"Higher power" as mentioned in Alcoholic Anonymous

174 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
Great Hope: "You guys say

Great Hope: "You guys say that your minds are not made up, yet you can't or won't even entertain it being possible because you want God's presence before faith?"

Well, I am going to break this apart.

You guys say that your minds are not made up, …

My mind is only made up by things I can prove to be true. Remember these definitions:

  • Agnostic – This means nothing more than "without knowledge." Agnostic, from the Greek: γνοσι (gnosi) = knowledge; ενα- [usually shortened to α-] (ena- [usually shortened to a-]) = to be without; thus, αγνοσι (agnosi) agnostic = to be without knowledge. I am agnostic in there are many things I do not know. Thus, I am without that knowledge, thus agnostic. Everyone is agnostic to a certain point. I cannot put this any simpler.
  • Atheist – If translated literally, this means "without god." Atheist, from the Greek: θεος (theos) = God, Lord, Creator; ενα- [usually shortened to α-] (ena- [usually shortened to a-]) = to be without; thus, αθεος (atheos) atheist = to be without God. However, in today's terminology, and more accurate, atheism actually means "a lack of or disbelief in any claims for the existence of any deity."
  • Anti-theist – This one, in my definition, means exactly as it says; anti- = "against," theist = "belief in one god." Or better, "against belief in any deity."
  • Anti-religionist – This one is exactly as it says: "against religion."
  • Apistevist – lack of blind faith; one who does not rely on religious blind faith in order to discern true facts.

Re-emphases mine. Notice especially apistevist. Something that goes completely against religious FAITH — Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos and Treasonous Hypocrisy. Science on the other hand relies on FACTS — Formulated Accurately Codified Truth in Science.

… yet you can't or won't even entertain it being possible because you want God's presence before faith?

Many, many, MANY times I have posted on these forums the following:

Arakish: “I SHALL be the first to admit that the possibility of any deity existing can be true. However, since I have been a scientific researcher for my entire life since I was 3yrs old, and have been an actual working scientist for at least half of my life, I happen to be one of those who relies on OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Without such evidence, I have absolutely NO reason to believe any claim for any deity existing. How am I suppose to accept and believe in something, anything, that CANNOT be substantiated.

Thus, I have said many times that it is NOT the FACT that I "can't or won't" entertain the possibility. Anything that CANNOT be falsified or substantiated automatically falls into the category of unsubstantiated preposterous claims. Until you can PROVE to me that any deity exists, I refuse to believe your claims. In other words, the actual heart of the currently accepted definition of an atheist: “a lack of or disbelief in any claims for the existence of any deity.”

How about another breakdown?

  • Agnosticism: I do NOT know whether an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.
  • Atheism: I do NOT believe the preposterous claims without substantiation whether an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.
  • Anti-theist: I am against believing the preposterous claims without substantiation in an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.
  • Anit-religion: I am against any harmful religions that do believe without substantiation in the existence of an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.
  • Apistevist: I refuse to utilize blind faith in believing without substantiation in the existence of an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.

And here is a definition: sub•stan•ti•ate – verb (used with object), sub•stan•ti•at•ed, sub•stan•ti•at•ing, sub•stan•ti•a•tion; 1) to establish by proof or competent evidence; 2) to give substantial existence to; 3) to affirm as having substance, give body to, strengthen.

Comprenez-vous encore?

rmfr

EDIT: added an emphasis

Great hope's picture
@arakish

@arakish

It's not the job of the believer to provide the evidence that God provides the individual if it were sought. A believers job is to witness. If a person is willing to know if God exists, at any cost. Then they personally must think about what it would look like for you to ask The Creator and Giver of Life to remove any and all things that are blocking you from it, and to mean it with humble conviction and complete abandon. If you don't want to do that? Then just keep doing what you're doing. No amount of answers will ever help. Here is an interesting screenshot I found in the "Big Book" perhaps it could shed some light on what it would look like if you were to give everything that you are to see if God Loves us or not? Pick it apart or do what it takes to get the answer that answers all. I've done it, and I can witness, that you will never be able to out give The Creator and Giver of Life. The greatest of hope to you my friend.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sheldon's picture
Same old vapid sermon,

Same old vapid sermon, implying atheists are at fault for not seeing your deity, despite the fact you can demonstrate not one shred of objective evidence for it.

" If you don't want to do that? Then just keep doing what you're doing. No amount of answers will ever help."

What answers? You have offered nothing but the same vapid nonsense you've posted here, claiming we should hold an a priori belief as if this state of gullible acceptance is a profound path into esoteric truth, rather the most vapid idiotic gullibility one could use to believe the moon was made of cheese if they wished.

arakish's picture
Great Hope: "It's not the job

Great Hope: "It's not the job of the believer to provide the evidence"

You forget one thing: Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

That is Latin for “he who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about… Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.

Here is actually where the burden of proof lies. You Religious Absolutists claim there is a supernatural super-being who has ultimate-power, ultimate-knowledge, and ultimate goodness (I beg to differ). We Atheists are simply saying, “We do not believe you. Show us the evidence.” Thus, the burden of proof is on you Religious Absolutists.

The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, I have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof.

The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If you are going to claim that scientists are lying, doctors are being paid off, there is a global conspiracy against religion, etc., the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak.

You are Religious Absolutists and believe in a deity that wants to be found, wants us to find it, and this deity is capable of literally ANYTHING. It should not be a problem for this deity of yours to provide evidence that would convince me of its existence.

And here is an afterthought: If it cannot be falsified or verified, then it is not evidence.

rmfr

Great hope's picture
Ok love ya bud. Sorry I don't

Ok love ya bud. Sorry I don't have what you're looking for.

Sheldon's picture
"Sorry I don't have what you

"Sorry I don't have what you're looking for."

You don't have anything at all, that's the problem, yet you preach and proselytise endlessly.

Great hope's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Well, as you have stated, no one has or ever will. I guess atheism is now complete. And what I've experienced is a delusion that somehow miraculously works. I'm sold. Thanks Shel, I couldn't have done it without you ; )

Nyarlathotep's picture
Great hope - And what I've

Great hope - And what I've experienced is a delusion that somehow miraculously works.

I think that was clear from your first post, where you discussed "interdimensional portals" and "real demonic magic".

Great hope's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

Lol for sure. Have you checked out Rick and Morty yet? I'm telling you, you will love it. Season 4 is coming soon. It's been a long wait.

arakish's picture
Who is Rick and Morty? I

Who is Rick and Morty? I keep seeing them mentioned.

rmfr

Skeptical Kevin's picture
@Arakish, Rick and Morty is a

@Arakish, Rick and Morty is a cartoon TV show. Got a psychotic genius Grandfather (Rick) and his idiot grandson (Morty) going on adventures. Dark hilarity ensues.

I tend to recommend it. If you're curious, check out some clips on YouTube to see if it is your thing.

Rick: *finishes building robot*
Robot: What is my purpose?
Rick: Pass the butter.
Robot: *does so* What is my purpose?
Rick: You pass butter.
Robot: Oh... Oh god... *places head in hands"

arakish's picture
@ Skeptical Kevin

@ Skeptical Kevin

Ah! Sounds like one of the many dumb ass cartoons that have been coming out since that Squarebob Spongepants bullshit so many years ago. Not even worth the time they waste being on the air. My opinion only. And just to piss everybody off, this opinion of mine also holds true for the Simpsons and South Park.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"I guess atheism is now

"I guess atheism is now complete. "

I have no idea what you mean about atheism, it isn't a claim or belief so your statement makes no sense.

"And what I've experienced is a delusion that somehow miraculously works."

That's just two more claims, can you support them by demonstrating any objective evidence?

" I'm sold. Thanks Shel, I couldn't have done it without you "

I seriously doubt you can grasp how irrational your claims are even with my help, but I think if you had any idea you'd recognise how misplaced your sarcasm is.

Claiming you've experienced something you can neither accurately define, nor objectively evidenced speak for themselves, similarly claiming miraculous outcomes in the physical word requires objective evidence commensurate to the claim, endless repetition of your claim won't validate it. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any miracle?

You also have no grasp of informal logic, and have shown again and again you don't recognise your flawed reasoning is riddled with known common logical fallacies.

Great hope's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Yes, you are right. I and the rest of the 95% of the world are all the way confused that someone would choose non-belief. When there is clearly an order and a design to belief and faith with results. And an unknown ending. arakish can at least say he's not going to do it and faith is out of the question. But nothing anyone ever says to you, has never been, nor will ever be, enough for you to look at, if you do want to know God? Your going to have to do it for yourself. If you don't want to do it, the way we all have to do it, before we die? Then that's totally fine. Just say you don't want to know God and go live your one happy life. Why waste so much time talking about me? Is this what makes you feel good? Because you've invested so much into "I am right, and you are wrong"? In a subject that is left up to wonder? We don't know the ending Sheldon. Oh my, it just occurred to me. "The AUTHOR and perfecter of faith." All I've ever needed to say is, God is waiting for you. All you have to do is accept that and make the turn "repent means change of heart". "Our ways are not God's ways" dang Sheldon you have really helped me. If you want to know God? You'll do "whatever it takes" and "ask God to remove everything". If not, then God speed my friend. I hope you find everything you're looking for. It's not on me to prove anything to anyone. You don't want to do it God's way? Cool, way to go. You've got more courage than me. That's for sure. I'll leave y'all alone now *cheers and chucles*. Thank you again for your patience and kindness with me. I've really enjoyed this journey with you. I get email notifications when someone inboxes me. I don't expect anyone will. But if anyone ever wants to make "the jump" don't hesitate to hit me up. Now go ahead Sheldon, tear this up, and feel good about being right about something that we don't know. Like I know you will ; ) old man shouts... I'm serious, don't feed Eric the sharting unicorn any more peanut butter prunes. I can smell it's sharts all the way over here.

Much Love Everyone,
Great Hope

Sheldon's picture
"Yes, you are right. I and

"Yes, you are right. I and the rest of the 95% of the world are all the way confused t"

Argumentum ad populum, a common logical fallacy based on a bare appeal to numbers. This has been explained to you innumerable times, it is nothing short of rank duplicity for you use it here again, and I have no doubt you will ignore this and use it again and again, you're being dishonest, what does that say about you, what should we infer about the beliefs and claims of someone being so obviously and consistently dishonest?

"someone would choose non-belief."

I haven't chosen non-belief, again this has been explained to you, and again you are dishonestly trying to misrepresent my atheism by implying a claim or assertion.

"there is clearly an order and a design to belief and faith with results."

Another tedious and dishonest repetition of your *UNEVIDENCED claims. Again it is impossible for any objective reader not to draw an inference from such consistent dishonesty.

"arakish can at least say he's not going to do it and faith is out of the question."

Each time you offer the vapid idiocy of subjective faith I ask you what exactly one cannot believe using faith, again your dishonest in ignoring this question is not lost on anyone with any objectivity.

"But nothing anyone ever says to you, has never been, nor will ever be, enough for you to look at, if you do want to know God? "

Another unabashed lie, demonstrate sufficient objective evidence, that will be enough, as it is with everything else I believe to be true. The fact you are ignoring this, and simply keep repeating this lie to misrepresent what I think is again presenting an inescapable inference.

"Just say you don't want to know God and go live your one happy life. Why waste so much time talking about me? Is this what makes you feel good? Because you've invested so much into "I am right, and you are wrong"?"

Ah this old canard, you sought us atheists out, and keep returning to preach your egotistical superstition. I did not seek you out. So this is so transparent a lie a person would have to be particularly stupid to use it, and even more stupid to think it remotely validates their beliefs in any way. Dishonesty and stupidity are not a path to some esoteric truth GH, that much even you must know at some level.

"you've invested so much into "I am right, and you are wrong"? "

The lies pile up in yet another sententious sermon, I have made no such claim, and have also told you this many times. Atheism doesn't involve any contrary claim to theism, it's a position on a single belief, a belief you hold despite not being able to demonstrate any evidence to support it, and I do not hold it precisely because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for it. The difference here is that I apply this open minded reasoning to all claims, you do not.

"We don't know the ending Sheldon. "

So you keep saying, the problem is I have never claimed to know anything that I cannot objectively evidence, you are the one doing this.

"It's not on me to prove anything to anyone. "

Anymore than anyone has to accept your vapid claims since you refuse to even try and evidence them. Again it's as if you think we won't notice that it is you has sought us out to preach your beliefs at, not the other way around.

"Now go ahead Sheldon, tear this up, and feel good about being right about something that we don't know."

I don't need to tear it up, there is nothing here to tear up as you've offered nothing but empty claims and rhetoric yet again, and you are the one who has sought out atheists and is claiming to know something here, and that you're right, not me. I am simply asking you to evidence those claims and beliefs, and all you do is repeat the same unevidenced claims, over and over and over. Go or stay, that's your choice, but each time you make one of these nauseating sermons, and fill it with vapid unevidenced claims I'll point out the emperor has no clothes. Telling a stranger on the internet you love them won't make your claims any less vapid or meaningless, that saccharine nonsense may suck some people into delusional cults but I'm afraid it won't sway me into belief based on naught but faith.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ GH

@ GH

old man shouts... I'm serious, don't feed Eric the sharting unicorn any more peanut butter prunes. I can smell it's sharts all the way over here.

You can smell Erics rainbow farts in la la land? Wow. I would have thought any flowery scent emitted by Eric would have been overpowered in your life bubble by the stench of sanctimonious hypocrisy and self delusion. Now that is a stink.

David Killens's picture
Great Hope, all you have to

Great Hope, all you have to do is provide proof. If not, please stop whining.

David Killens's picture
I've never seen so much

I've never seen so much proselytizing and passive-aggressive crap stuffed into one post.

arakish's picture
In Spirit: "Is it possible

In Spirit: "Is it possible your definition is wrong? The question requires a response."

As others have said, I have no definition for "god." I have heard many others attempt a definition, but those definitions are usually flawed. You are the one who must provide your definition of "your god," else how are we to able to discuss "your god"?

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
I no more field obliged to

I no more feel obliged to accurately define a deity than I do to accurately define a Leprechaun or a vampire, and for the same reason.

In Spirit's picture
To anyone giving me comments

To anyone giving me comments

I thought Terraphon's attempt to establish clear rules of debate would be accepted. A noble attempt on his part for obvious reasons but it seems to be neglected already. I for one wish we can try to adhere to it because it simplifies things.

As for my beliefs, I had previously stated that I would do so at the appropriate time, however, in my attempt to understand atheism, atheists and their position through other sources other than what I have learned here it has become very clear to me the position that atheists hold. Having clearly understood that now, it would be fruitless for me to attempt to prove what I believe in. I get it now. I understand the position of atheists and their position of asking for evidence. So for now I am saving us one huge headache.

Having said that, until rules are followed by everyone, then it seems that this forum is a free for all.

In conclusion, I hope to bring a new approach. If i get out of line, please bring it up. I will do my best not to be disrespectful or for that matter to ridicule anyone regardless of how ridiculous some things may sound. If you think I am neglecting you, it will be . because a response is not merited according to my rules (a work in progress)

I will not ask anyone to change their behavior or beliefs. Be as you are.

I will leave it at this: This is GH's thread and I will from here on in keep it to that topic
Anyone who addresses me off topic, to respect the OP, please send me a private message if you want a response or start a new OP

David Killens's picture
I like Turtles.

I like Turtles.

arakish's picture
So do I. 7734, I even had a

So do I. 7734, I even had a breeding pair and raised the babies until they could go on their own in the wild. And I did this when I was only 8yrs old. The year before, I had found a huge, honking mess of frog eggs and raised them until they were little froglets and released them in the wild. I have found bird eggs on the ground and raised the baby until I released it. 7734, I did so much of this in only 10 years, I can't remember how different kinds of animals I have raised from egg to adult.

As said on TMNT, "Turtle, Power!"

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.