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^TM 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.