DEFINING Atheism.

[AlAyeti]

Is it not fair to say that atheism thought of in terms of mathematics is:

0 x 1 = trillions x trillions x trilloins x trillions?

Something from nothing.

The zero, denoting nothing, and the one, being the person who states they are an "Atheist."

Where did the individual believer come from?

[The Happy Humanist]

That's a very good point, and one that often gets lost. Christians expound at length on the importance of faith, and rejecting "worldly wisdom" in favor of spiritual wisdom...until it comes to Origins and Creationism. Then they seem to want to play in the scientist's sandbox. And of course once they get into it, they want to change the rules.

Not all Christians.

Absolutely. I stand corrected and apologize for the generalization.

[Curious]

Absolutely. I stand corrected and apologize for the generalization.

But I can definitely see your point

[Cephus]

Thank you for that distinction. The atheist I was thinking of actively denies the existence of God so the only assertion s/he makes is that This concept of God you have? It's wrong. Therefore anything said about that God or what that God does is wrong.

Certainly there are many concepts of God that are clearly wrong in that they are self-contradictory, inconsistent or just plain ridiculous and there's nothing wrong with saying so. Unfortunately, there are also Christians who insist that those particular concepts of God are the "one true" concept and won't change their minds regardless of the evidence.

Also unfortunate for fundamentalist Christians, one of the most clearly false concepts of God is the "creator of the universe in 6 literal days" idea.

[Cathar1950]

ST88 wrote:

So, the answer to your question is: Yes, it's not fair.

I would like to add that it dosn't even make sense.(his question not ST88)
It would seem that the argument from mathmatics concerning mathmatics
suffers largely from the limits of mathmatics. Godel has shown that mathmatics is a human construct. God by definition(western) is infinate and beyond the universe, unmoved mover(a platonic ideal i belive and not very biblical. Is supose to be captured in a mathmatical formula? Worse yet an antithesis (Non-God)?
I have to agree with ST88. It seems that if we use AlAyeti logic and example,

Whether or not we call the first thing a one or a zero, there had to be something, a one, or there was something, a zero, that was the place that it all "started."

It seems by his logic he is calling God nothing.
Both theist and atheist would have to say the universe is 1 if we have a singularity. But Random does not mean accident. It is a statistical function relating to probability, or is it the other way around? Well something like that .
AlAyeti wrote:

Atheists do not believe that "all" just happened by some kind of an accident? Random means accident. No god means accident

If it attempts to do so, it proves that the equation, is really illogical as the brain being used is an origin.

Yes it is Illogical so why did you use it?

AlAyeti wrote:

The pre-universe condition was "the Word." I am not "assuming" that an intelligence started the universe, because of the order I see all around. And what I can deduce from what I can observe

Here we have what what he means to say the rest is games and a few strawmen that have had the straw beat out of them.
His aim is promoting his conception of the "Word" which he equates to Jesus. This stems from a misreading of Proverbs 8 where it is talking about wisdom a concept more related to the Egyptian "Ma’at". and is feminine in nature as an attribute of God created by God.
Of course the Christology of "John" is being projected onto the passage in disregard to the context.

Religious conservatives frequently concentrate on the Gospel of John, because: It emphasizes Jesus' deity,
It is the basis of many of the historical, fundamental Christian beliefs, and
It bases individual salvation on faith rather than works.

(www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm)

Now if he did by some act of God prove God exsistence(sounds like something from Dr. Who) this would not prove or indicate that it is the same Being, Mover, what ever that he belives in is behind it all.
It could be a turtle as some people believed.
Cephus wrote:

He's defined atheism falsely and when he's corrected on his strawman, he simply declares you not to be an atheist because you're not what he wants you to be and then declares personal victory because nobody can defend his ridiculous 'atheist' idea.

You think? Seems obvious to me.

AlAyeti wrote:

Mathematics proves water. One plus two. And within the "one" and the "two's" (which are actually two one's) are even further mathematically observable processes.

Then you logically arrive at "something," in fact "all things," from nothing if you deny the complex nature of our observable environment, just happening by random chance. (Which may or may not be a strawman of an Atheist.)

Even evolution does not discard the abilty of the question of pre-creation being a personal thing.

Does Atheism then find a better definition in "I don't care." Since, Atheists will not build an observable or defined strawman.

Can an Atheist believe in anything then

What are you talking about?

ST88 wrote:

So you see desperation as the proof of God? Or is that that you see desperation in the attempts to prove God?

I think the latter but the first almost makes sense in some twisted manner.

bernee51 wrote:

For the nth time...atheism is a non-belief in god(s).

Atheism per se says nothing about origins - other than (by default) a non--belief in a deistic origin.

The Jews and early Christians were called Atheist too. Because they didn't burn stuff to the Gods. But the Jews and Christians were the first to call people in there group satan now I think it is reserved for Humanist and evolutionist.

ST88 wrote:

The only thing Atheism states about the beginning of this universe is that there were no gods or religious incidents which allowed the universe to come into being. Everything else is on the table. That fact that there may be Atheists who don't know for sure how it came into being does not imply that this knowledge vacuum should be filled by any god or any religious interpretation of events.

Amen!

AlAyeti wrote:

Entropy shows this very presentation. Multiplication in reverse so to speak.

But all things divide when growing. That makes the assumption part come into play. I'll give you that. But conception by the very word carries with it order and reason. That multiplication happens after conception is also observable.

Not all things divide when growing. Entropy is not contradicted, space although expanding is still the same, volume and density have been exchanged. As long as there is greater energy and less energy and it all adds up to 1 stuff can happen with out breaking the second law of thermodinamics.

Cephus wrote:

Certainly there are many concepts of God that are clearly wrong in that they are self-contradictory, inconsistent or just plain ridiculous and there's nothing wrong with saying so. Unfortunately, there are also Christians who insist that those particular concepts of God are the "one true" concept and won't change their minds regardless of the evidence.
Also unfortunate for fundamentalist Christians, one of the most clearly false concepts of God is the "creator of the universe in 6 literal days" idea

There is this story about a guy who thought he was dead. His whole family and friends were trying to persuade him that he was in error. They took him to a Dr.(MD). The Dr. ask him a question. Do dead men bleed? He responded "of course not" The doctor cut him and the guy yelled "Oh my! Dead men do bleed" Now if it was fundamentalist Christian or Evangelical that belives in the infallible inerrant scriptures he would say "I'm not bleeding"
I am not an atheist or an agnostic(I do know some stuff just not everything) But I am not a Christian in the traditional doctrine I tend to take a more Jewish stance. But I am not a traditionalist Jew either the OT has it flaws and can hardly be called coherent.
I might be a radical empireist of sorts.
I like the idea that the concept of God should extend out reach so I might be a humanist.
What I don't like is when someones ideas are foisted off on us as absolute truth even if it is call scripture.

[Note: this post was edited by a Moderator at the request of the poster]

[Cathar1950]

Sorry I got my Quotes and Codes mixed up
I didnt mean to miss quote you Cephus or me.
I tried to fix it and made it worse. I think I have one to many {quotes} or one to few.

[AlAyeti]

Quote: "Thank you for that distinction. The atheist I was thinking of actively denies the existence of God so the only assertion s/he makes is that This concept of God you have? It's wrong. Therefore anything said about that God or what that God does is wrong."

/ / /

This is semantics. God or not? There was a "starter" to everything or not. The label we hang on the "starter" is fair game. Anyone can call the "starter" whatever they want. It seems that only the Christian label is denigrated so actively.

Quote: "Certainly there are many concepts of God that are clearly wrong in that they are self-contradictory, inconsistent or just plain ridiculous and there's nothing wrong with saying so. Unfortunately, there are also Christians who insist that those particular concepts of God are the "one true" concept and won't change their minds regardless of the evidence.
Also unfortunate for fundamentalist Christians, one of the most clearly false concepts of God is the "creator of the universe in 6 literal days" idea."

/ / /

Note the Christian slight?

Atheist and "freethinkers" seem even more stuck in a rut.

Why can't an all powerful God do anything in six days? Are we not examining the evidence still? Many have come to conclusions, fair enough, but why do creationist with degrees get denigrated and atheists who don't know what went on, get all of the good collge jobs. This is like Dawkins' view of the news of the Resurrection taking "time" to circulate the universe. Very, very, ignorant perspective. Yet he is held in high regard. If Jesus is God (yeah, yeah, relax) and the Creator in concert with the other aspects of the Trinity, then, the Universe knew everything "now" everywhere. Why impose non-Christian thinking to Christian views?

Quote: "Here we have what what he means to say the rest is games and a few strawmen that have had the straw beat out of them.
His aim is promoting his conception of the "Word" which he equates to Jesus. This stems from a misreading of Proverbs 8 where it is talking about wisdom a concept more related to the Egyptian "Ma’at". and is feminine in nature as an attribute of God created by God.
Of course the Christology of "John" is being projected onto the passage in disregard to the context."

/ / /

John is equating Jesus with Logos. I am only agreeing he was right. I also have no problem with a femine aspect to my Christian deity. The Trinity makes sense to me in this light. 1x 1 x 1 = 1.

"Logos" is a Greek concept possibly defined from whatever the Egyptians may have believed, understood by theinking Greeks. That gives a certain amount of credence to the usage in John, as to what he was saying about Jesus. It is fair for Christians to claim that their Deity is the Almighty, which is a good indication that Jesus is thought of as God by Christians. That is why it came down in John they way it did. It really doesn't matter which great thinkers of the past helped the author of the Gospel of John. I support the belief in a "starter."

I am (now) a Christian and do not hide the fact. I am playing no games and I am not an Evangelist I can assure you. I can't remember what I believed in when I was an Atheist, I just knew it wasn't Jesus and Christiannny stuff. That seems to also still dominate Atheists rebuttal.

To me, Atheism seems unable to define itself, if I am to use the Atheist responses here. If there is no starter, there is no us. Semantics cannot hide that. Then the equation of 0 x 1, IS accurate. And like one post says, that is absurd. Than there is a starter, and Atheists are saying that. Then, also, they are wrong that "it" is not Jesus.

It seems Atheism is indeed Agnosticism in definition, as it appears, "we really don't know," is quite the common foundation.

"Maybe" I was wrong (though "probably not) about only one thing. Atheists do believe in "something" before "it" all got started.

1.

And I believe in 1 x 1 x 1

1.

Thank you all for a (mostly) respectful debate on this.

[AlAyeti]

hamilrob: "How did you rise to the level of scholar posing totally illogical questions like that? Zero times anything is zero. Are you defining an atheist as an idiot? I'm not attacking, just having trouble with this one. Help me out."

/ / /

I've been gone for a couple of days. But your post had me laughing. If I answer it honestly, then I violate a TOS.

I believe that Richard Dawkins the holy prophet of atheism himself refered to atheists as "zeroists."

I just agree with him on that. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[starseyer]

This is semantics. God or not? There was a "starter" to everything or not. The label we hang on the "starter" is fair game. Anyone can call the "starter" whatever they want. It seems that only the Christian label is denigrated so actively.

Is saying that one thinks Christians are wrong denegrating the Christian label? You should expect that in a debate forum.

As to the sematics, how is the claim that is your concept of God cannot exist then whatever you say about him is wrong merely semantic? Unless you are claiming that your claims are about a fictional creature (which I seriously doubt).

The label we hang on the "starter" is fair game.

Not when you hang a label on it that connotates lots of qualities that have nothing whatsoever to do with the starting of the universe.

Quote: "Certainly there are many concepts of God that are clearly wrong in that they are self-contradictory, inconsistent or just plain ridiculous and there's nothing wrong with saying so. Unfortunately, there are also Christians who insist that those particular concepts of God are the "one true" concept and won't change their minds regardless of the evidence.
Also unfortunate for fundamentalist Christians, one of the most clearly false concepts of God is the "creator of the universe in 6 literal days" idea."

/ / /

Note the Christian slight?

Atheist and "freethinkers" seem even more stuck in a rut.

Why can't an all powerful God do anything in six days?

An all powerful God can do anything he chooses . . . if he exists. He could even forgive sins without requiring blood . . .but that is a topic for another thread.

And I believe in 1 x 1 x 1.

You believe in that simple equation because it happen to parallel the trinity. Do you honestly think that a supernatural God that defies human reason is going to be explained by simple mathmatics? Even a little bit? I see a bad analogy.

[The Happy Humanist]

This is semantics. God or not? There was a "starter" to everything or not. The label we hang on the "starter" is fair game. Anyone can call the "starter" whatever they want. It seems that only the Christian label is denigrated so actively.

You want to call the starter "God." This implies that the starter had to be intelligent. I claim that that is an unnecessary inference. That's all. Now, if you want to redefine "God" as simply a Prime Mover, an Uncaused Cause, without necessarily imputing intelligence to it, that's fine. Then I can accept your premise. Call it what you want. But the word "God" currently implies will, and therein lies the problem. The creation of the universe was not necessarily a willful act. It has nothing to do with denigrating Christians (proof: Jews also believe that the Abrahamic God created the universe. QED. (No, not YOU, QED, I mean, the latin phrase!))

Also unfortunate for fundamentalist Christians, one of the most clearly false concepts of God is the "creator of the universe in 6 literal days" idea."

Note the Christian slight?

Don't get all sensitive on us. It is the Christian Fundamentalists, and no one else, who are pushing for this view to be taught in public schools. It is therefore proper to single out this group for criticism. Very few Jewish fundamentalists have joined this battle.

Why can't an all powerful God do anything in six days?

Of course he can! He can do it in six seconds! And he could have done it yesterday, and fooled us into thinking we've been around for millions of years. He can do anything! Anything is possible! You might not actually exist! The moon might be made of peanut butter! "God", as conceptualized, can do anything! The question is, with all these possibilities, how can we possibly function? How can we get anything done, if everything we see might be an illusion? The answer is that we are best served by treating existence as if what we observe to be real, really is real, until such time as something more real comes along. I submit that you yourself do that every day. That's just what we're doing, when we say, hmmm...fossil record sorted by geostratigraphy? or God told Noah to go build an arky-arky....We'll go with the fossil record for now.

It seems Atheism is indeed Agnosticism in definition, as it appears, "we really don't know," is quite the common foundation.

Don't get hung up on definitions. I call myself a non-theist, meaning simply that I am not a theist, I don't believe in what you believe in. It matters not whether I am certain that God doesn't exist or just awfully confident. "We really don't know" doesn't mean we're sitting on the fence or wondering seriously about it. And it doesn't make both propositions ("exists" vs. "doesn't exist") equally valid.

[bernee51]

This is semantics. God or not? There was a "starter" to everything or not.

Seeing it is impossible to know and there is no evidence that was a 'starter' - I'm saying 'not'.

No labels required.

It seems that only the Christian label is denigrated so actively.

If I was 'debating' with a Muslim the Muslim 'starter' label would be treated in the same way.

Note the Christian slight?

Your persecutuon complex is showing again.

We are having this 'discussion' with you, a christian fundamentalist, no point in making comments about Islam is there?

Atheist and "freethinkers" seem even more stuck in a rut.

Yet another case of pots and kettles

Why can't an all powerful God do anything in six days?

If he is all powerful he could have done it with the click of his fingers - why fool around for six days?

Are we not examining the evidence still?

What evidence? Of the six days? The fact that the univese exists?

... but why do creationist with degrees get denigrated and atheists who don't know what went on, get all of the good collge jobs.

AAwww, those sour grapes will make your face screw up.

This is your say so again...your usual unsupported opinion.

"Logos" is a Greek concept possibly defined from whatever the Egyptians may have believed, understood by theinking Greeks. That gives a certain amount of credence to the usage in John, as to what he was saying about Jesus.

Credence to the concept and the myth..but hardly original. Then he was writing for the poor and oppressed (and usually uneducated). They would most likely not be aware of the history of the concept and would take it as 'gospel'...just like you.

To me, Atheism seems unable to define itself, if I am to use the Atheist responses here.

Atheism has been defined very well on this board. viz. a non-belief in god(s). What is your problem?

If there is no starter, there is no us.

You keep saying this but is not a fact.

Why do you seem to have no other option than a 'starter'.

And if so - who started the 'starter'?

It seems Atheism is indeed Agnosticism in definition, as it appears, "we really don't know," is quite the common foundation.

The "really don't know" (in my case) is about the origins, if any, of the universe.

In terms of your god...I really do know. He is non existent. It is a myth. It is a logical impossibility - like a married bachelor.

That should clear up the claims of agnosticism