The Folly of Atheism

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm happy to be the scapegoat for your hostility toward God.. i do hope you work that out, though.. good luck..

It's not my god, you silly person. I do not have a god. The god you are "scapegoating" for? Is all YOU.

People create gods in their own image, it would seem... yours more than most.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope, "Gnostic", period. No confusion. You're the one here who just uses words without knowing their meanings or history. Learn some more and then we will talk

Actually, "gnostic" can be used as an adjective meaning "referring to knowledge" or "possessing knowledge". You're confusing the noun and adjective uses (or "gnostic" and "Gnostic").

gnostic
adjective
adjective: gnostic

1. 1.
   relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
   • relating to Gnosticism.
     adjective: Gnostic

noun
noun: gnostic; plural noun: gnostics

1. 1.
   an adherent of Gnosticism.

SOURCE: google dictionary

gnostic
adjective
1) pertaining to knowledge.
2) possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3) (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of theGnostics.
noun
(initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects amongthe early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledgeof spiritual matters, and explained the world as created bypowers or agencies arising as emanations from theGodhead.
SOURCE: Definition of gnostic | Dictionary.com

 

[Mudramoksha]

Actually, "gnostic" can be used as an adjective meaning "referring to knowledge" or "possessing knowledge". You're confusing the noun and adjective uses (or "gnostic" and "Gnostic").

gnostic
adjective
adjective: gnostic

1. 1.
   relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
   • relating to Gnosticism.
     adjective: Gnostic

noun
noun: gnostic; plural noun: gnostics

1. 1.
   an adherent of Gnosticism.

SOURCE: google dictionary

gnostic
adjective
1) pertaining to knowledge.
2) possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3) (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of theGnostics.
noun
(initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects amongthe early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledgeof spiritual matters, and explained the world as created bypowers or agencies arising as emanations from theGodhead.
SOURCE: Definition of gnostic | Dictionary.com

Your quoted sources here word-for-word support my correction of A Vestigial Mote's error, thank you

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I guess you did not understand what that passage meant. It meant that if the entire Essence of God showed up on Earth the Light of God would be so bright as to reduce us to utter nothingness..

LOOK! We found yet ANOTHER thing that your god CANNOT DO!

So-- Gross Incompetence it IS. Your god is so weak, so full of itself, it cannot dial anything back.

Lame.

That is what God does not reveal His Essence, but rather only reveals His Attributes which are perfectly reflected in His Messengers..

Special Favorites is Grossly Unfair. More Incompetence.

We can perceive God without seeing Him.

We can perceive Harry Potter without seeing him.

We can perceive Spiderman without seeing him.

We can perceive Santa Claus without seeing him.

Hmmmmm...... Imaginary Creatures are like that.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There is only one problem with agnosticism.....its a fence-sitting position when there is no fence.....sorry. It requires a decision. Jesus said "whoever is not for me, is against me"...seems pretty simple...."I dunno" is obviously not a valid position.

Why is "I do not know" not valid-- when there is NO EVIDENCE to make an INFORMED choice?

Is your god's Ego so Fragile, that it would torture forever over the slightest doubt?

That's pretty evil, actually...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It would be more accurate to say "If you have proof, then you aren't believing by faith.".

Faith is the abandonment of reason. Nothing rational about it-- you can BELIEVE ANYTHING that you are brainwashed into believing.

THAT is why it's not valid.

Evidence is not proof. There can never be any proof that God exists, but there is a boatload of evidence.
But even though we have a lot of evidence, we have to have "some faith" since we do not have proof.

Citation Needed: None of your "evidence" is actual evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your quoted sources here word-for-word support my correction of A Vestigial Mote's error, thank you

No, they support his definition of the ADJECTIVE use of the term, and refute your notion that there is only one definition.

Do you or do you not agree that the word "gnostic" can be used as an adjective that means "related to knowledge"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Are you staking your life on that?

Paschal's Wager: WHICH god, from among MILLIONS?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am voting for 6.
6. God has reasons He made known to us for not presenting a conspicuous presence.

6 isn't a choice-- 6 is something you just pulled out of thin air.

Like 100% of your claims of "evidence".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Something is there..

Citation needed: Your claim of "Is So" isn't valid evidence of anything.

 

[Mudramoksha]

No, they support his definition of the ADJECTIVE use of the term, and refute your notion that there is only one definition.

Do you or do you not agree that the word "gnostic" can be used as an adjective that means "related to knowledge"?

I've only been using it in reference to the adjective, as stated in post #139, where I also specifically said that I was not referring to the Noun. This distinction, barely makes a difference between gnostic and gnosticism are related by nature - historically, semantically, etymologically, anthropologically etc.

"gnostic" does not denote empirical knowledge, nor does it denote belief. A Gnostic Theist has experienced the Divine, therefore lacks faith through transformative experience.
A Gnostic Atheist is an oxymoron that rejects the premise of a Gnostic which entails there being more to reality for one to obtain knowledge of.
As posted previously, "Strong-Atheist" is the correct terminology for what A Vestigial Mote meant to say before I corrected him of his error

A Gnostic is an enlightened person in the very spiritual sense, in Buddhist we call the term "Bodhi".

 

[usfan]

It's not my god, you silly person. I do not have a god. The god you are "scapegoating" for? Is all YOU.
People create gods in their own image, it would seem... yours more than most.

It just seems to me, that lashing out with hostility toward strangers on an internet forum reveals some issues with God. You may not even be aware of it, it just expresses itself in irrational hostility.

 

[usfan]

Citation needed: Your claim of "Is So" isn't valid evidence of anything.

..just like, 'Is not!!'



What else is there, when discussion subjective opinion?

 

[JJ50]

It just seems to me, that lashing out with hostility toward strangers on an internet forum reveals some issues with God. You may not even be aware of it, it just expresses itself in irrational hostility.

Your posts are irrational, you make statements about the god character as if they were a fact instead of a mere belief.

 

[HonestJoe]

My premise is that there is some folly in atheism. It is a normal, human kind of folly, that is common to man. Here are a few points of 'folly', in the belief of 'no God'.

Atheism still isn’t “The belief in ‘no God”. Maybe you need to recognise the human folly in yourself?

Redefine Science. Among many atheists, especially the militant ones, a common theme is, 'Theists have religion, atheists have science!'.

Not many by any stretch of the imagination and some theists are just as guilt of this flawed statement. A fallacy certainly, but not a fallacy of atheism.

Presumption of Omniscience. This is another logical flaw in the Atheistic worldview. When the atheist declares, 'There is no God', he is asserting that he knows all the mysteries in the universe, inhabits infinity & eternity, & has all knowledge.

Only if they declare there is definitively no God and that is equally true of all the people who declare that there definitive is a specific God. Atheism carries no requirement for such definitive certainly (not does theism for that matter) so again, this is a flaw but not one of atheism.

Indoctrination. Naturalism has become the state religion. It is promoted in national parks, public media, entertainment, schools, universities, & driven into impressionable children from infancy.

Debatable but that’s irrelevant in context since naturalism doesn’t automatically lead to atheism. It would be perfectly possible to establish a naturalist explanation for the existence of some kind of deity. So, even if this were a flaw, it isn’t related to atheism.

Orwellian Newspeak. This is the irrational logophobia that seems to be common with many atheists. It takes several forms, but it's roots are in definitional dodges, or redefined terms.

This is in no way unique or specific to atheism though and happens as much in attacks of atheism as defences. Also, as you’ve demonstrated yourself, a failure to use properly defined and commonly understood terms only leads to confusion and unnecessary argument (unless, of course, the argument is the intention).

All or Nothing. This is the fallacy that if you believe in ONE supernatural entity or event, you must believe in all of them. And, if you doubt the existence of fairies, for example, you must doubt the existence of all supernatural entities. This is flawed on the surface, as there are many things we differentiate between in our worldview, distinguishing valid beliefs from those we disbelieve.

I think you’re misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) that specific point. It is generally (certainly should only be) raised where a belief in something presents an argument that would work with anything else – e.g. “Lots of people in the world believe the same thing” or “It explains why the universe exists”. Where that kind of argument could apply equally to many different beliefs, wouldn’t it require further justification to use it to only support one of them, especially in the context of directly contradictory ones?

Rabid Dogmatism. This is the attempt to put more weight on a belief by extreme insistence, or dogmatism about the belief.

Sorry, were we talking about atheism or theism?

What it comes down to, is that atheists are human, with the same foibles, biases, and dogmatism as any other human belief. Welcome to the human race..

Has anyone here suggested anything else? If we’re just talking about generic human foibles, why did you start a thread specifically about atheism, rather than any of the countless other areas in which those human foibles have a much greater and potentially more dangerous impact. At the end of the day, whether a person believes in the existence of gods or not doesn’t make a whole load of difference to anyone. What we choose to do about our beliefs is the key factor. And that isn’t about atheism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A person who is a Gnostic, doesn't have to associate with any group of people or any religion. It is a knowledge that transcends religion(s), it's the point of a Gnostic.

Whether someone follows a form of GnosticISM is a different topic entirely.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

You meant "Strong Atheist" and that's the point I'll end on

I get that there is a NOUN associated with the term "gnostic", but there is also an ADJECTIVE. Do you understand that? Do you? Can you let me know that you understand that, or are you going to simply keep insisting that there is only a noun? Can you even admit that now, or are you too entrenched in this to back down and show what you feel is a sign of weakness?

I dare you to do a Google search on the term "gnostic atheist" and see the plethora of information that does, indeed, come back - including the idea that "gnostic atheist" is synonymous with "hard atheist." Your usage of the word is not the "end all beat all." You don't get to tell me I can't use a word in a way that is accepted as valid usage by a crapload of people.

So go ahead... tell me again how "gnostic" has only the meaning YOU keep pushing.

 

[Left Coast]

I guess you did not understand what that passage meant. It meant that if the entire Essence of God showed up on Earth the Light of God would be so bright as to reduce us to utter nothingness.

That is what God does not reveal His Essence, but rather only reveals His Attributes which are perfectly reflected in His Messengers.

We can perceive God without seeing Him.

No, I think I understood well enough. We can't directly see God, we can only get second-hand information from "messengers" who claim to give accurate information about him. That is what many religious sects claim, all with competing messengers and competing gods of their own. It's not convincing when your messengers do it any more than any others.

And your God could resolve all that unconvincing confusion by directly revealing himself to us and telling us his opinions himself. But your God created a situation where we would be "reduced to nothingness" if that happened. Which, again, is absurd. And is 100% his fault and his problem for creating such a situation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've only been using it in reference to the adjective, as stated in post #139, where I also specifically said that I was not referring to the Noun.

Um, no. You refer to "a Gnostic" and "gnosticism" - both of which are nouns. You never mention the adjective usage of the term.

POST 139:
"A person who is a Gnostic, doesn't have to associate with any group of people or any religion. It is a knowledge that transcends religion(s), it's the point of a Gnostic.

Whether someone follows a form of GnosticISM is a different topic entirely."

This distinction, barely makes a difference between gnostic and gnosticism are related by nature - historically, semantically, etymologically, anthropologically etc.

"gnostic" does not denote empirical knowledge, nor does it denote belief. A Gnostic Theist has experienced the Divine, therefore lacks faith through transformative experience.
A Gnostic Atheist is an oxymoron that rejects the premise of a Gnostic which entails there being more to reality for one to obtain knowledge of.

Sure, "Gnostic atheist" could be considered an oxymoron. However, a "gnostic atheist", as in the ADJECTIVE "gnostic" rather than the noun "Gnostic" is not an oxymoron.

As posted previously, "Strong-Atheist" is the correct terminology for what A Vestigial Mote meant to say before I corrected him of his error

He didn't commit an error - you did. You mistakenly believed that he was using the noun rather than the adjective.

Why can't you just admit your mistake?

A Gnostic is an enlightened person in the very spiritual sense, in Buddhist we call the term "Bodhi".

But the adjective "gnostic" means something else.

Why are you being so obtuse about this?

 

[Willamena]

How do you have 'understanding' for a hypothetical?

We just lay out the assumptions and follow the implications.

That's all I'm doing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

..just like, 'Is not!!'



What else is there, when discussion subjective opinion?

How about "I don't know if so or if not" or "Is not until demonstrated is so" or "Have no reason to accept is or is not but operate under the null hypothesis that there is insufficient reason to accept the proposition of is until demonstrated otherwise".