”Inuma ilu awilum”…When the gods were men

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
”Inuma ilu awilum”…When the gods were men

If the ancients could predict how “smart” their descendants would have resulted, they would have written down many times that the gods were originally common men. Unfortunately they did it only once (although in many copies).

"Inuma ilu awilum" literally means “When gods men.”

Following is an excerpt from a book by Esther J. Hamori, entitled “When Gods were Men” (pg 138).

Quote
The Akkadian myth of Atrahasis opens with the words “When gods were men” (Inuma ilu awilum). This phrase has been analyzed and translated in numerous ways, but the essential meaning is clear from the context. The text goes on to describe how the lower gods (the Igigi) were initially required to do the labour necessary on earth, and then rebelled against the higher gods (the Anunnaki), eventually instigating the creation of humanity as a work force.

In other words the term “man” in the opening phrase defines a role, a function in the universe, rather than a separate species; when gods served that function, they too “were men.” For this reason the term “awilum,” literally “man”(sg), is perhaps best rendered in English as “men” (pl).
Lambert and Millard translate “When the gods like men” or “When the gods like man” understanding awilum as ending with the locative ..um with the same meaning as the comparative ..is. They note that this would be the first example of the comparative ..um. This grammatical analysis of the phrase renders the same meaning as discussed above, only through a simile, rather than a metaphor.
As Foster observes, “The line is a metaphor… meaning “When gods were (like) men (in that they had to work).”
Later in the myth, the terms are used in their more common sense, as when Ea prepares to create humanity and says “Let man bear the load of the gods.”
Unquote

Common sense demands to translate “Inuma ilu awilum” as “When gods were human”; justifying thus the word awilum being in the singular.

To claim that the expression is a metaphor because… "gods were like men in that they had to work", the work they were doing should have been a god’s work; but it was not:

Quote
(5) The seven(?) great Anunna-gods were burdening
The Igigi-gods with forced labor.
[The gods] were digging watercourses,
[Canals they opened, the] life of the land.
[The Igigi-gods] were digging watercourses,
[Canals they opened, the] life of the land.

(25) [The Igigi-gods dug the Ti]gris river,
[And the Euphrates thereafter.
[Springs they opened up from] the depths,
[Wells ... ] they established.
[They heaped up] all the mountains.
Unquote

The last verse, along with the one about digging up the rivers, signals the awakening of theological thought (later the gods were said to have been creating rivers and mountains and the whole universe by simply saying a word) but the fact that the men who took over did the same work with the same tools indicates that the heaping up of the mountains is just a poetic exaggeration.

When the Igigi gods rebelled they destroyed their tools.
They set fire to their tools:

Quote
(verse 65) They put fire to their spaces(spades),
And flame to their workbaskets.(2)

Gloss No. (2) reads: In effect, the first work stoppage in world history, or at least in world literature.
Unquote

A story about gods is “world history” but yet he (Foster, the translator) refuses to acknowledge that gods were actually men.

Euhemerism is a theory named after Euhemerus, a Greek mythographer of the 4th century BCE, which holds that many mythological tales can be attributed to historical persons and events, the accounts of which have become altered and exaggerated over time.
There are no modern atheist scholars who support Euhemerism. The theories in vogue concerning the origin of religion are based mostly on theories by psychologists who teach that men are psychologically primed for religion.

What is going on here is that modern theories cannot harm religion because they present religion as an unavoidable stage in the development of the human intellect. The ancients are portrayed as savage idiots who could not decipher properly the information implanted by God in their brains and thus they described the gods as rapists and killers. Modern philosophers and theologians were equipped with the proper receptors and therefore they got the message correctly!!
Thomson and Dawkins, who support such a theory, I consider as the traitors of atheism (not that the rest of the “New Atheists” are any better).

If, on the other hand, Euhemerism prevailed it would have been obvious that the concept of the G-god of monotheism is an entirely idiotic concept that only by chance or as an accident could have entered the human intellect.
The detailed study of the history of the development of the story of the gods shows that the God idea is not even an accident; it is a plain joke. An archaic joke that some clever rulers managed to make use of.

Up to 4500 BCE “god” meant “lord” and was an epithet mostly used for the kings. Unfortunately, modern people, theists and atheists alike, cannot bring themselves to think but of an immaterial heavenly being when reference is made to the term “god”.

For this situation responsible is the academy, which is an accomplice of the church, with the result that the new atheists are completely uneducated in religious matters (true atheists, i.e. Euhemerists, are very scarce, as Dawkins rightfully observed).

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
"I consider as the traitors

"I consider as the traitors of atheism"

lol

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“lol”

“lol”

You have to explain why you are laughing because laughing alone does not prove you are laughing for the right reasons.
The motto “There is PROBABLY no God” coming from someone who declares atheist cannot be considered a honest statement.
“Probably there is no” has exactly the same meaning as “Probably there is” so what we have here is an atheist who preaches that there is probably a God, and you are laughing at me for calling him a traitor of atheism?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dimitrios - '“Probably there

Dimitrios - '“Probably there is no” has exactly the same meaning as “Probably there is”'

only in crackpot land

Travis Hedglin's picture
Follow my suit, avoid and

Follow my suit, avoid and ignore, don't feed it.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
"Follow my suit, avoid and

"Follow my suit, avoid and ignore, don't feed it."

You have been beaten and the only thing you can do in retaliation is libel, ha?

Travis Hedglin's picture
Sure, that's what it is, it

Sure, that's what it is, it isn't that you sound like a barking moonbat crusader with a bone to pick against anyone who accepts actual peer reviewed information...

You actually want to accuse agnostic atheists of being traitors to atheism? You really want to claim absolute certainty? Well, your an idiot then, because absolute certainty doesn't actually exist, an only an idiot confines himself to holding a single position without allowing the possibility for new or possibly contradictory information. So, scuttle back to your bridge, and take pride in you impotent victory that nobody but you seems to acknowledge or recognize. I dealt with your example, and showed how you twisted things to fit your own narrative. The only real difference between you and a religious nutbar, is that your agenda is contradictory, otherwise you are basically indistinguishable.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“You really want to claim

“You really want to claim absolute certainty? Well, your an idiot then, because absolute certainty doesn't actually exist, an only an idiot confines himself to holding a single position without allowing the possibility for new or possibly contradictory information.”

Upon losing your temper, you’ve also lost the game, boy. :-)
So, you are of the opinion that God may exist watching you from some spot in the universe and… he who is the idiot is me, hm?
Absolute certainty exists when scientific procedure tells you that a proposition is absolutely nonsense.
Moreover, as an agnostic you may not know whether absolute certainty exists. :-D

All the information you need about the God issue is available because it comes from the past and nothing is there that has to do with the future.
But, anyway, what are you doing in an atheist community? Spying for the agnostic traitors?
Oh boy, you made my day!

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Upon losing your temper, you

"Upon losing your temper, you’ve also lost the game, boy. :-)"

We'll see.

"So, you are of the opinion that God may exist watching you from some spot in the universe and…"

I am of the opinion that it is extremely improbable some from of generic Deistic god could exist, but it isn't entirely impossible. Watching requires physical features called eyes so I doubt it is "watching" anything at all, as the concept implies it isn't a physical being in Deism, and the Deistic concept of god isn't really well enough defined to disprove in any fashion.

"...he who is the idiot is me, hm?"

By attempting to depict the ONLY possibilities as either no god or your preferred version or view of the god concept, you are either and idiot or dishonest as all hell.

"Absolute certainty exists when scientific procedure tells you that a proposition is absolutely nonsense."

Scientific procedure doesn't say anything about god, directly, it doesn't give a fuck about god. It is based entirely on naturalism, and as such, is completely devoid of gods or other supernatural entities. Science isn't a "belief system" and has no "required beliefs", only stipulations that all claims must be backed by valid models and evidence, making peoples personal ideas or beliefs irrelevant to the procedure entirely. If anyone even attempts to use confirmation bias or pad their ideas with axiomatic beliefs, they lose credibility and their papers don't get published, but that doesn't actually mean they are automatically wrong. It just means that science requires more than mere assertion, and until you provide evidence, it isn't worth consideration regardless of whatever probability you assign it.

"Moreover, as an agnostic you may not know whether absolute certainty exists. :-D"

I am a militant agnostic, no one can know anything with absolute certainty, only reason and evidence. Considering we discover new things all the time, and new evidence in older disciplines, knowledge is malleable. This means that we will never know anything absolutely.

"All the information you need about the God issue is available because it comes from the past and nothing is there that has to do with the future."

And with this, you have made yourself look silly, as the god concept is being recreated all the time; and likely will be in the future. This means that you are attempting to argue that by disproving one god concept, you have disproved them all, which is a fallacious and asinine position.

"But, anyway, what are you doing in an atheist community?"

You may not know this, as you appear to have a fundamental misapprehension of what agnosticism is, but most ATHEISTS are AGNOSTIC. They don't claim to KNOW that no god(s) exist, only that they don't believe in them, usually because they have failed to make their burden of proof.

"Spying for the agnostic traitors?"

No, you are the only one here warping definitions to suit your own purpose and label people "traitors" based on you own idiotic ideals.

"Oh boy, you made my day!"

Good, make mine, have someone explain the difference between a claim of knowledge and belief to you.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“I am of the opinion that it

“I am of the opinion that it is extremely improbable some from of generic Deistic god could exist, but it isn't entirely impossible. Watching requires physical features called eyes so I doubt it is "watching" anything at all, as the concept implies it isn't a physical being in Deism, and the Deistic concept of god isn't really well enough defined to disprove in any fashion.”

The concept of the impersonal God of Deism is based on the personal God of the Hebrew Bible who is based on the One God that the Egyptians created.
Do your home work first and then raise your hand. ;-)

https://www.academia.edu/7189733/_Amen_..._the_creation_of_the_Creator

The scientific procedure demands that the proposition is first evaluated and then decide if it is worth go looking for the proposition’s objective reality.
You, agnostic guys, are suckers of theological cunning. The theory of agnosticism seeks an impossible level of proof for the non-existence of God so that it guarantees its undisputable existence. That is called SOPHISTRY.

Did the brainless philosopho-theologians who created the deist God invent the concept of God themselves? No!
They used the God presented to them and they simply transformed an idiotic concept so that it would look less idiotic.
A lump of dirt covered by a golden film remains a lump of dirt!

“By attempting to depict the ONLY possibilities as either no god or your preferred version or view of the god concept, you are either and idiot or dishonest as all hell.”

I have been studying the God issue, as I already told you, before you were even born. I base my stance on my work. I gave you the address of my page in academia.edu. Read my articles and comment as a reasonable person would have done and stop acting like a child afraid of losing his fake toy.

“Scientific procedure doesn't say anything about god, directly, it doesn't give a fuck about god.”

That is where you are making the gravest possible mistake. The story of the gods reflects the history of humanity only that this sort of history if revealed it would kill religion and that your beloved dishonest scholars do not want to happen.

I suggest that we stop attacking each other and start a serious conversation based on evidence. You have no evidence to provide because you have not made the research I made, so I will present the evidence I have and you will evaluate it.
Let us start with the link I provided above.
Does that evidence persuade you that the God of the monotheistic religion was the work of the ancient Egyptians and that the term “Amen”, by which Jews, Christians and Muslims conclude their prayers is an invocation of the name of the Egyptian God Amen (Amen-Ra)?

What do you say?

Travis Hedglin's picture
"The concept of the

"The concept of the impersonal God of Deism is based on the personal God of the Hebrew Bible who is based on the One God that the Egyptians created."

Genetic fallacy, it doesn't matter where the original concept came from, it only matters what it is now. There are many god concepts that are different from the Hebrew or Egyptian concepts of god, you probably shouldn't keep treating them the same, it makes you seem ignorant.

"The scientific procedure demands that the proposition is first evaluated and then decide if it is worth go looking for the proposition’s objective reality."

Actually, that "evaluation" is an experiment designed to test if their is any evidence that it exists, not if it is possible. By your logic all "unknown" that exists will never be found, because it is impossible, so their is nothing left for the possibility of discovery. That is false, unfalsifiable claims aren't impossible, only useless to science. Science doesn't deal with unfalsifiable claims, because they are useless to it considering the method, and science does not claim to falsify the unfalsifiable. You do.

"I have been studying the God issue, as I already told you, before you were even born."

I find it interesting that you have studied it, as you seem so ignorant and stubborn concerning god concepts and what constitutes religion. On one hand, you claim to be an expert beyond reproach; on the other, you demonstrate an incredible amount of ignorance and stunning arrogance about the topics in question. You conflate dissimilar god concepts as if you didn't know any better, and claim that all god concepts are the same, despite many being very different in scope and scale.

"That is where you are making the gravest possible mistake. The story of the gods reflects the history of humanity only that this sort of history if revealed it would kill religion and that your beloved dishonest scholars do not want to happen."

Oh, I forgot, ANYTHING that disagrees with your preferred narrative is a conspiracy. Except that SCIENCE doesn't give a shit about god, which was what I said, and you rebutted with a conspiracy among historians(hardly scientists).

"I suggest that we stop attacking each other and start a serious conversation based on evidence."

"You have no evidence to provide because you have not made the research I made, so I will present the evidence I have and you will evaluate it. Let us start with the link I provided above."

Is it scientific evidence concerning the impossibility of a Deistic god? If not, stop bringing it up, as it is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

"Does that evidence persuade you that the God of the monotheistic religion was the work of the ancient Egyptians and that the term “Amen”, by which Jews, Christians and Muslims conclude their prayers is an invocation of the name of the Egyptian God Amen (Amen-Ra)?

What do you say?"

I say the evidence you are trying to present is a genetic fallacy, it does not matter where the original concept of god came from, it matters whether it is possible or not. It is considered to be an unfalsifiable claim, and as such, is possible but not worthy of conviction or much consideration. You argument is that, if the people who created a concept were crazy or stupid, the claim is automatically invalid. Sorry bro, neither science or logic work that way, and you need to stop using this genetic fallacy as if it is automatic proof of anything but human imagination.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“Genetic fallacy,…”

“Genetic fallacy,…”

You may not call upon fallacies, falsifiabilities and the such as long as you refuse to read my articles and commend on the evidence provided.

“…it doesn't matter where the original concept came from, it only matters what it is now.”

Your line of reasoning is admirable: “It does not matter who said the lie originally, I heard it from a respectable person”!!
Of course, you realize the absurdity of what you are saying but you suffer from the usual weakness of the agnostics. You have not been able to overcome the fear of God and you have attained an equilibrium by blaming God for your disbelief: “It is your fault, God. As soon as you give me more evidence of your existence, I will fall on my head and kow tow”.

“There are many god concepts that are different from the Hebrew or Egyptian concepts of god, you probably shouldn't keep treating them the same, it makes you seem ignorant.”

Read about comparative mythology, about Campbell’s monomyth and Jung’s archetypes.
Do not pretend to be an expert in matters you have never studied.

“I say the evidence you are trying to present is a genetic fallacy, it does not matter where the original concept of god came from,…”

Here we go again! There was never a “concept of god”, the god idea appeared as a joke (JOKE), but you do not want to know differently fearing God’s punishment. :-D

“You argument is that, if the people who created a concept were crazy or stupid, the claim is automatically invalid.”

Neither “soul” nor “heavenly being” or “immortality” is a concept. They all are ideas produced by chance and then exploited by the clergy.
Humans are not that brainless.
The God idea is ABSURD, RIDICULOUS and INSULTING TO HUMAN INTELLIGENCE and DIGNITY.

Be a strong person. Fight your fear!

Travis Hedglin's picture
"You may not call upon

"You may not call upon fallacies, falsifiabilities and the such as long as you refuse to read my articles and commend on the evidence provided."

When your articles are about the origins, I can actually, because that is precisely the thrust of the genetic fallacy.

"Your line of reasoning is admirable:"

No, it is logical, you are attempting to use a formal logical fallacy.

“It does not matter who said the lie originally, I heard it from a respectable person”!!

What? No, it doesn't matter WHO you hear something from, and argument stands and falls on its own merits, not those of its originator or other arguments similar to it. You sir, obviously never took a logic class, otherwise you wouldn't have used this to address a genetic fallacy, as it is the very definition of the genetic fallacy.

"Of course, you realize the absurdity of what you are saying but you suffer from the usual weakness of the agnostics."

The agnostic position isn't weak, you are just baldly asserting bullshit.

"You have not been able to overcome the fear of God and you have attained an equilibrium by blaming God for your disbelief:"

Nope. Nice try. Not sure if this is a strawman, or an insult, but it certainly falls somewhere in between the two.

"“It is your fault, God. As soon as you give me more evidence of your existence, I will fall on my head and kow tow”."

Even if a god was proven to exist tomorrow(which will never happen), it still wouldn't necessarily be worthy of either respect or worship. You are simply an idiot with an axe to grind.

"Read about comparative mythology, about Campbell’s monomyth and Jung’s archetypes.
Do not pretend to be an expert in matters you have never studied."

Oh my fucking word, really? Are you so fucking stupid or blind that you actually think ALL god concepts are identical?

"Here we go again! There was never a “concept of god”, the god idea appeared as a joke (JOKE), but you do not want to know differently fearing God’s punishment. :-D"

Doesn't matter where an idea or concept comes from, or how, logic DICTATES that all arguments stand or fall on their own merit. Thus far, yours have fallen, and have been utterly contemptible and unsatisfactory.

"Neither “soul” nor “heavenly being” or “immortality” is a concept. They all are ideas produced by chance and then exploited by the clergy."

Like I said, none of this shit actually matters in a logical debate about the existence of a Deistic god. It is smokescreen, a red herring, an idiotic belching of logically irrelevant data.

"Humans are not that brainless.
The God idea is ABSURD, RIDICULOUS and INSULTING TO HUMAN INTELLIGENCE and DIGNITY.

Be a strong person. Fight your fear!"

I am not afraid, I am just logical and reasonable enough to realize that unfalsifiable claims are...well...unfalsifiable. You seem to be under the delusion that you can actually falsify the unfalsifiable, furthermore without actually using either actual science or logic, making you seem either crazy or incompetent.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“When your articles are about

“When your articles are about the origins, I can actually, because that is precisely the thrust of the genetic fallacy.”

You go from one blunder to the next!
Your axiom that there can be no absolute certainty, doesn’t it apply to the original concept or idea too?
It does! Then what are you doing? You ascribe 10% possibility of non-existence for Thor and Zeus and 2% only for your deist God?

“Not sure if this is a strawman, or an insult, but it certainly falls somewhere in between the two.”

It is what I think of the agnostics. Nothing personal here.

“Even if a god was proven to exist tomorrow(which will never happen),”

Did not take long for the next blunder to appear. :-)
That “will never happen” I can say, but not you. You do not have the... absolute certainty to use the word “never”.

“…it still wouldn't necessarily be worthy of either respect or worship. You are simply an idiot with an axe to grind.”

Oh, losing temper again!
Hold yourself mate. Do not give me the satisfaction of driving mad one more agnostic.

“Oh my fucking word, really? Are you so fucking stupid or blind that you actually think ALL god concepts are identical?”

Here are the wise words of Joseph Campbell:
Quote
And though many who bow with closed eyes in the sanctuaries of their own tradition rationally scrutinize and disqualify the sacraments of others, an honest comparison immediately reveals that all have been built from one fund of mythological motifs –variously selected, organized, interpreted, and ritualized, according to local need, but revered by every people on earth.
Unquote

You could learn to become a true atheist with me, but you are afraid to lose the equilibrium you have managed to achieve; exactly as it happens with thinking theists.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"You go from one blunder to

"You go from one blunder to the next!"

Oh, yes, because me pointing out that you literally used a logical fallacy is SUCH a blunder on my part.

"Your axiom that there can be no absolute certainty, doesn’t it apply to the original concept or idea too?"

Yep, because regardless of whatever specifics THEY may have gotten wrong, it does NOT disprove the core idea.

"It does! Then what are you doing?"

Pointing out that YOU used a genetic fallacy, which is what YOU did. Why are you trying so hard to deflect to me, when I am not the one who used the fallacy, YOU are.

"You ascribe 10% possibility of non-existence for Thor and Zeus and 2% only for your deist God?"

I don't ascribe possibilities to god concepts nor do I need to, because it is the core idea that is the issue, not the various flavors of it. If you disproved 1,000 variations of the god concept because they made falsifiable claims, it would not effect the god proposition that is unfalsifiable. I am not the one making a genetic fallacy and appealing to old god concepts that are no longer taken seriously to dismiss the idea of god, you are. You, once again, are demonstrating that you either don't understand the fallacy; or do and are simply spouting nonsense.

"It is what I think of the agnostics. Nothing personal here."

Well, it is rather personal, and rather ignorant an offensive.

"Did not take long for the next blunder to appear. :-)
That “will never happen” I can say, but not you. You do not have the... absolute certainty to use the word “never”."

Unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable by definition, they can not be proven either true or false.

"Oh, losing temper again!
Hold yourself mate. Do not give me the satisfaction of driving mad one more agnostic."

Yes, your opinions are pissing me off, as they demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of the topic in discussion but feign expertise. You are the Ken Ham and Ray Comfort of militant gnostic atheism.

"Here are the wise words of Joseph Campbell"

How about you use your own, even though you both commit the genetic fallacy, it at least doesn't add an appeal to authority on top of it. Well...It shouldn't...As long as you stop appealing to your own authority as if it wasn't a fallacy.

"You could learn to become a true atheist with me, but you are afraid to lose the equilibrium you have managed to achieve; exactly as it happens with thinking theists."

Or, I could remain in a reasonable position that does not have a burden of proof that has failed to be met, unlike yours.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“Yep, because regardless of

“Yep, because regardless of whatever specifics THEY may have gotten wrong, it does NOT disprove the core idea.”

It does NOT disprove the CORE IDEA OF GOD!!

The expression “core idea” stinks of theology.

“Well, it is rather personal, and rather ignorant an offensive.”

I made no secret that I regard agnosticism as the main enemy of atheism, nor of the fact that I despise agnosticism. Moreover, I do have the right to insult ideas. If you regard yourself an agnostic you may be insulted all you want.

“Yes, your opinions are pissing me off, as they demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of the topic in discussion but feign expertise. You are the Ken Ham and Ray Comfort of militant gnostic atheism.”

Right! While your arguments with the invocation of fallacies, falsifiabilities and such philosophical nonsense cannot be taken seriously. :-)

Travis Hedglin's picture
"It does NOT disprove the

"It does NOT disprove the CORE IDEA OF GOD!!

The expression “core idea” stinks of theology."

I suppose I did not explain the genetic fallacy well enough, because you are still acting like the origin of an idea is relevant to its accuracy. Your puerile insistence that we treat separately from how we would treat other scientific or logical concepts, smacks of the same kind of gnostic zealotry that religious apologists would use, making me wonder if you aren't actually a Poe account.

"I made no secret that I regard agnosticism as the main enemy of atheism, nor of the fact that I despise agnosticism."

No, you didn't, and it would have been fine if left at that. Instead, you started trying to tell me what I think and how I feel. You really are little different from a religious apologist telling everyone that "they really KNOW god exists" and that "they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and sin", it marks you as a dishonest huckster, and makes people despise you even more that you could possibly despise them.

"Moreover, I do have the right to insult ideas."

You didn't, instead you told me what I thought, and then attacked that strawman with all the vigor of a good shyster.

"If you regard yourself an agnostic you may be insulted all you want."

Oh, I do. I don't think our senses are perfect, I don't think absolute certainty is attainable, and I don't think people who claim to know anything with absolute certainty should ever be trusted.

"Right! While your arguments with the invocation of fallacies, falsifiabilities and such philosophical nonsense cannot be taken seriously. :-) "

Um, I pointed out the fallacies, I didn't invoke them. You did when you attempted to use them as support for your position. As far as fallacy and falsifiability being "nonsense", science and logic both depend on them quite heavily, using this argument just makes you look even more intellectually bankrupt than you already did. Personally, I don't really CARE, I find your arguments so bad they border on hilarious. Keep 'em comin', I need the laughs, and others need a good example of how NOT to frame an argument.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“Oh, I do. I don't think our

“Oh, I do. I don't think our senses are perfect, I don't think absolute certainty is attainable, and I don't think people who claim to know anything with absolute certainty should ever be trusted.”

Absolute certainty is one more idiotic philosophical concept as, for example, fralsifiability.
Who cares for absolute certainty?
Only theology!
Do you refrain from driving your car because it may break down?
Do you not take medicine because it is not the absolutely correct one for your malady?

“Um, I pointed out the fallacies, I didn't invoke them.”

You are invoking all sorts of philosophical and theological excuses in order to persuade yourself that an ancient hoax is a concept produced by modern superior brains.
Theology, and of course agnosticism, surpasses by far any other sort of deceitful cunning.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Absolute certainty is one

"Absolute certainty is one more idiotic philosophical concept..."

Epistemology, actually, and anyone that doesn't claim absolute certainty is pretty much agnostic by definition.

"...as, for example, falsifiability."

Thank you. You have, once again, shined a very powerful light on the fact you know nothing about science. Without falsifiability the scientific method would crumble, unfalsifiable claims would rule.

"Who cares for absolute certainty?"

Gnostics and Agnostics, if you knew what those words actually MEANT.

"Only theology!"

Nope, it is an epistemological distinction that appears to elude you, and proves you literally don't know what the hell you are talking about.

"Do you refrain from driving your car because it may break down?"

Nope, but does that change the fact that it may break down?

"Do you not take medicine because it is not the absolutely correct one for your malady?"

Nope, but I do realize I am taking a risk when taking medicine, and pretending that risk doesn't exist is asinine.

"You are invoking all sorts of philosophical and theological excuses in order to persuade yourself that an ancient hoax is a concept produced by modern superior brains."

Actually, LOGIC. I realize that you don't appear to be familiar with logic, but it is pretty distinct from philosophy and theology, and is actually the FOUNDATION of all knowledge and science. You said something that was not logical, as in, your conclusion did not follow from your premises. I know it is hard for you to grasp such simple information, but it is impossible to speak slower over a text forum.

"Theology, and of course agnosticism, surpasses by far any other sort of deceitful cunning."

Let us look at this rationally:

I argue that if we don't really know something, we should admit we don't, and operate on a basis of reason and evidence.

You argue that if we don't really know something, we should pretend we do, and operate on the basis of logical fallacies and assumption.

Hmmm...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dimitrios - "I have been

Dimitrios - "I have been studying the God issue, as I already told you, before you were even born."

"10 [crackpot]points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it..." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“I argue that if we don't

“I argue that if we don't really know something, we should admit we don't, and operate on a basis of reason and evidence.”

Of course, we are not omniscient, what we know is nothing compared to what we do not know. Yet, we are intelligent enough to know what human ideas are worth following and investigating and what are mere nonsense.
The God idea is an idiotic human idea and you are telling me that it does not matter whether it is idiotic since today’s theologians have it dressed with academic approval.

You know…I do not like that “sky daddy” expression that atheists use to tease believers but in your case I am going to use it: you have a problem with your sky daddy because you seem unable to displease him by admitting his non-existence. :-D

OVER AND OUT mate, you are contaminated with the disease of the believers which is incurable.

The Pragmatic's picture
I completely agree with

I completely agree with Travis, in that you sound just like a religious apologist. Only with the opposite opinion of the existence of a god. The same arrogance, the same certainty, the same conviction, the same tactic of re-defining terms to suite your own agenda. The same tendency to resort to patronizing and insulting comments.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“I completely agree with

“I completely agree with Travis, in that you sound just like a religious apologist. Only with the opposite opinion of the existence of a god. The same arrogance, the same certainty, the same conviction, the same tactic of re-defining terms to suite your own agenda. The same tendency to resort to patronizing and insulting comments.”

Add to that the fact that I do respect some theists while I despise all agnostics, without exception. :-D

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Of course, we are not

"Of course, we are not omniscient, what we know is nothing compared to what we do not know."

(stares out you ironically)

You do, of course, that you just literally stated the agnostic position its entirety; right? No, of course you don't, how silly of me to assume you actually knew what agnosticism meant...

"Yet, we are intelligent enough to know what human ideas are worth following and investigating and what are mere nonsense."

Nope. But we are intelligent enough to know which ideas are able to be investigated and which ones aren't. Unfalsifiable claims, by definition, cannot be investigated. That which cannot be investigated cannot be rationally believed, which means you CAN disbelieve without absolute knowledge. We call this position agnostic atheism in reference to claims about gods existence.

"The God idea is an idiotic human idea and you are telling me that it does not matter whether it is idiotic since today’s theologians have it dressed with academic approval."

Your personal feeling about the idea being idiotic are not relevant here, what matters is evidence that no god could exist, and until you provide such evidence you cannot state its existence is impossible. Thankfully, most theistic religions define their god(s) with self-contradictory properties, allowing us to dismiss their god concept(which includes its descriptions and properties) as fallacious. You know, fallacious, you like that kind of reasoning a lot too.

"You know…I do not like that “sky daddy” expression that atheists use to tease believers but in your case I am going to use it:"

Which would be inanely asinine considering we are discussing a more ambiguous concept of god that has no defined properties outside of existence. Using this is an attempt to set up a strawman argument.

"...you have a problem with your sky daddy because you seem unable to displease him by admitting his non-existence. :-D"

Are you seriously THAT stupid? I don't state its existence is impossible because no one has yet demonstrated that it IS impossible, and stating as fact that which is not evidently true is a lie, and unlike you I am not a liar.

"OVER AND OUT mate, you are contaminated with the disease of the believers which is incurable."

You are almost too stupid to even be wrong, the vast majority of your comments aren't even relevant to topic under discussion.

The Pragmatic's picture
"Upon losing your temper, you

"Upon losing your temper, you’ve also lost the game, boy. :-)"

Wow, it been a long time since I saw someone try to assert their superior position by ending sentences with "boy". That says a lot about what kind of person you are Dimitrios.

"Absolute certainty exists when scientific procedure tells you that a proposition is absolutely nonsense."

Well, as apologists are quick to point out, science have been wrong and corrected it's position on several occasions. Does that mean that "Absolute certainty" changes occasionally?

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“Wow, it been a long time

“Wow, it been a long time since I saw someone try to assert their superior position by ending sentences with "boy". That says a lot about what kind of person you are Dimitrios.”

You are certainly right.
When I do that, I do it on purpose.

I am 73 years old, boy. :-D

The Pragmatic's picture
I don't consider age to be a

I don't consider age to be a valid excuse to act like an a-hole.
You sound like a white plantation owner talking down to his slaves.

Dimitrios Trimijopulos's picture
“You sound like a white

“You sound like a white plantation owner talking down to his slaves.”

Right! It so sounds.
Actually it reflects the attitude of an atheist talking down to agnostics. ;-)

The Pragmatic's picture
No, it does not.

No, it does not.

Don't tarnish the word "atheist" with your poor attitude. Lots of atheists don't have your "unique style".

You sound as what you are, someone who thinks he's better than everyone else and that that give him a free pass to act bad. Atheism has nothing to do with that, just poor attitude.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I've updated my profile to:

I've updated my profile to:
"traitor of atheism".

C. M. Allen's picture
Apparently you're in good

Apparently you're in good company.

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.