Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Because you might believe.

Okay, you’re losing me. Your point seems to be that you don’t think the list covers all possible states.You say, In the abstract I believe I understand your position. But does this actually occur? Either you believe or you don’t. You seem to be suggesting that one can believe and not believe simultaneously. I grant that I understand it possible to be a theist at times and atheist at other times, still that isn’t the same thing. The list is of OR propositions, can you show a case where AND is possible. Is it possible to simultaneously be a theist and atheist for the same belief and/or be simultaneously gnostic and agnostic.

A broad definition of an 'atheist' allows for the potential recognition of paranormal phenomena - a simple observation.And so, the sectarian nature of a syncretic atheistic construct then allows for adherence and contention of such phenomena. Yet, is it rational to suppose a ghost is more probable than a god? If not, your request has been addressed.However, due to the sectarian nature of the belief system (& perhaps the jovial nature of the entity), obviously not all atheists will refute the existence of Casper the friendly ghost (which often leads to the No True Scotsman fallacy).Nevertheless, is an atheist able or willing to demonstrate how a belief in Casper - regardless his disposition, as a concept or entity is either more rational, than say Joshua of Nazareth - or perhaps Allah? If not, there's your something.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

If you read the thread you will see that your post is a bit deeper and more comples than anything Jon has said or proposed. Also, you question does not diffentiate between atheist and "extremist" atheist.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Granted, while they’re not really necessarily much different in the end, as it’s often a certain borderline racism reserved for deity the militant atheist ultimately displays, I simply demonstrated another atheistic construct which seemed to present a certain irrationality well, where Jon demonstrated a variant example of jesus mythers.While it may be viewed as a deeper understanding, it is simply meant to get to the meat of the issue. Jon proposed it seems reasonable to classify a certain sub-group of people as fundamental atheists. I agree, and have provided reasoning in Message 49 and Message 123. Sure it does. It seems in Jon’s context, extreme indicates a distinct departure from an average atheistic construct.That is to say, when the rational position of not making any claims is breached, the potential for irrational reasoning increases. And so, this appears especially the case when the claims being made are being founded with an absence of evidence as the premise, whether strong theist or extreme atheist respectively.That matter is addressed in the messages above as well as Message 60. Basically this is to say, their respective claims — or rather lacks there of, seem to differentiate them, and so, the claims of the theist and extreme atheist should differentiate them both from the typical atheist.As I said in my first post, average and typical atheists are - by definition, not found making claims and the extreme atheism movement explicitly denies the existence of any gods (noting such rigid criteria is not necessarily reserved for ghosts and goblins) - asserting strong claims which will deserve support at some point.For this reason, I suggested the fundamental atheist begins exposing their mythology through the claims they choose to make, aliging themselves better with theists, as they separate themselves from the average and typical atheist.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Again, that is not Jons argument

It depends on the definition of God. However, according to the traditional definitions, God is burdened with a number of "omni-" adjectives which make him in principle more refutable than Caspar the Friendly Ghost.For example, God is traditionally defined as being omnipresent. Now this means that one could conclusively refute his existence just by showing that there is one place that he is not. To be similarly conclusive about Caspar you'd have to show that he is not in any place, which is more difficult.Or if he is defined as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, it would seem that one can refute his existence by seeing one bad thing happen; whereas no single occurrence would disprove Caspar.

Are those black labs? The pup on the left has markings reminiscent of a rottweilier. Nice lookin' dogs though.The topic is Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism - we seem on point. That said, the idea I'm not parroting Jon is correct.At the beginning of Message 125 it can be seen we're taking different approaches to show a similiar dynamic - demonstrations of irrational positions which may define and identify the 'explicit/fundamental/militant/strong' atheist movement and perhaps expose its mythology (ie. is it rational to suppose a ghost is more probable than a god?)Our arguments aren't so different though really, if not more or less their format. We both identified how 'extreme' atheists display intolerance towards notions of the divine specifically. In the op Jon asserted 'as with all people, of course, their (extreme anti-religious atheists specifically) statements are not always irrational, unreasonable, and/or wrong. But unlike their rational, more reasonable counterparts (agnostics, weaker atheists, etc.), they often succumb to the same reasoning errors, illogical mental gymnastics, and sophistry typical of religious apologists. In this they reveal their positions not to be supported by reasoning and rationality, as they claim, but instead to be supported by irrational and unreasonable beliefs'.I sum this up by identifying the illogical reasoning, mental gymnastics, and philosophic sophistry extreme anti-religious atheists often display appear to manifest themselves in such a similiar fashion to that of a religious apologist due to the fact the claims being made by both parties often become founded with an absence of evidence as the premise.Typically when this is the case, should we not surely expect the apologies and the philosophical maneuvering to begin?One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Can we be certain we're placing correct burdens on each character? For example, while we know many gods were limited to regional scope, how do we know casper's without omni adjectives? He is supposedly a friendly ghost after all. Although if god was super duper omni he could pretend he wasn't where he was. That'd phuck 'em all up .. Or one could question the nuances of a said omni theory. Similarly, if casper the friendly ghost punched my gramma in the belly, stepped on her feet and stole her diabetes meds, his title probably wouldn't fit quite as well any longer, even though he may press her Life Alert^TM for her before vanishing. A witness to the assault would refute his character, not existence.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I haven't, really.I consider myself an anti-theist. I would even perhaps consider myself a gnostic atheist - with respect to all possible gods that humans have claimed thusfar (not to ALL possible gods you could possibly come up with).After all, one only needs to read the bible to realise that the god of the bible is bullocks. And the same goes for every scripture from any god.We can't test gods, but we can test what is attributed to them.
In that sense, I feel like I can perfectly say that the BIBLICAL god definatly does not exist as described in the bible.

Then you can not say that you DO believe.
And if you can not say that you DO believe... guess what... then you are an atheist.You need to believe something to be a theist. Anything other then having that active, positive belief => atheist.

No, am the most mentally deficient person to ever have 367 semester units, become a college dean, and an IQ tested at 145.Please feel free to insult me further.The term proof to me is either a very tight term or a very loose term depending upon which field the term is used, which is why it can become confused in the popular parlance. The term proof in legal terms is not the same as the term proof in mathematical terms. In mathematics, proofs depend upon postulates. In law, well, postulates are usually referred to as prejudicial.Science is about evidence, not any supposed 'proof.'My argument is that there is neither a proof for or against any assumed deity in any assumed reality. Perhaps not politically correct, but honest. Yeah, no shit, it is usually ascribed to Christopher Hitchens. Also, use a spellchecker, superior life form. And this little story is supposed to impress me more than any previous 'proof of God' coming from Pascal, Aquinas, Bacon, or the ancient Greeks? Have you indeed come up with a simile that 'proves' all religion wrong?Give me a break, ubermensch.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

The English language is not the same as the French language in that English words, such as 'agnosticism' are defined by those who use the term, instead of some national academy of self-proclaimed guardians of some national 'heritage.'It does appear to me there exists some movement to deny the word agnostic by various language police, however in those parts of the US I am familiar with, it is a perfectly acceptable word used to communicate a rather simple concept, namely that of 'no opinion regarding the existence of any purported 'deities'. Assuming the five senses you use to apprehend reality perfectly represent actual reality. Seems like math, your philosophy requires postulates.Perhaps this accused moron is asking people to think outside the box more than they would like to consider.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Well, sure. I'm considering traditional definitions of God and indeed of Caspar the Friendly Ghost.As I say, the strong atheist is a strong atheist with respect only to a certain concept of gods. The concept of a super duper omni being does indeed open up wide new vistas of metaphysical speculation. Well God is usually defined as being of good character. If we discovered a thoroughly malevolent supernatural entity, we wouldn't identify it as God, but as some sort of devil or afrit or poltergeist or something.---So I still think that God (as usually conceived) has a different epistemological status. Consider the difference between disproving the statements "there is a unicorn somewhere" and "there are unicorns everywhere". The omni-ness of God means that a number of statements about him are statements of the second kind, and so may be more definitively refuted than statements about CtFG, which would be statements of the first kind.

I didn't deny that that is the general sentiment. I'm just saying that it is rather stupid.I didn't deny the word agnostic either. I'm just saying that it's not a replacement for theism/atheism.You need to actively believe something to be a theist. ANYTHING other then that makes you an atheist.You can still call yourself an agnostic while you are an atheist. Even while you are a theist. These words are not mutually exclusive. I don't care how many people redefine the word.
You are an atheist if you are not a theist. You can put all the qualifiers you want on it, it won't make a shred of difference.Contrary to popular belief, atheism does NOT necessarily include the claim "there are no gods". It only expresses a lack of positive theistic beliefs. This seems obvious. That's why you test your conclusions. I don't know about any scientific thing that relies on your personal observation or "feelings" alone...
But every religion seems to operate on that exclusively: emotions and personal (unverifiable) stuff.Also, perhaps you could share with us this other way you imply exists of observing reality - if not through the use of your 5 senses...It seems to me that if you have none of your 5 senses available... you are pretty much braindead in a coma... Outside the box is good. Outside of reality and reason isn't.