The Satanic Force

[Orias]

Why doesn't it make sense?

 

[DinChild]

I don't know enough about your worldview to expound on anything else, but I will say that man didn't invent atheism. That would imply that man had to first invent a god, then invent the absence of god. This doesn't make sense.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but this isn't really worth replying to.

Its just asinine to assume anything else, because everything we have and view is of human invocation. Not necessarily everything physical, but the mental and emotional forth-comings.

And now I feel the same way...

Invocation, as you freely used, attributes itself ONLY to those who posit a God. Not to those who don't. There is only an invention of God, not a NON-invention of God. With or without man, the lack of God is no invention of the mind. Consciousness isn't needed to not believe something exists. In which case, I guess you can chalk this one up to poisoning the well. But to say that my comment isn't worth replying to, then showing as little understanding of the text as you have, tells me something...I don't mean to be a jerk.

To restate, atheism is not a mental state, nor is it an emotional one. It might be defined through said qualities because of the invention of a God. Not the other way around.

Those who submit the reality of a given value are the inventors.

I don't really know what you mean by this, but if its what I think then it completely contradicts what you said above.

Anyone who has a simple understanding of psychology would know this. Reality is given value to by us, since you don't see dogs and gorillas bickering about "God", which makes us the sole creator and inventors of these things we call plans and labels.

They deceive people into the abstract conception of simplicity, if Man did not exist, nor would anything used by humans.

How does it at ALL contradict what I said? God is value 1. NOT God is value-less; or 0. Atheists did not submit the reality of value 1. Therefore, atheists invented nothing.

 

[Orias]

And now I feel the same way...

Invocation, as you freely used, attributes itself ONLY to those who posit a God. Not to those who don't.

No, invocation is attributed to that which is invoked, not just God, which covers an array of Aspects from philosophy to toe nail clipping.

To restate, atheism is not a mental state, nor is it an emotional one. It might be defined through said qualities because of the invention of a God. Not the other way around.

Atheism is a mental state because it is a state/position that one takes mentally, philosophically, and ontologically. Its not a physical Aspect because its only tangible through words and not literal fingertip feeling.

Many atheists have told me that its not an emotional state, but really it is because people are generally attached to that which they conform to.

Oxytocin, if you will, can be considered an emotional state.

How does it at ALL contradict what I said? God is value 1. NOT God is value-less; or 0. Atheists did not submit the reality of value 1. Therefore, atheists invented nothing.

Reality differs from person to person, making anyone who gives a hoot an inventor, because they submit to the world what they see as valuable.

I know you couldn't see that I changed and deleted my post a couple of times, but I had hoped to avoid most of what you said.

So lets try simply, how does it not make sense?

 

[Erebus]

To restate, atheism is not a mental state, nor is it an emotional one. It might be defined through said qualities because of the invention of a God. Not the other way around.

Actually that's not necessarily true. A lot of people have suggested that early man had a primitive form of animism, which is not the same as atheism. Though the spirituality of pre-civilised man is a controversial topic, the absolute earliest civilisations had concepts of gods and spirits.
Atheism as a stance actually came about around the enlightenment when scientific advances offered people alternatives for explaining natural phenomena other than the influence of gods and spirits. Even then, it was more common for enlightenment figures to maintain a form of deism (and later, pantheism) than it was to be a true atheist.

Atheism as a result of skepticism is a fairly recent phenomenon in mankind's history and is almost certainly a result of changes in culture and technology rather than being mankind's "natural state". Hell you only have to have worked with very young children to see crude animism at work.

 

[DinChild]

So lets try simply, how does it not make sense?

Invocation is that which is invoked. I do tend to take a very...not literal...but fundamental outlook on things. Atheism invokes nothing if only indirectly. Atheism, in fact, wouldn't be defined as such if not for the invocation of a god. We wouldn't be having this discussion without those pesky theist thinkers.

Atheism is a mental state because it is a state/position that one takes mentally, philosophically, and ontologically.

And my stance is that without the value set by theists, there would be no mental state to conform to; Atheism being the state. It's like the burden of proof. Atheists have no stake in proving God exists. Just as they have no stake in its invention. I don't know if this is making sense, or I'm missing the mark.

I'm sorry I didn't catch the edits I hope you got my PM before you read my response.

 

[DinChild]

Actually that's not necessarily true. A lot of people have suggested that early man had a primitive form of animism, which is not the same as atheism. Though the spirituality of pre-civilised man is a controversial topic, the absolute earliest civilisations had concepts of gods and spirits.
Atheism as a stance actually came about around the enlightenment when scientific advances offered people alternatives for explaining natural phenomena other than the influence of gods and spirits. Even then, it was more common for enlightenment figures to maintain a form of deism (and later, pantheism) than it was to be a true atheist.

Atheism as a result of skepticism is a fairly recent phenomenon in mankind's history and is almost certainly a result of changes in culture and technology rather than being mankind's "natural state". Hell you only have to have worked with very young children to see crude animism at work.

I completely understand this. I do believe faith in deities is as fundamental to human genes as rna. But I'm speaking from absolute terms. I don't know if that applies, and I hope it does. With, or without the believers, there's nothing to invent. And the skeptics would be none-the-wiser. There's nothing to invent.

 

[Erebus]

I completely understand this. I do believe faith in deities is as fundamental to human genes as rna. But I'm speaking from absolute terms. I don't know if that applies, and I hope it does. With, or without the believers, there's nothing to invent. And the skeptics would be none-the-wiser. There's nothing to invent.

Ok that's fair enough, I see where you're coming from

This kind of debate can easily become a chicken and egg argument, so I'm glad we see each other's perspectives.

 

[DinChild]

Ok that's fair enough, I see where you're coming from

This kind of debate can easily become a chicken and egg argument, so I'm glad we see each other's perspectives.

I prefer the omelette. It's more fulfilling.

By the way...is there any way to directly respond to a private message? I'm techno-stupid.

 

[Erebus]

I prefer the omelette. It's more fulfilling.

By the way...is there any way to directly respond to a private message? I'm techno-stupid.

I think you have to press the quote button, that takes you on to the reply page. If you don't want the quote itself in the reply you can always cut it

 

[Orias]

Invocation is that which is invoked. I do tend to take a very...not literal...but fundamental outlook on things. Atheism invokes nothing if only indirectly. Atheism, in fact, wouldn't be defined as such if not for the invocation of a god. We wouldn't be having this discussion without those pesky theist thinkers.

I can agree with this sound statement, I would even go as far to say we wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for those darned skeptics (essentially us), not necessarily theists.

But maybe now you understand better what I meant by man creating these things, because he simply invokes that which he desires.

And my stance is that without the value set by theists, there would be no mental state to conform to; Atheism being the state. It's like the burden of proof. Atheists have no stake in proving God exists. Just as they have no stake in its invention. I don't know if this is making sense, or I'm missing the mark.

The same could be said except the other way around, a theist's stance is that without the value set by atheists.

But I completely understand what you mean, though some atheists take it to the point where they take the burden of proof onto them. Some don't even need to take it that far, it comes to them.

In the end, like Shyanekh's signature, eyes closed shut or arms wide open, either way, one's a fool, and those who cannot reconcile with perception other than their own are bound to soak in their own filth.

 

[DinChild]

The same could be said except the other way around, a theist's stance is that without the value set by atheists.

But I completely understand what you mean, though some atheists take it to the point where they take the burden of proof onto them. Some don't even need to take it that far, it comes to them.

I added your second half for two reasons: 1, because you said you understood what I meant. So I don't have to repeat that atheists set no value (whoops! Sorry.) And 2: because I don't know why an atheist would EVER accept the burden of proof. It's counter-intuitive and really...just stupid. I'm at a loss now!

 

[DinChild]

I'm a "quote" master...

 

[Orias]

Well, denying something still requires proof, having a lack of belief doesn't necessarily require that, it just makes it sound infallible, but really it isn't.

 

[DinChild]

Well, denying something still requires proof, having a lack of belief doesn't necessarily require that, it just makes it sound infallible, but really it isn't.

Nope. This is where we have a fundamental problem.

Atheist's don't DENY anything. We're just simply awaiting the verdict. There's nothing to prove on our end. NOTHING. And anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

But let's be clear; I don't accept God. You can infer a denial all you want, but it's not up to me to explain myself. It's the theist who presented such a while claim. In fact, I'm an innocent pawn in ALL of this!!! I just want proof, dammit!

It's not infallible. The scientific mind is that which changes and adapts. Infallibility is a virtue of the imaginary wonder-man, God. You've been speaking to some wildly uninformed atheists. Or maybe just a bit on the proud side.

 

[Orias]

Atheist's don't DENY anything. We're just simply awaiting the verdict. There's nothing to prove on our end. NOTHING. And anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

Well then the dictionary and the lexicographers are a bunch of liars then.

Your telling me that anyone who tells me otherwise is just trying to sell something, but thats what man does when he is convinced he right, he tries to spread it.

But let's be clear; I don't accept God. You can infer a denial all you want, but it's not up to me to explain myself. It's the theist who presented such a while claim. In fact, I'm an innocent pawn in ALL of this!!! I just want proof, dammit!

Not accepting is denying. It doesn't have to be harsh, I don't want to accept a soda that the waiter offered me at the restaurant, which means I denied the offer.

It's not infallible. The scientific mind is that which changes and adapts. Infallibility is a virtue of the imaginary wonder-man, God. You've been speaking to some wildly uninformed atheists. Or maybe just a bit on the proud side.

Both, I have yet to meet someone who doesn't have an ounce of pride in their belief.

 

[DinChild]

You're right in your definition of denial being similar to rejection. But my response regarded your comment on proof. Denying...or rejecting...does NOT require proof. Especially when considering who's doing the denying/rejecting; the scientific journal. If theists could provide adequate proof, a profound, truly intellectual dialogue could begin. But that's just fun thinking.

 

[Orias]

You're right in your definition of denial being similar to rejection. But my response regarded your comment on proof. Denying...or rejecting...does NOT require proof. Especially when considering who's doing the denying/rejecting; the scientific journal. If theists could provide adequate proof, a profound, truly intellectual dialogue could begin. But that's just fun thinking.

Obviously, both sides of the spectrum don't require any logic to make oneself consider them.

 

[DinChild]

Obviously, both sides of the spectrum don't require any logic to make oneself consider them.

Except that the atheist side never wanted to be apart of this argument. We just said..."uhhh, show us."

 

[Orias]

Except that the atheist side never wanted to be apart of this argument. We just said..."uhhh, show us."

Thats wanting to be part of it though, if you didn't want to get involved then maybe you should of became a Satanist first

 

[DinChild]

Thats wanting to be part of it though, if you didn't want to get involved then maybe you should of became a Satanist first

Now you're starting to annoy me.

You're assuming that by being the default adversary of a ridiculously unsubstantiated claim, I've somehow involved myself in said argument? No. And maybe, in this way, atheism and satanism are alike. There's no WANTING to be part of anything as an atheist. It's not a club. We might jerk off more than theists, but that's about all we have in common!