Allah and the Universe

[Mole]

You spelled "honor" wrong.

Good English is based on the history of the word. 'Honour' comes from the French and is spelt '- our'. The American English of the revolutionary and lexicographer Noah Webster is a bastard form of English.

Like all rvolutionaries Webster tried to take English back to Year Zero.

So why not abandon your bastard English and start to speak the Queen's English?

 

[Mole]

Who is "they" and "we"? When does the mowing commence?[/QUOTE]

Islamic mass murder in our streets in the name of Allah by driving trucks into pedestrians has begun in Europe. and Australia.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Good English is based on the history of the word. 'Honour' comes from the French and is spelt '- our'. The American English of the revolutionary and lexicographer Noah Webster is a bastard form of English.

Like all rvolutionaries Webster tried to take English back to Year Zero.

So why not abandon your bastard English and start to speak the Queen's English?

I know. That was the joke.

 

[Norexan]

What if I told you about Devil who creates this universe and life within it?

 

[Warrior]

The Ottoman Empire known as the Caliphate surrendered to General Harry Chauvel of the Australian Light Horse in Damascus in 1918.

You dismiss my evidence with useless drivel which we already know. *yawn* This makes you truly heedless and corrupt. EDIT: and a troll, no doubt.

 

[Mole]

You dismiss my evidence with useless drivel which we already know. *yawn* This makes you truly heedless and corrupt. EDIT: and a troll, no doubt.

When you personally insult me, you reveal more about yourself and your beliefs than about me.

 

[Mole]

What if I told you about Devil who creates this universe and life within it?

Satan tells us that he would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. Here we see he is consumed with narcissism, he wants to be admired, and when he is not admired, he turns nasty.

If you wish to suspend your disbelief, and believe the Devil created the universe and life within it, it would be interesting to see to which imaginative fields such a belief would take you.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

What if I told you about Devil who creates this universe and life within it?

Gnostic heresy is making a comeback, I hear. This view of a Demiurge isn’t so unique.

 

[nor]

Lack of belief in God: élleipsi pístis ston Theó
vs.
Lack of God: élleipsi theoú

The Lack of Belief atheism is a relatively new "definition" introduced by Antony Flew in the 70's
Atheists vs Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy << Last Eden

And what is theism? What is the rejection of a theistic argument (if not theism, in itself)?

If humans — and thereby theism — ceased to exist, would god vanish, too?

The expression of a thing's non-existence is predicated upon the articulation of a lack of belief in that thing, *made meaningful by its contrast with belief*, such that due to absence of evidence, there exists no rational reason to believe in or accept a claim or argument. Thus, the rejection of theism, if propped upon rational reasoning, must mean that the concept discussed is false, meaning that "god doesn't exist" corresponds with "the god concept is false". No "knowledge" involved — the conflation hopefully eradicated, by now.

I do not immediately see how "new" is relevant to "correct"; again, you're conflating.

re-brand “atheism” as a default position.

A thing's non-existence (belief) can't be substantiated by a position insofar as there's nothing to substantiate; there is no "stance". Unless you can resolve the issue of how a non-thing can "be" a thing, as intimated by you, your links remain predicated upon the eschewal of veracity.

--

The point you're raising seems to be a bout the prevalance of the monotheistic version of god, since it is one that dominates the discourse in our society. It's a worthy point, I'll get to it below.

No; I was making the point that an "atheist lifestyle" is not a coherent thing. Going back to my question about whether a person who has neither heard nor thought of god is an atheist, I believe we may extend this to the unimaginable number of thoughts and claims to be had or made — would it be fair to say that we live the equivalent of "atheist lifestyles" with regards to those? A lifestyle may be defined by what it comprises rather than what it does not; again, that pesky conflation between a position and the lack of one.

Only if he is apprehinsible through reason. Something like Aquinas's version of a "prime motor" which was necessary for the universe to be created, could make sense to me though I have no knowledge of whether or not such a prime motor is necessary for the universe to exist, or if the universe simply has always existed and is simply going trough cycles that repeat. Or something else. This is why the question of whether the monotheistic version of god exists makes a bit more sense than asking why Zeus does, because monotheistic theology actually refers to philosophy and thus to reason.

Aquinas' wielding of reason is flimsy at best; if an entity may be apprehended by reason, and reason has thus far proven ineffective at ascertaining its existence (according to who's being examined (atheists)), what's the next reasonable step?

What are you tring to "prove" to me with these questions anyways? Just curious.

Working toward a better model (without articulating whether or not I believe, again).

--

Islamic mass murder in our streets in the name of Allah by driving trucks into pedestrians has begun in Europe. and Australia.

Talk about the generalization of generic blah blahs to be hypocritically espoused in the name of a "better world"; weaseling words to aid the weasel.

And that's true genius.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

And what is theism? What is the rejection of a theistic argument (if not theism, in itself)?

Theism: Concepts of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Atheism: Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If humans — and thereby theism — ceased to exist, would god vanish, too?

I don't believe so.

The expression of a thing's non-existence is predicated upon the articulation of a lack of belief in that thing, *made meaningful by its contrast with belief*, such that 1. due to absence of evidence,

2. there exists no rational reason to believe in or accept a claim or argument.

1. Incorrect. Theists present evidence/arguments. Atheists reject the evidence/arguments. Unless the claim is now: "Atheists lack the belief in the evidence presented by theists."

2. Apparently, there are plenty of rational reasons to be a theist: Intelligent, philosophical, creationist, whatever. Atheists, being the oppressed minority they are, simply reject these rational reasons for their own rational reasons.

Thus, the 1. rejection of theism, if propped upon 2. rational reasoning, must mean that the concept discussed is false, meaning that "god doesn't exist" corresponds with "the god concept is false". No "knowledge" involved — the conflation hopefully eradicated, by now.

1. Thank you.

2. Rational reasoning is obviously predicated on the theist or atheist, not all theists/atheists[SUP]TM[/SUP] are theists/atheists for the same reasons. Hence the need to either accept or reject the various theistic/atheistic claims, which is why a dog can't be theist/atheist because it requires rational reasoning to do so. Unless, you want to claim that dogs are atheist for lacking a belief in Dog.

I reject the existence of a Multiverse. I can't be said to lack a belief in a multiverse because I've already been introduced to the concept. I can reject the rational reasoning for it, instead of retreating to philosophical cowardice of the word "Belief."

I do not immediately see how "new" is relevant to "correct"; again, you're conflating.

Not if you ask the philosophical atheists who reject Flew's definition (as opposed to lacking the belief in Flew's definition ). Sounds like an older atheist schism revitalized.

A thing's non-existence (belief) can't be substantiated by a position insofar as there's nothing to substantiate; there is no "stance". Unless you can resolve the issue of how a non-thing can "be" a thing, as intimated by you, your links remain predicated upon the eschewal of veracity.

Atheists need to figure this out on their own.

 

[nor]

1. Incorrect. Theists present evidence/arguments. Atheists reject the evidence/arguments. Unless the claim is now: "Atheists lack the belief in the evidence presented by theists.

Arguments, unless valid, aren't evidence of anything but perhaps ineptitude, in certain cases.

2. Apparently, there are plenty of rational reasons to be a theist: Intelligent, philosophical, creationist, whatever. Atheists, being the oppressed minority they are, simply reject these rational reasons for their own rational reasons.

From an atheist's perspective (made clear to appeal to your sentiment), if the theistic argument is invalid, accepting it regarldess is patently irrational — is that not the case?

2. Rational reasoning is obviously predicated on the theist or atheist, not all theists/atheistsTM are theists/atheists for the same reasons.

All theists are theists because they believe in god's existence; all atheists are atheists because they lack belief god's existence/reject theistic arguments — they are labeled as such for a reason. A shared one, necessarily.

Hence the need to either accept or reject the various theistic/atheistic claims, which is why a dog can't be theist/atheist because it requires rational reasoning to do so. Unless, you want to claim that dogs are atheist for lacking a belief in Dog.

If an individual doesn't believe in god, having never thought/heard of the concept, they're atheists by default; that's logic. Therefore atheism needn't require any "claims", as I've said.

To reject an argument, though, is to employ reasoning (rational, if that rejection is such) to arrive at a conclusion: the argument's falsity. Again, no knowledge necessarily required, as I illustrated in my previous post (its point obviously missed).

I reject the existence of a Multiverse. I can't be said to lack a belief in a multiverse because I've already been introduced to the concept. I can reject the rational reasoning for it, instead of retreating to philosophical cowardice of the word "Belief."

So knowledge of the existence of the concept of a multiverse fundamentally obviates one from lacking belief in a multiverse's existence? Seriously?

Okay; so do you lack belief in the existence of shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts? You've been introduced to the concept, so tread lightly around the possibility of the acceptance of the craven.

Atheists need to figure this out on their own.

Both atheists and theists have "figured it out" — your turn.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Arguments, unless valid, aren't evidence of anything but perhaps ineptitude, in certain cases.

So, you reject the arguments. That's fine...and honest.

From an atheist's perspective (made clear to appeal to your sentiment), if the theistic argument is invalid, accepting it regarldess is patently irrational — is that not the case?

Correct.

All theists are theists because they believe in god's existence; all atheists are atheists because they lack belief god's existence/reject theistic arguments — they are labeled as such for a reason. A shared one, necessarily.

Correct. One caveat is that all theists/atheists come to believe/deny [in] God's existence through through different means. A philosophical atheist might reject the arguments for theism, while a materialist will reject God's existence lacking any material evidence, some atheist simply lack a belief in God because they've had a lobotomy, and so on. Same with theists. It's dishonest to categorize every theist/atheist into some amorphous, singular, entity. That is to deny their humanity, and I believe you are human (even if you are atheist ).

If an individual doesn't believe in god, having never thought/heard of the concept, they're atheists by default; that's logic.

Yes.

Therefore atheism needn't require any "claims", as I've said.

Not necessarily. Let's say the atheist in your example encounters a theist. The inevitable happens (you know...God). Is that atheist still an atheist since he no longer lacks a belief in God. Or is he atheist because he rejects the theists claims?

To reject an argument, though, is to employ reasoning (rational, if that rejection is such) to arrive at a conclusion: the argument's falsity. Again, no knowledge necessarily required, as I illustrated in my previous post (its point obviously missed).

First, try being civil. Second, you're correct.

So knowledge of the existence of the concept of a multiverse fundamentally obviates one from lacking belief in a multiverse's existence?

Yes.

Seriously?

Double yes. Because I'm no longer lacking in the belief in a multiverse. The concept is now in my head. The next step is either to accept or reject or mull it over.

Okay; so do you lack belief in the existence of shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts?

As ridiculous as it sounds, not anymore. Matter of fact, I'm trying to imagine such a thing. What would one look like?

You've been introduced to the concept, so tread lightly around the possibility of the acceptance of the craven.

As hilarious as it would be to see, I reject your claim.

Both atheists and theists have "figured it out" — your turn.

Figured out the Flew definition of atheism?

 

[Norexan]

Gnostic heresy is making a comeback, I hear. This view of a Demiurge isn’t so unique.

Neither is Allah. He is stolen from Bible and Yahweh is stolen from Semitic mythology. El Elohim Ellah Allah

What if I told you that same pseudo-god God El has a son Baal, god of thunder who was cast from heaven and become god of evil...

What if I told that same God in early Judaism has a Wife?

What if I told you that cube in Mecca is symbol of Saturn/Cronus, god who devour his children...Jupiter/Zeus god of thunder...

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Neither of Allah. He is stolen from Bible and Yahweh is stolen from Semitic mythology.

What if I told you that same pseudo-god God El has a son Baal, god of thunder who was cast from heaven and become god of evil...

What if I told that same God in early Judaism has a Wife?

Yes, I know. The History of God by Karen Armstrong. It's all in there.

Yes, Asherah who is also the sister Baal? I don't remember.

 

[Norexan]

Do you realize Judaeo-Christian god is a deity with pagan origin?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Do you realize Judaeo-Christian god is a deity with pagan origin?

Yes.

 

[nor]

Correct. One caveat is that all theists/atheists come to believe/deny [in] God's existence through through different means. A philosophical atheist might reject the arguments for theism, while a materialist will reject God's existence lacking any material evidence, some atheist simply lack a belief in God because they've had a lobotomy, and so on. Same with theists. It's dishonest to categorize every theist/atheist into some amorphous, singular, entity. That is to deny their humanity, and I believe you are human

It's dishonest to, say, group theists together based on their theism? Again, seriously?

And to recognize the necessary (for the nomenclature to make any sense) commonality is to "group into some amorphous, singular entity", which is dehumanizing. Got it.

(even if you are atheist ).

When did I say that?

Not necessarily. Let's say the atheist in your example encounters a theist. The inevitable happens (you know...God). Is that atheist still an atheist since he no longer lacks a belief in God. Or is he atheist because he rejects the theists claims?

What claims? Do you not reject arguments in favor of Ra's existence? Does that make you an atheist?

If there was no change post encounter, the atheist remains an atheist.

First, try being civil.

I'm trying; where did I fail?

Figured out the Flew definition of atheism?

No; figure out:

the issue of how a non-thing can "be" a thing, as intimated by you

--

Double yes. Because I'm no longer lacking in the belief in a multiverse. The concept is now in my head. The next step is either to accept or reject or mull it over.

If you don't lack belief, you've belief; belief in the existence of a multiverse. So:

As ridiculous as it sounds, not anymore.

You believe in shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts.

Brilliant.

 

[Norexan]

Yes.

So you secretly recognize one pseudo-god among many..
Do you realize Hinduist have same beliefs?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It's dishonest to, say, group theists together based on their theism? Again, seriously?

And to recognize the necessary (for the nomenclature to make any sense) commonality is to "group into some amorphous, singular entity", which is dehumanizing. Got it.

Well, yeah. Are all Asians good at math? Do all dogs bite strangers? Are all atheists angry? Are all west Africans fast runners?

When did I say that?

I inferred it. Am I wrong? Please correct my assumption, then.

What claims? Do you not reject arguments in favor of Ra's existence? Does that make you an atheist?

Any claims in general. It's a basic example. Details aren't really needed, but let's just say the theist in the example is a Ra-ist.

Did you know that the Romans considered Christians atheists for disbelieving in their gods? So, yeah it would technically make me atheist to Ra, but I don't identify as that since it would be a negative belief, and I believe in one more God that you don't, as Saint Dawkins would say.

If there was no change post encounter, the atheist remains an atheist.

Agreed.

I'm trying; where did I fail?

Would you describe yourself as a humble person or have you figured it(life) all out?

If you don't lack belief, you've belief; belief in the existence of a multiverse. So:

You believe in shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts.

Brilliant.

I believe the concept of the multiverse exists. Yes. However, I reject the claim that it exists, physically. Same with your example of S-flinging Venusian spacecrafts. The idea now exists, I believe that, however you haven't presented any arguments for them, so I reject the claim.

You reject the idea of God.

Your problem may be conflating ideas with the physical universe. Is God a physical entity to you?

- - - Updated - - -

So you secretly recognize one pseudo-god among many..
Do you realize Hinduist have same beliefs?

Yes. Was it Brahmin, Shiva, and Vishnu? Something like that.

 

[Norexan]

Yes. Was it Brahmin, Shiva, and Vishnu? Something like that.

And you still don't consider how wrong is your beliefs...
Why do you warship god who demand slavery and forbids freedom?
Why do you warship god who punish people in sadistic ways....
Why do you warship a god who demand justice of fire and blood to bring peace?
Why do you warship a god when there is no omnipotence in his acts?
Why do you warship a god who don't have a knowledge of his creation called humans - our flows
Why do you warship a god who punish humans because of HIS flows?
Why do you warship a god when there is clear that we are made TO SERVE as his slaves and toys like literately.
Why don't you recognize the limits of his power as any low deities on Earth?
Who else need this deity when we can see he is oblivious a lier, spoils child and butcher.

THE DEVIL HIMSELF. :backout: