something!

We can even take it to the quantum level (until such time as quantum theory is either replaced or dissected to an even smaller degree). We don't know what the smallest thing in the known universe (or even outside our universe) is, only that, according to our own human logic, there must be something - some "thing" - that makes up everything else. You can arrange it in any order you like to give matter and/or energy certain physical (and metaphysical) traits or characterists (as we sense them), but they can all be broken down into their base form - which is essentially the same "stuff". Now let's replace the word "stuff" with "apples".

If apples are the purest form of anything - nothing can make an apple, and an apple can make everyting in the know universe and beyond - then what is a "non-apple"? If there are two apples - a "positive" apple and a "negative" apple, then what are those apples made up of? If you take the concept to the nth degree - as far as you can go - surely they must be made of the same thing? What is that "thing" - an apple.

You cannot even begin to rationalise how big the universe and other universes are until you know what their base is. How big is big? How small is small? Different questions with potentially the same answers.

Segue time: the building blocks of language - what are they? Words are articulated ideas (stemming either from the common human experience or particular cultures) homogenised for the benefit of communication and understanding. We have dictionaries to define those standards, but at the same time there can be a cultural disconnect - like a Scotsman talking to a Texan. You see it all the time on these boards: Americans getting upset with Brits over a turn of phrase or vice versa, when there was really no harm meant.

When I think of the word "belief", I think of it in its purest form - culture plays no part in the definition of the word, because the word describes a part of the human condition that - at its very essence - IS the human condition. Belief. We are all here because we believe we are here. Furthermore, it is instrinsic in our condition because we can't NOT believe we're here. Even if we theorise - even if we philosophise - we are still here.

Belief is all.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." < said by a philosopher who was hated by athiests and theists alike.


On the subject of anthropomorphism, if human qualities and abilities are attributed to an object, then what - first - are those human qualities and abilities?

You have to remember that human qualities and abilities are ever-evolving: what we are capable of today, we may not be capable of tomorrow. What we are not capable of today, we may well be capable of tomorrow.

Anthropomorphism itself is in a state of flux.

There is a Buddhist concept: "The mind is everything - what you think, you become." And in that is the secret to an anthropomorphic "God" versus a non-anthropomorphic "God". What is non-anthropomorphic today could well be anthropomorphic tomorrow!

Why should we limit ourselves to today's knowledge and enlightenment?

Do you not see how the fundamental theist and atheist are now one and the same? Along the entire spectra? They both have a common heritage and fundamental (base) belief system.

This thread has actually been a great social experiment: can you not see how the athiest turns on the theist in exactly the same way - with exactly the same conceptual arguments - as the theist uses to propagate and defend their faith? Whether they actively dismiss the idea of "God" or actively dismiss any other "belief"?

Look around you. "Circle jerk" may be a crude term, but with yourself being somewhat the exemption - and maybe even their "Messiah" (The Glacier) - they are each as dogmatically adhered to their conditioned ideas as the next. They read, therefore they think. Should it not be the other way around? Do I sound condescending? Because, you know, trying to explain the same ideas (and they are only my ideas) in the context of average prejudice (closed-mindeness and baseless assumptions) will do that. It does not matter whether they believe in "God" or not - they are still quick to pillory.

It doesn't even surpise me how quickly it happens any more.

 

[Prawn Connery]

The part about 'all manifestations in this life being a result of direct belief' is complete bullshit. Things exist independent of belief, the moon doesn't stop existing just because humans stop existing. Since we are the only animals capable of complex thought, like self-reflection and introspection, when reduced to absurdity your argument basically boils down to: if humans stop existing and stopped perceiving the universe, the universe in turn would cease to exist.

Considering the universe is 14 billion years old... well...

Just saw this . . .

The universe could in all likelihood be a bubble in a milkshake in the udder of an infinte cow. 14 billion years? Who are we to say? It's a 21st Century human reference.

Can you prove things still exist if you cease to? If you can't - and you can't - then the only thing you can know right now for certain (as certain as you can be), is that everything is a construct of your existence - you know nothing else - and when that existence ceaces, you won't be here to know otherwise.

"I think therefore, I am" is in NOT a reference to being able to doubt everything in existence except one's mind - unless you mean it to be the exact opposite. Our mind is the only reference point we have:

How do I know everything exists?
Because I exist.

Can I be certain of that?
As certain as I can be in this existence.

Would everything exist without me?
Yes.

Can I be certain of that?
Only while I exist.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Do you understand that you can have a lack of belief without fully rejecting the idea of a god?

Of course I can. I've been saying that along.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Exactly! What I actually said was if the universe was an apple itself, then there would be nothing else. An apple would be an apple. A non-apple would be an apple. "But," you say, "non-apples would not exist for a comparison". So by default, non-apples are still apples - aren't they?

No. Non-apples are not apples in any situation, regardless of word play.

Let's apply the same theory to "nothing". If "nothing" is not "something", then how can "nothing" exist? It might not make sense - does any paradox? - and yet, there you are. Something can't come from nothing if nothing exists, but nothing can't exist unless there is something to compare it to.

True 'nothing' doesn't exist. It is a lack of space and time. 'Nothing' is only a concept, not a tangible thing in the way humans use it. As far as we can tell, there has never been 'nothing', because as you say 'something' cannot come from 'nothing'. It's basically an axiom, 'Nothing isn't something, and something isn't nothing'.... lol There's nothing to learn from that statement.

I believe, yes believe, that the universe has always existed in some form or another. It is the explanation that assumes the least, therefore is the most likely (Occam's razor).

But what if "something" and "nothing" were actually the same thing? That would be pretty handy, wouldn't it? We could say that before the universe there was nothing, but at least that was something!

But nothing and something aren't the same thing, and that's demonstrable, so what's your point?

We can even take it to the quantum level (until such time as quantum theory is either replaced or dissected to an even smaller degree). We don't know what the smallest thing in the known universe (or even outside our universe) is, only that, according to our own human logic, there must be something - some "thing" - that makes up everything else. You can arrange it in any order you like to give matter and/or energy certain physical (and metaphysical) traits or characterists (as we sense them), but they can all be broken down into their base form - which is essentially the same "stuff". Now let's replace the word "stuff" with "apples".

Why do you feel the need to redefine things? If you want to say everything in existence is made of some basic building block, the burden of proof is on you to prove what it is, and that matter, energy, dark matter, and any other form of 'something' are composed of that 'something'.

If apples are the purest form of anything - nothing can make an apple, and an apple can make everyting in the know universe and beyond - then what is a "non-apple"? If there are two apples - a "positive" apple and a "negative" apple, then what are those apples made up of? If you take the concept to the nth degree - as far as you can go - surely they must be made of the same thing? What is that "thing" - an apple.

I'm not going to use the term 'apple' to define the smallest building blocks that exist, mostly because we don't even know if there is a smallest building block; for all we know it could be an infinite regression of smaller, and smaller particles.

You cannot even begin to rationalise how big the universe and other universes are until you know what their base is. How big is big? How small is small? Different questions with potentially the same answers.

We have to rationalize with the knowledge we have in order to attempt to build an understanding of the reality we live in. It's the only tools we really have for doing so.

Segue time: the building blocks of language - what are they? Words are articulated ideas (stemming either from the common human experience or particular cultures) homogenised for the benefit of communication and understanding. We have dictionaries to define those standards, but at the same time there can be a cultural disconnect - like a Scotsman talking to a Texan. You see it all the time on these boards: Americans getting upset with Brits over a turn of phrase or vice versa, when there was really no harm meant.

When I think of the word "belief", I think of it in its purest form - culture plays no part in the definition of the word, because the word describes a part of the human condition that - at its very essence - IS the human condition. Belief. We are all here because we believe we are here. Furthermore, it is instrinsic in our condition because we can't NOT believe we're here. Even if we theorise - even if we philosophise - we are still here.

Disagree. Stated this before, existence does not go away when a mind is not there to experience it. Fucking fact, take it or leave it, but you ain't changin' it.

Belief is all.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." < said by a philosopher who was hated by athiests and theists alike.

Exactly. And we did invent him as a way of explaining the world before we had science.

On the subject of anthropomorphism, if human qualities and abilities are attributed to an object, then what - first - are those human qualities and abilities?

You have to remember that human qualities and abilities are ever-evolving: what we are capable of today, we may not be capable of tomorrow. What we are not capable of today, we may well be capable of tomorrow.

Anthropomorphism itself is in a state of flux.

How so?

There is a Buddhist concept: "The mind is everything - what you think, you become." And in that is the secret to an anthropomorphic "God" versus a non-anthropomorphic "God". What is non-anthropomorphic today could well be anthropomorphic tomorrow!

Why should we limit ourselves to today's knowledge and enlightenment?

We should limit our beliefs to the rational/reasoned/demonstrable, because it's the best way of ensuring a person holds the most true beliefs and rejects the most false beliefs. It's not a perfect tool (science), but it is self correcting.

Do you not see how the fundamental theist and atheist are now one and the same? Along the entire spectra? They both have a common heritage and fundamental (base) belief system.

I see what you're attempting to explain, it's just not convincing. You are still attempting to boil two terms which are diametrically opposed, down to the same thing. A point that is fundamentally flawed based on the plethora of information we've provided you, e.g. atheism, agnosticism, the difference between knowledge claims and beliefs, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Do you not see how only gnostic atheists hold a belief structure regarding a deity?

This thread has actually been a great social experiment: can you not see how the athiest turns on the theist in exactly the same way - with exactly the same conceptual arguments - as the theist uses to propagate and defend their faith? Whether they actively dismiss the idea of "God" or actively dismiss any other "belief"?

Again, you're completely incorrect. This is getting tiresome explaining the same thing over and over again. A theist holds a belief in god, that is they accept the statement 'god exists' on faith, and formulate a belief based on the faith that god exists. An atheist rejects the statement that 'god exists' but doesn't necessarily believe that god 'doesn't exist'. Any agnostic atheist could be easily converted to theism provided that the burden of proof is filled.

Look around you. "Circle jerk" may be a crude term, but with yourself being somewhat the exemption - and maybe even their "Messiah" (The Glacier) - they are each as dogmatically adhered to their conditioned ideas as the next. They read, therefore they think. Should it not be the other way around? Do I sound condescending? Because, you know, trying to explain the same ideas (and they are only my ideas) in the context of average prejudice (closed-mindeness and baseless assumptions) will do that. It does not matter whether they believe in "God" or not - they are still quick to pillory.

It doesn't even surpise me how quickly it happens any more.

Dogma implies an unchanging set of values that are not evidence based, and do not require the burden of proof to be filled. Simply because someone doesn't have a belief in god, it does not follow that they are dogmatic with regards to how or why they rejected the claim that 'god exists'. Why would it? You are making a ton of unsubstantiated assumptions.

 

[Prawn Connery]

But nothing and something aren't the same thing, and that's demonstrable, so what's your point?

I'm only going to answer this one because I'm high as fuck again:

You show me nothing - you "demonstrate" nothing - and then I'll believe you that they aren't the same thing. It's not demonstrable, because you really don't know what "nothing" is. You have never sensed it and never will. No human ever will while they exist. You can only conceptualise abstractly what you think it is based on your human experience - and that doesn't include "nothing" while you're here.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Oh, and God's not a deity. It's a concept. That's where those who "have no belief" can't cop out. You do. Accept it. Whether it's your belief in science or reality or your own existential existence, you believe, therefor you are, therefor non-belief is an active form. You can't say: "Oh, I have no beliefs." No-one has no beliefs. You have to believe in what you are reading and writing right now to continue to act. And if you don't, then you have to believe in the idea behind the action to commit it. Otherwise you won't. Because you have made a conscious decision not to.

 

[eye exaggerate]

^

(2 posts up)

................

 

[Prawn Connery]

Yeah, I lied.

 

[eye exaggerate]

There is a conceptualized 'nothing' between matter and consciousness. I think that's about as close as it gets for the human slice of awareness.