Atheism is not a default position

[Bunyip]

If you feel I have ignored you check again.

No thanks, I'll just wait until you respond to those earlier explanations.

On your second note, what traits are contradictory?

Well I can only go by specific descriptions - but WL Craig and many modern Christian apologists describe Yahweh as immaterial, timeless and external to the universe.
Which would actually work quite well as a definition for: Non-existent.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You used the word modern and you implied it was some innovation or new rhetorical trick, despite the fact that Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and all the Fathers, Schoolmen, and great divines of all the traditional Churches - Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist - have taught thus. It is, in fact, theistic personalism, or the belief that God is a being and a person much like us, but simply invisible and with a lot more power, that is the new and minor position.

Of course you also made an idiotic and question begging characterisation of such an entity as non-existent.

 

[Bunyip]

You used the word modern and you implied it was some innovation or new rhetorical trick, despite the fact that Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and all the Fathers, Schoolmen, and great divines of all the traditional Churches - Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist - have taught thus. It is, in fact, theistic personalism, or the belief that God is a being and a person much like us, but simply invisible and with a lot more power, that is the new and minor position.

Of course you also made an idiotic and question begging characterisation of such an entity as non-existent.

Actually I just quoted WL Craig. Not sure what you are taking issue with, I didn't infer anything. I just quoted a popular apologist and briefly outlined my objection.

You are clearly very cross, and very, very rude - but I'm afraid you are not raising an objection that I can engage with. So ok Jeremy, I am a troll, a fool and now an idiot. But what have I done wrong here? Only address a single description?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Actually I just quoted WL Craig. Not sure what you are taking issue with, I didn't infer anything. I just quoted a popular apologist and briefly outlined my objection.

You are clearly very cross, and very, very rude - but I'm afraid you are not raising an objection that I can engage with. So ok Jeremy, I am a troll, a fool and now an idiot. But what have I done wrong here? Only address a single description?

Perhaps I misread your post, but I took you to be implying that the position that God is immaterial, etc., is a new position of modern apologists like WL Craig (actually, Craig is not a Classical Theism - his God is somewhere between that of Classical Theism and Theist Personalism, if I recall). Perhaps I misread you here - or at least read more into your comments that they will support (I am not completely certain you did realise this was the classical theist position, but your comments aren't enough to support my supposition), so I apologise.

I am rude to you because I think you deserve it. I see you constantly attacking the religious and yet there is very little substance in your posts. Indeed, in our interactions you have shown yourself unable to follow basic arguments. I think, indeed, it will serve you well to be rudely reminded you are not more knowledgeable than many believers on these maters.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps I misread your post, but I took you to be implying that the position that God is immaterial, etc., is a new position of modern apologists like WL Craig (actually, Craig is not a Classical Theism - his God is somewhere between that of Classical Theism and Theist Personalism, if I recall). Perhaps I misread you here - or at least read more into your comments that they will support (I am not completely certain you did realise this was the classical theist position, but your comments aren't enough to support my supposition), so I apologise.

Thankyou Jeremy. Would be please be so kind as to take a further step and edit from your previous comments the insults you leveraged upon the misconception you are apologising for?

I am rude to you because I think you deserve it. I see you constantly attacking the religious and yet there is very little substance in your posts. Indeed, in our interactions you have shown yourself unable to follow basic arguments. I think, indeed, it will serve you well to be rudely reminded you are not more knowledgeable than many believers on these maters.

Given that you have not identified an example, you leave me nothing to address.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Thankyou Jeremy. Would be please be so kind as to take a further step and edit from your previous comments the insults you leveraged upon the misconception you are apologising for?

Given that you have not identified an example, you leave me nothing to address.

I have engaged in debates with your firsthand to see your sophistry and the lack of substance to your arguments. Are you referring to the fact you look down upon religion and the religious for their beliefs? I suppose I could find examples quick enough, but you know as well I do that this is true.

 

[Bunyip]

I have engaged in debates with your firsthand to see your sophistry and the lack of substance to your arguments. Are you referring to the fact you look down upon religion and the religious for their beliefs? I suppose I could find examples quick enough, but you know as well I do that this is true.

Personal attacks and insults I am not going to return Jeremy. All I can say is that again your assault is misdirected. I don't look down upon religion at all. Sadly for all of all of your ferocity, you are attacking me over a position I do not hold. On the contrary, I am fascinated by religion.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Your unexplained and unsupported comment just above about Craig et al believing God is non-existent because he is not material seems a good enough example. This both dismissive and sophistic and seems to betoken the attitude I refer to.

 

[Curious George]

No thanks, I'll just wait until you respond to those earlier explanations.

Many forms of pantheism, Shinto, Taoism, Confuscianism, many incarnations of Buddism and Hinduism, many forms of paganism, panentheism, deism - just off the top of my head.

The definition that I proposed?

Pretty sure it covers all excepting some pantheism religions wherein most acknowledge for instance the sun exists but disagree that an inanimate objects are gods.

But I am curious as to how it doesn't fit.

How what doesn't fit?

The definition

Which definition? Can you please take the trouble to write a complete sentence?

To the following definition, I am referring:

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

That work for you?

Ask somebody else please.

Pretty sure this is not me ignoring you.

 

[Bunyip]

Pretty sure this is not me ignoring you.

Great. Yes, the deist conceptions of god, along with many others I listed do not fit your description of God. They are not claimed to have control over the universe.

 

[Bunyip]

Your unexplained and unsupported comment just above about Craig et al being God is non-existent because he is not material seems a good enough example. This both dismissive and sophistic and seems to betoken the attitude I refer to.

Just a reality check mate, but you have swung in here making a fuss about how dumb you think I am - but your entire argument against me has been nothing more than calling me names and misreading. Sure, you may think my arguments are poor, but at least I have them. Better my poor arguments than just name calling and misreading.

 

[Curious George]

Great. Yes, the deist conceptions of god, along with many others I listed do not fit your description of God. They are not claimed to have control over the universe.

Deism claims that a god created the universe. This implies degree of control unless cause and effect do not exist. And any being objectively existing would have some degree of control over the universe. Only non-existent entities have no control.

 

[Bunyip]

Deism claims that a god created the universe. This implies degree of control unless cause and effect do not exist. And any being objectively existing would have some degree of control over the universe. Only non-existent entities have no control.

Well you seem certain of that. I am not. It is a pretty big claim.

"Any being objectively existing would have some degree of control over the universe"? I don't really know how you could prove such a claim, or why it would matter.

 

[Curious George]

Well you seem certain of that. I am not. It is a pretty big claim.

"Any being objectively existing would have some degree of control over the universe"? I don't really know how you could prove such a claim, or why it would matter.

I don't need it proven. I just use inductive reasoning. You cannot prove that all life will cease to exist in five minutes, but I would laug at you if you thought it a serious possibility.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Just a reality check mate, but you have swung in here making a fuss about how dumb you think I am - but your entire argument against me has been nothing more than calling me names and misreading. Sure, you may think my arguments are poor, but at least I have them. Better my poor arguments than just name calling and misreading.

And answer came there none. Why would you contemptuously dismiss this point about God being immaterial, seeing as by your own acknowledgement you realise it has been held by the great thinkers of classical theism, if you didn't think little of theism? What other reason, except perhaps sheer ignorance, would make you flippantly equate the immaterial and the non-existent without proper explanation and argument?

 

[Bunyip]

I don't need it proven. I just use inductive reasoning. You cannot prove that all life will cease to exist in five minutes, but I would laug at you if you thought it a serious possibility.

Sure ok. So it is your claim - and you don't feel the need to prove it. So why would I want to even engage on it? What has it got to do with me?

 

[Bunyip]

And answer came there none. Why would you contemptuously dismiss this point about God being immaterial, seeing as by your own acknowledgement you realise it has been held by the great thinkers of classical theism, if you didn't think little of theism? What other reason, except perhaps sheer ignorance, would make you flippantly equate the immaterial and the non-existent without proper explanation and argument?

Jeremy, I didn't dismiss the point about God being immaterial, the definition I referred to had God as immaterial.

 

[Curious George]

Sure ok. So it is your claim - and you don't feel the need to prove it. So why would I want to even engage on it? What has it got to do with me?

Ahh, prove it no. However I would reason it with the assertion that not one intelligent thing that objectively exists does not have a degree of control over the universe.

The counter argument to this would be absolute determinism. But that relies on more unproven assertions. Ironically though, if we are discussing the deists god conception and positing absolute determinism, then the deist god is the only entity with control over the universe. Either way, the deist god falls in line with the definition.

Though there still exists the possibility that one could, sans, determinism come up with an example of some intelligent thing that objectively exists that has zero control over the universe. I will await that "black swan."

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Jeremy, I didn't dismiss the point about God being immaterial, the definition I referred to had God as immaterial.

You said this:

Well I can only go by specific descriptions - but WL Craig and many modern Christian apologists describe Yahweh as immaterial, timeless and external to the universe.
Which would actually work quite well as a definition for: Non-existent.

The only reading I can think of for this is you are dismissing this idea of God as referring to what doesn't exist, or in other words, you are saying immaterial = non-existent.

 

[Copernicus]

They might ultimately lead to confusion or inherent contradiction, but you could only know that if you had an idea of their meaning.

So a child hearing the word ...god....would need explanation...
and until he gets it has only confusion to consider...

That isn't really what I was talking about, Thief. Children aren't very critical thinkers, so they don't have to contend with all of the contradictions inherent in the concept of the Christian god that adults do. If you believe in magic, ghosts, spirits, super powers, and other childhood fantasies, than belief in super-intelligent, super-powerful, immaterial gods isn't much of a barrier to overcome. As one becomes more and more aware of how the world works, it becomes a lot harder to believe in miracles. The cognitive dissonance grows as the mind grows, and it takes a greater effort to reconcile all of those contradictory and confusing differences between imaginary beings and the real ones that we interact with in everyday life. That doesn't mean that one can't overcome the dissonance. You have managed to do that, but I haven't. Nor have other atheists who started out as believers and had to confront the mental corners that they painted themselves into.

Shall we include confused people as part of the group?.....atheist...

Why, no. Atheists are never confused about anything. They are superior in every respect to theists.