# Theism and Atheism



## notsocordial (May 24, 2019)

[h=5]Theists and Atheists.[/h]Theists and atheists, I will say that again. Don't feel attacked. Not yet. I am yet to unfold some mysterious revelations now and who knows you might want to change sides? Let's start with establishing what your stance is right now. Are you an atheist? Yes or No only. I am sure you have your reason to believe in where you stand and I am not here to convert that. We will just look into some facts and try reaching somewhere. No promises.
Believers and non-believers, all of us want to be proven of the slightest possibility of the presence of God. The Big Bang is said to be the reason for the great expansion of the universe but what if there was another universe before that happened? Space was always there. Some spatial element was always there and something caused the Big Bang. The whole universe is governed by laws that we cannot comprehend, all the celestial bodies abide by those rules but who made these laws? So perfect and so accurate. I am not saying God did it but then, who?
[h=5]Arguments are never really right or wrong...[/h]All of us, theists or atheists, want to experience, as Buechner puts it, God's presence. It is very much possible to believe in something and question it, at the same time. Theists cling on to their beliefs but somewhere, they must seek for the slightest hint to certify their faith. The tiniest possibility of God's presence is always sought after. Atheists have never seen such a thing and they have probably lost hope on witnessing something as grand as God's presence and so they just go about the easiest way of being a non-believer. But, in the essence of it all, we are all looking out for the possibility of God's presence. And, if there is a God, God wants us to feel the presence too.
God is not trying to hide behind a curtain and not take the credits for this wonderful creation. It is evident that God wants to be known. God has put all this place, the Sun rises in the East every day at a particular time and sets in the West, the stars are aligned as they are, the heart beats at a pace, the water flows, the plants give out oxygen, the planets rotate, the clouds rain, and thus, God wants to tell us that the presence is there.
We are just looking for some mathematical formulation, or Karma's solid blow to finally put us in our stand that what we believe is right. But, would we, though? Will that still be enough? Maybe God is one among us, maybe we cannot see God because our eyes don't detect the substance that creates God. Maybe, we are dumb enough to not feel the presence, maybe the universe will fall out of order if we knew who made it.
[h=5]Settling on a common-ground is not that easy.[/h]Our minds can play wonders, though. We hallucinate, we see things, we experience deja vu, we experience sleep paralysis, we go through the day imagining things, discovering things, acknowledging emotions. Our mind goes through so much and is capable of so much more than that, that when we experience something, it's pretty difficult to differentiate the reality from the imagination and thus, we cannot for sure blame or credit ourselves for connecting the dots and reaching a conclusion.
That said, we cannot really take the mic from people who claim to have experienced a Godly presence and just discredit them. We simply cannot do that for them, and yet again, we cannot just point a sword at the atheists and blame them for being so ignorant. So, we have to reach a middle ground. We have to allow all of us to believe what we want and not hate the people who differ from us. Frankly, theists and atheists are not a cult.
As far as theism is considered, let's say that maybe God exists and God doesn't. There is a higher energy form, which is regulating all of this and there is a possibility that miracles are just mere coincidences and our fates are not guided by the illusion of free will and there is an afterlife where we can right all our wrongs and we are all just trying to be good human beings and that Karma, is in fact, a bitch.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (May 24, 2019)

I see what you are trying to delve into here, but the general structure is kind of rambling and difficult to follow. On the sentence level there's some trouble with grammar; for example, in "Theists and atheists, I will say that again," there's a comma splice. On the content level you often make random statements that are not really backed up, for example "Arguments are never really right or wrong." What does that mean? How is it connected to the rest of the paragraph? What exactly are you asserting with that statement, and on what basis?

The middle part is probably the most interesting because you seem to be actually going somewhere, starting by saying everyone wants to experience God's presence (that may or may not be true, but okay), then showing how creation points to a God, and then introducing doubt by allowing that spiritual experiences may be psychological. 

But then the last paragraph everything kind of falls apart. You state:



notsocordial said:


> So, we have to reach a middle ground. We have to allow all of us to believe what we want and not hate the people who differ from us. Frankly, theists and atheists are not a cult.
> As far as theism is considered, let's say that maybe God exists and God doesn't.



At this point, you're not really adding anything to the God conversation. You say that maybe God exists, or he doesn't. Well, okay. But isn't that exactly where we were at the start of the essay? Especially when your intro claims that you have some "mysterious revelations" in store, you should take the reader somewhere other than "Well, people have different views," which we already knew. Finding a middle ground doesn't mean holding no position. (BTW no one thinks theists and atheists are a cult, since that's literally every human on earth except agnostics)

Maybe this last sentence is supposed to be the final revelation?


notsocordial said:


> There is a higher energy form, which is regulating all of this and there is a possibility that miracles are just mere coincidences and our fates are not guided by the illusion of free will and there is an afterlife where we can right all our wrongs and we are all just trying to be good human beings and that Karma, is in fact, a bitch.


 But it's so convoluted that I have no idea what it is saying. 

All in all I'm glad you're thinking about these things, but you probably need to decide what exactly you want to say, and then work on making your execution logical and fluid. Are you making a claim about spiritual reality? Or are you just saying that people with different beliefs should be accepting of each other? 

Best line was definitely this: "Maybe the universe will fall out of order if we know who made it." There you're asking a truly interesting question, one you could probably base a whole separate essay on.


----------



## BornForBurning (May 25, 2019)

> Believers and non-believers, all of us want to be proven of the slightest possibility of the presence of God.





> All of us, theists or atheists, want to experience, as Buechner puts it, God's presence.


That's a horrible assumption to make. 


> The Big Bang is said to be the reason for the great expansion of the universe but what if there was another universe before that happened?


What if? What if what? What if there was a gigantic copy of Entombed's Left Hand Path before the great expansion of the universe? We can invent an infinite amount of just-so stories when we are discussing an area that we have absolutely no knowledge of. 


> The whole universe is governed by laws that we cannot comprehend


That's just wrong. We may not be able to comprehend them enough to fully grasp them but we can comprehend them competently enough that we may survive in this universe. Furthermore, the assumption that we CANNOT comprehend it full stop is predicated on the assumption that the Laws are infinite, which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE ITSELF TO BE INFINITE. Which nobody does because physical form (physical defined as atoms, particles) being infinite contradicts all prior knowledge we have about physical form which is that ALL PHYSICAL FORM ULTIMATELY DECAYS. 


> Atheists have never seen such a thing and they have probably lost hope on witnessing something as grand as God's presence and so they just go about the easiest way of being a non-believer.


Assumption that all humans would accept God's presence if they experienced it. This is fundamentally predicated on the belief that all humans inherently gravitate towards good, which doesn't seem self-evident at all. And what _I _just said is predicated on the belief that God is fundamentally Good, which is another argument entirely.


> *Arguments are never really right or wrong...*


For once we agree. But this is better expressed as "all arguments are neither fully wrong nor fully right, ergo, there is some right and some wrong in all arguments." Humans are inherently flawed and limited creatures. It is worth noting that language enables us to make such highly specified statements that it is technically possible to make arguments that are "totally" wrong. Propositional Logic and related fields of study. But as a grander philosophical statement, I certainly see your point. 


> It is evident that God wants to be known.


Only in the sense that denying knowing him seems to drive one philosophically and mentally insane. Perhaps you have a point here. Perhaps it is your best point. 


> We hallucinate, we see things, we experience deja vu, we experience sleep paralysis, we go through the day imagining things, discovering things, acknowledging emotions.


Again, I am simply not sure what your point is here. That humans are flawed? Is it that if a human "hallucinated" it is not spiritual? Please explain to me the fundamental difference between these "spiritual" experiences you have been discussing and the experience of daily life. Is it not spiritual that I can comprehend the glass in front of me? If it is _not _than I by definition CANNOT BE A SPIRITUAL BEING. If comprehension itself is not spiritual THAN I AM MERELY MATTER. Reality vs Imagination? What important distinction is this? Imagination is the communication of data between brain cells. IT IS AS 'REAL' AS ANYTHING CAN BE. 

sorry you caught me at a bad moment. But I hope that helped. Good luck on your philosophizing mate.


----------



## escorial (May 25, 2019)

I liked the simplicity of it all...


----------



## notsocordial (May 25, 2019)

Thanks for sparing the time to read it


----------



## notsocordial (May 25, 2019)

escorial said:


> I liked the simplicity of it all...


Thank you so much!


----------



## notsocordial (May 25, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I see what you are trying to delve into here, but the general structure is kind of rambling and difficult to follow. On the sentence level there's some trouble with grammar; for example, in "Theists and atheists, I will say that again," there's a comma splice. On the content level you often make random statements that are not really backed up, for example "Arguments are never really right or wrong." What does that mean? How is it connected to the rest of the paragraph? What exactly are you asserting with that statement, and on what basis?
> 
> The middle part is probably the most interesting because you seem to be actually going somewhere, starting by saying everyone wants to experience God's presence (that may or may not be true, but okay), then showing how creation points to a God, and then introducing doubt by allowing that spiritual experiences may be psychological.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your insights! I know the article has gone haywire and I really needed the critique. Thanks for the comments. I will surely work on all of it!


----------



## notsocordial (May 25, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> That's a horrible assumption to make.
> 
> What if? What if what? What if there was a gigantic copy of Entombed's Left Hand Path before the great expansion of the universe? We can invent an infinite amount of just-so stories when we are discussing an area that we have absolutely no knowledge of.
> 
> ...



Hi! So many questions! Thank you for asking these, though. Let me start with a question that actually seemed to catch my attention. You are actually right. Imagination is as real as it can get but we can not deny that it is not an escapade. After the imagination is converted into something substantial, it will then turn into reality. I might imagine eating Nachos but unless I actually order it and start chewing on them, it is still my IMAGINATION.

And, when I am talking about the laws not being comprehended, I am talking about the ones we have not yet come across. I am trying to literally argue about something we have never seen or felt, only heard of. Of course, I am not talking about the theory of Relativity here. 

And, what ifs are necessary elements for a thought to instigate. If Newton had just seen the apple fall on the ground and never thought about a What If, I don't think we would have Physics at all!

Keep the criticism coming in. Makes me think!

Thanks


----------



## Bard_Daniel (May 26, 2019)

I feel that there are a lot of presumptions and assumptions made here that you do not substantiate through your argument. This is meant to be a persuasive piece, yes? It reads more like an internalized transcription of what you think than following the conventions for a persuasive, or philosophical, piece of writing. In my humble opinion, it needs to have a more solid foundation for you to base your argument and your points on before you delve into the kind of prepositions that you are divulging. 

Just my amateur opinion!


----------



## notsocordial (May 27, 2019)

Bard_Daniel said:


> I feel that there are a lot of presumptions and assumptions made here that you do not substantiate through your argument. This is meant to be a persuasive piece, yes? It reads more like an internalized transcription of what you think than following the conventions for a persuasive, or philosophical, piece of writing. In my humble opinion, it needs to have a more solid foundation for you to base your argument and your points on before you delve into the kind of prepositions that you are divulging.
> 
> Just my amateur opinion!



Thanks for the insight! I will work on it, surely. I am new to this so thanks for helping me out!


----------



## Winston (May 27, 2019)

First, on the structural side:
A lot of front-loading, and jumping.  First, make the mission statement more clear.  Make an assertion, support it.  Address the 'con' side objections, then refute them.  Reassert your pro-side points.  Summarize.  
The piece really is more pro-theist.  Own that.  Trying too be too neutral can be confusing and is often boring.  Discussions are interesting when they evoke thought and dialogue.  This reads as a bunch of facts and a handful of lightly supported opinion.  

On the content:
I personally cannot fathom how Atheists reconcile the mind-boggling intricacies of every part of the Universe.  From physical laws to mathematically improbable odds of proteins combining.  It's all just "luck" with them.  Yeah.  Like rolling a hard six 1,000,000 times in a row at the craps table.  It's just not possible unless someone has rigged the game.  

The analogy I like is The Watch on The Beach.  A person with no knowledge of the world beyond his shores finds an intricately engineered, functioning watch on the beach. There is no one in his world with the skills and tools to make such a thing.  He ponders the item and comes to two possible conclusions:
However unlikely, the watch's mere presence is proof that spontaneous order occurs.   There is no physical proof that someone made it.  It just is.  
or
It is impossible for such a complex thing to just appear out of nowhere.  Despite the fact we can't see who made it, someone must have.


----------



## dither (May 27, 2019)

notsocordial,

I've only just seen this. I usually avoid the subject because god or no god cannot be proved. Or at least in my view it can't. No matter how strong a person's faith is, that's really all it is, faith.

But I must take issue with your suggestion that we atheists want to experience god's presence. I can't speak for other atheists of course but for myself, I want no such thing. The "god does/doesn't exist, is/isn't real debate/argument , call it what you might, is, in my eyes, totally irrelevant. We live we die. The world/universe, as we know it, is simply one huge coincidence. That's all. Why must there be a reason, a point, a big picture? Also, I don't think that I am a bad person at heart. And if/when I do something good, it's not Christianity it's just me, being me because that's how I am.

Enough said I think.

dither...


----------



## -xXx- (May 29, 2019)

-presents-
Louie Giglio, ref
The Sign of the Son of Man Discovered in Deep Space! Indescribable!
*8 passion*(_biochemical trigger_) assists listed on wiki

etymology
a*the*ist
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).

    The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

a*gnos*tic
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley, supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + gnostos "(to be) known," from PIE root *gno- "to know." Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God" in Acts, but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic). The adjective also is first recorded 1870.

    I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]

    The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. [Robert G. Ingersoll, "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott," 1890]


pretty sure this will be helpful.
as you write.


----------



## sigmadog (May 29, 2019)

-xXx- said:


> a*the*ist
> 1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due,"



I've long had an issue with this definition. Let me try to explain…

When you look up the definition of "theist", depending on which source, you'll find variations of "one who *believes* in the existence of God".

And when you look up the definition of "atheist", you find variations of "one who *denies* the existence of God."

Belief vs. denial is not, strictly speaking, a comparison of direct opposites. Since the Greek "_a_" is generally meant as "(_without_[whatever follows])", then it seems the more proper definition of "atheist" should be "one without belief in God", since that is a more directly opposing definition to "one with belief in God".

So if you want to define theism as _belief in God_, then it seems right to define atheism as _no belief in God_.

The implications of this seems clear in that *lacking belief in the existence* of something is not the same as *denying the existence* of something. In other words, one who lacks belief in God is someone you can, perhaps, talk to reasonably, but one who denies the existence of God is a clear antagonist and therefore someone you must strongly oppose. 

Makes me curious about the agenda of the one(s) who wrote that definition…


----------



## BornForBurning (May 30, 2019)

> The implications of this seems clear in that *lacking belief in the existence of something is not the same as denying the existence of something.*


Semantic nonsense. They mean almost exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the first statement attempts to frame itself as a personal belief whereas the second statement frames itself as an objective fact. The attempt to disconnect personal belief from objective fact is merely an acknowledgement that one _could _be wrong. Which is essentially the same as saying "I don't know." Which is technically an agnostic position. Though the person might still pragmatically identify as an atheist because they feel the evidence leans towards God not existing. This is, in fact, what most atheists actually mean, and this is why these statements have essentially the same meaning. One asserts something as fact but acknowledges he could be wrong, the other merely asserts something as fact. Of course, in the context of a debate, the acknowledgement that one could be wrong is implicit. One may also prefer the former simply because it is more 'diplomatic.' This, I suspect, is why many atheists prefer this phrasing.


----------



## sigmadog (May 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> The only difference is that the first statement attempts to frame itself as a personal belief whereas the second statement frames itself as an objective fact.



That is exactly my point:

{theist / atheist} =  a state of believing.

{gnostic / agnostic} = a state of knowing.

There is a big of difference between believing and knowing.


----------



## Kevin (May 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> Semantic nonsense. They mean almost exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the first statement attempts to frame itself as a personal belief whereas the second statement frames itself as an objective fact. The attempt to disconnect personal belief from objective fact is merely an acknowledgement that one _could _be wrong. Which is essentially the same as saying "I don't know." Which is technically an agnostic position. Though the person might still pragmatically identify as an atheist because they feel the evidence leans towards God not existing. This is, in fact, what most atheists actually mean, and this is why these statements have essentially the same meaning. One asserts something as fact but acknowledges he could be wrong, the other merely asserts something as fact. Of course, in the context of a debate, the acknowledgement that one could be wrong is implicit. One may also prefer the former simply because it is more 'diplomatic.' This, I suspect, is why many atheists prefer this phrasing.


 The distinction is significant enough to draw comment. 
Yes, semantics. The theist says absolutely there is whatever their belief says, whereas the atheist says that they lack this same belief, period. It seems like it's always the theists who claim the absolute right to define things. So there is your answer from at least  one atheist who has no absolute knowledge and is not a member of any religious organization or any anti-religious organization. Diplomatic? Flat out: believe=theist, don't believe= atheist. 'Agnostic' is a pansy position. If you 'don't know' then you don't have the belief. Just ask a believer.


----------



## sigmadog (May 30, 2019)

Kevin said:


> T 'Agnostic' is a pansy position.



Though I would phrase it differently, I largely agree that "agnostic" is essentially a meaningless term.

Why? Because as *xXx* has pointed out:

' "The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step,  and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. [Robert G.  Ingersoll, "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott," 1890] '

So if it's true that no one really knows, then we're ALL agnostics, and if everyone is agnostic, the word is useless as a means of drawing distinctions between us.

And just to bring this back home to discussion of the OP, please notice, *notsocordial*, how we have selected one term and have (roughly) analyzed that one word to throw light on different aspects and meanings. That is what is needed, I think, in your essay:



 Pick one thing.
Analyze it.
Come to a conclusion
Move on to another thing

Asking questions is fine, but at some point it starts to sound like a three year old who is just asking questions because he can.


----------



## BornForBurning (May 30, 2019)

> There is a big of difference between believing and knowing.


True. In the sense that, one can only _know _things that are true, but one can believe things that are false. 


> {gnostic / agnostic} = a state of knowing.


False. You are assuming that we can _know _that we don't know, in other words, that an individual's evaluation of his own lack of knowledge is objective fact. But this places some level of truth-value primacy of the individual himself. It assumes that he can accurately ascertain his own state of being. If we acknowledge that an individual can believe false things about the world outside of himself, why stop there? Surely he is also capable of believing false things about himself, or even more specifically, believing false things about his own belief?


----------



## -xXx- (May 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> Semantic nonsense.<snip>


_written by writer_
_*runs to make t-shirts, bumper stickers, buttons*_

etymology
semantics (n.)
"science of meaning in language," 1893, from French sémantique (1883); see semantic (also see -ics). Replaced semasiology (1847), from German Semasiologie (1829), from Greek semasia "signification, meaning."

*OP,
are you considering edits?*
pls.n.thx,

_*lots of rereading for this kind of content*_


----------



## sigmadog (May 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> False. You are assuming that we can _know _that we don't know, in other words, that an individual's evaluation of his own lack of knowledge is objective fact.



In fact, I am making no such claim. 

I am showing _semantically_ how belief and knowledge can be arranged on a spectrum. I make no assertion as to what is possible to believe or know, I merely present the spectrum of 

theist / with belief -------------------------------------------------------- atheist / without belief
gnostic / with knowledge ------------------------------------------------------- agnostic / without knowledge

as a means of understanding how the word "atheist" should be properly understood. As for the word, "agnostic", I refer you to my previous post asserting the word is essentially meaningless, since it is not possible for humans to know all things, making us all agnostics, so there's no point in using the word to draw distinctions between people, unless one is prepared to delineate in great detail each area of a person's knowledge or lack thereof (which, incidentally, you confidently assert is impossible to do – and I agree with you).

The assumption that I am asserting "we can know that we don't know" is all yours.


----------



## -xXx- (May 30, 2019)

notsocordial said:


> Keep the criticism coming in. Makes me think!
> Thanks



etymology
attribution
late 15c., "action of bestowing or assigning," from Latin attributionem (nominative attributio) "an assignment, attribution," noun of action from past-participle stem of attribuere "assign, allot; ascribe, impute," from assimilated form of ad "to" (see ad-) + tribuere "assign, give, bestow" (see tribute). Meaning "thing attributed" is recorded from 1580s.

*OP,
are you editing?*


----------

