The gulf between us

[LuisDantas]

I meant Gnostic Atheism... My typing skills are crap obviously.

My mistake. Atheism it was. But gnostic? Where did you get that idea from?

 

[RedDragon94]

My mistake. Atheism it was. But gnostic? Where did you get that idea from?

You know that findmyreligion site? They have a picture on the Atheism page. I'll try to find it.

 

[RedDragon94]

Atheism Atheist Free Thinkers Non Believers Anti Theists Reality Facts Burden of Proof No Gods Look at the pic that looks like a compass.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism Atheist Free Thinkers Non Believers Anti Theists Reality Facts Burden of Proof No Gods Look at the pic that looks like a compass.

This?

No, that is not what I asked about. I am fairly aware of the concept of Gnostic Atheism.

But in post #157 of this thread you replied to post #147 from @Corvus by stating the opposite of what he had just said. He actually told you, in effect, that he is an agnostic atheist. Yet you read that as "I am a gnostic atheist".

Why?

 

[Corvus]

No one can know with absolute certainty if God exists or not. I assign an extremely low probability that a cosmic creator exists. Logically founded on the apparent fact that there is no scientific evidence of any kind to support the God hypothesis. What evidence there is, is unverifiable. Therefore a probability of near zero would be a reasonable estimation. I apply that same formula of reasoning to invisible Elephants, honest politicians and planets made out of Coffee flavoured Ice cream. Whatever label suits this viewpoint best I don't know. I grokk therefore I am.

 

[Corvus]

except in science it is separation of humans from Nature and the world -- which, in our use of science in the service of capitalism to objectify, exploit, dismantle, poison, pollute, and destroy nature, is having more widespread, deeper, more profound and more devastating effect on the planet and the future of all life on it than any religion ever had

True. A serious problem. That needs to be addressed urgently. I am not going to argue with you there. I concur unreservedly.

 

[PureX]

Theism is problematic, in a nutshell, because it is rooted in a very vague concept and insists on pretending otherwise.

"Vagueness" is not necessarily a problem. Sometimes it's an advantage, as when it allows multiple and varied interpretations to suit a given ideal. And what you are calling pretense is often simply artifice. It's the conceptual imagery people use to represent those "vague" theological ideals in their minds.This is only problematic for those who want hard, universally observed answers, and can't get them from theism.

Indeed. It is about as customizable a belief as they come.

That is exactly why it works for so many people in so many different situations. It's why so many people are and have always been theists.

The odd thing is that those who most value it are also those who make a point of pretending it to be a well-delimited, homogeneous belief - when it is anything but!

It is what they need it to be. I am puzzled that you don't understand this, and don't recognize the value in it for them.

Too bad that so many people get carried away with it and attempt to justify their actions with their theistic beliefs.

Everyone justifies their actions with their beliefs, theist and atheists and everyone else. How could we do otherwise? Do you really expect people to act on what they DON'T believe?

There are legitimate arguments to be made against theism, but these aren't them.

 

[PureX]

No one can know with absolute certainty if God exists or not. I assign an extremely low probability that a cosmic creator exists. Logically founded on the apparent fact that there is no scientific evidence of any kind to support the God hypothesis. What evidence there is, is unverifiable. Therefore a probability of near zero would be a reasonable estimation.

All you're saying here is that you blindly assume that scientists would have found evidence of the existence of God if that evidence existed. But that assumption is patently invalid, as there are no scientists looking for evidence of the existence of God. Science doesn't even provide that capability.

 

[Corvus]

. I also wouldn't say that someone who disagrees with me has built a "tower of cards" or something. They just see things differently than I do.

I do not understand. If you are mistaken, you are mistaken. A tower of cards is the best description for irrational belief systems. Faulty premises, stacked on top of each other. It's not about me seeing things differently, I can demonstrate, FULLY, that science and reason is without equal in terms of success at explaining the true nature of reality.

 

[Corvus]

All you're saying here is that you blindly assume that scientists would have found evidence of the existence of God if that evidence existed. But that assumption is patently invalid, as there are no scientists looking for evidence of the existence of God. Science doesn't even provide that capability.

If God existed and is responsible for example for creating all living things on Earth, then you might expect some signature of design in DNA, nothing like that is apparent.
The fact is if anything is real in any physical sense whatsoever, then it can be experimentally or directly observed or even inferred. If it is beyond real and physical and in the realm of pure speculation then yes you are right science has no capability to analyze it.

EDIT If no atheist/agnostic scientists search for evidence of God, why don't the Christian and Muslim scientists do so to shut us annoying atheists up?

 

[DavidFirth]

I am more than happy to discuss creation. I am totally confident no God agency is involved either in abiogenesis or the big bang.

That is not logical. How can you be so confident?

 

[Corvus]

Consider things such as Love, Energy, light. If you belive these transcend the Human Condition, then you also beleive in what we call God.

Love is attachment, a manifestation of neurological and hormonal interaction. Evolved in humans to permit socialization and extended parental care. Energy = MC2 and light is electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum.

 

[Corvus]

That is not logical. How can you be so confident?

There is no verifiable evidence of a God creator. So it is entirely logical to assign a low probability if not zero probability of a God creator. Given the existence of alternative explanations for the universe and living things which do have some evidences that are least more descriptive and logically consistent.

 

[PureX]

If God existed and is responsible for example for creating all living things on Earth, then you might expect some signature of design in DNA, nothing like that is apparent.

I can think of no logical reason why you would expect this. Why do you assume that nature is not the expression of divine will, as it is?

The fact is if anything is real in any physical sense whatsoever, then it can be experimentally or directly observed or even inferred. If it is beyond real and physical and in the realm of pure speculation then yes you are right science has no capability to analyze it.

But physicality is not truth. Nor is it all there is to our experience of being. Consciousness is itself an expression of 'metaphysics', thus proving that physicality is not the equivalency of truth, of reality, or of existence. And yet you seem to be incapable of acknowledging this. Why?

EDIT If no atheist/agnostic scientists search for evidence of God, why don't the Christian and Muslim scientists do so to shut us annoying atheists up?

Science does not offer us that capability. Why do you refuse to recognize this?

 

[Corvus]

But physicality is not truth. Nor is it all there is to our experience of being. Consciousness is itself an expression of 'metaphysics', thus proving that physicality is not the equivalency of truth, of reality, or of existence. And yet you seem to be incapable of acknowledging this. Why?

Does not compute error. The definition of the word existence would mean that all that exists is all that is physical. Detectable/detected or not.

 

[Corvus]

I can think of no logical reason why you would expect this. Why do you assume that nature is not the expression of divine will, as it is?

That makes no sense to me. How is divine will required? That is superfluous. How is divine will transmitted to systems that are self emergent?

 

[RedDragon94]

This?

No, that is not what I asked about. I am fairly aware of the concept of Gnostic Atheism.

But in post #157 of this thread you replied to post #147 from @Corvus by stating the opposite of what he had just said. He actually told you, in effect, that he is an agnostic atheist. Yet you read that as "I am a gnostic atheist".

Why?

If it's near zero in possibility then it sounds like he's pretty confident.

 

[Quintessence]

I do not understand. If you are mistaken, you are mistaken. A tower of cards is the best description for irrational belief systems. Faulty premises, stacked on top of each other. It's not about me seeing things differently, I can demonstrate, FULLY, that science and reason is without equal in terms of success at explaining the true nature of reality.

So you're an adherent of Scientism, then? I see.

At any rate, you do realize that "explaining the true nature of reality" is not the point of theism, right? All "theism" means is the person accepts some particular concept of deity in their lives. That's it. By itself, it is unrelated to ontological questions.

Religions sometimes deal with ontological questions, but ontology isn't even the point of many religions, theistic or otherwise.

 

[PureX]

Does not compute error. The definition of the word existence would mean that all that exists is all that is physical. Detectable/detected or not.

This is the bias that you have trapped yourself in. Consider time. Time is not physical, so are you claiming that it doesn't "exist". Or consider this question: does the nothingness that the universe is presumably expanding onto "exist"? Also, what "exists" before a person dies that does not "exist" after?

 

[PureX]

That makes no sense to me. How is divine will required? That is superfluous. How is divine will transmitted to systems that are self emergent?

One could easily argue, and logically assert that what we call "energy" IS divine will. And that the ways in which energy can and cannot behave are the direct intent of that will.

Together these two phenomena create and sustain the nature of all that exists, as we know it.