Atheist = Closet theist

We seem to have two distinct species on the planet. Homo Athensis and H. Thensis. H. Athensis realizes that the only things that are real are things. H. Thensis thinks that things can be real with zero physical manifestations (Ideas are credited with the same level of "reality" as are a pair of shoes).

This is mighty strange.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here are some I like:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They aren't. Should they be? I'm not arguing definitions. There are tons of things I believe in. I believe my wife loves me. Belief usually implies some modicum of a reason to believe. Whereas faith does not. Look at the definitions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look, I'm not particularly interested in debating definitions. If the ones I've chosen don't clearly convey the essence of what we are debating, then we need some clarification. If you're going to try to cleverly prove that because I "believe" certain things that I therefore automatically am in contradiction, then don't waste your time. I also have faith that my wife would save me in an emergengy situation. A very subjective thing.

If we are discussing the validity of faith in the objective sense, fine. Otherwise, I agree that faith in god is a purely subjective thing and has as much or as little validity as you choose to give it. 'K?

I'm tired too.

 

I think that's pretty close to my view of it. Sure.

 

I believe in the one true Pasta.

RAmen.

 

You do know I've converted to Xenuism, don't you? It's the Space Planes.

 

Why not Maggi?

 

superluminal:

"Wow! I apologise. But in fairness, that was one misleading post. After reading your response, I still have no fucking clue as to your position. What the fuck is an "atheistic pantheist"?"

Apology accepted.

And apparently it was a misleading post. For that I offer my own apologies. I had thought I was lambasting both sides of the coin, when you took me for charging only one side - the Atheist - with the anti-philosophical stance.

But as to a clarification on my position: I consider myself an Atheistic Pantheist on the foundation that I am convinced (on the grounds of philosophy) that many attributes of God as classicaly interpreted - omnipresence, eternity, infinity, immutability, omnipotence - are necessary for existence and, in fact, make up existence. That being said, other attributes - such as omnibenevolence, omniscience in the sense of actual knowledge, all-love, all-mercy, all-justice, sentience, sapience - are not to be found possibly in this God-like thing, for they are incoherent, and cannot be shown to be part of this thing. Or to put it otherwise: I accept and affirm the existence of God because of certain attributes that essentially make it such, but point to the fact that it is not a being, but is in fact simply existence. That is to say, I am a Pantheist because I affirm that God is everything, but I am an Atheist because this everything is not sapient and it is basically a reitteration of the term "existence", but called "God" so as to signify its key link back to certain attributes.

If you want more information on my reasons for the above, you can probably find them across my writings here on SciForums, specifically in the essay-esque threads I have started to propound certain beliefs.

"Wrong bub. A-Theism. The absence of theism. A neutral statement of lack. Agnostics refuse to make a position statement based on a percieved lack of evidence either way. As atheists, we have no more need of theism than we do for alien visitors. But no atheist will assert that god 100% certainly does not exist. Ask the atheists here if you don't trust that."

According to definition 1 the first entry at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheism , Atheism is:

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Etymologically speaking, theism stems from "theo", God, and of course "ism" is a suffix meaning "belief or creed", so that one can say the term means "the belief in God (deities)". The prefix "a" means "without", so that atheism translates as "the belief without God (the deities)", or "the belief in no God (the deities)". That is to say, the term implies one which affirms that God does not exist.

As Wikipedia notes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism :

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative α- + θεος 'god') meant 'without gods' or 'lack of belief in gods'. The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BC, expressing a total lack of relations with the gods; that is, 'denying the gods, godless, ungodly', with more active connotations than asebēs, or 'impious'.

Moreover, what you describe as atheism as "no more use for God than alien visitors", yet not explicitly denying God's existence, and even going as far as to say no Atheist could possibly deny God 100 percent (which is silly if we are dealing with a logically necessary being), is virtually indistinguishable from the very definition of agnosticism you gave. For if you do not deny explicitly, but say there is simply no proof that God exists, then you are not saying that either side has presented more compelling proof than one another, nor claiming a single thing, but that God to you is irrelevant. This indifference is indistinguishable from agnosticism's.

"Ok. But if you want any more responses from me, you'll need to stop with the philosophical theology in the august tradition of dealing with the issue of God separated from dogma including Pre-Socratic metaphysical/ontological arguments regarding omnibenevolence as the refutation of a concept. 'K?"

If you insist.

"First I signify that I be an Atheist, yar. As in a-tonal (lacking tonality). A-theist (lacking theistic beliefs)."

Okay.

"As to your faith question, invalid in what realm? The objective or the subjective? Here's a working definition:"

In both, really. Even subjectively one cannot affirm something by faith if it is to be considered invalid. But more specifically, is faith justified epistemologically, that is, does it offer us an objective foundation for anything?

"Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Fair enough definition.

"This definition squarely places faith in the realm of the subjective. In this realm, one of personal truths and ideas, the idea of validity or invalidity is clearly meaningless as the validity or lack thereof is also purely subjective."

Agreed. It most certainly forces a subjectivity on faith, on the foundation that it rests upon arbitrary beginnings.

"Now to the real debate - the validity of "faith" as it applies to the objective world. Given the above definition, unless something can be shown to exist by logical proof or material evidence, then it must be considered invalid in an objective sense."

Agreed.

I am pleased to see you have an argument that directly shows the invalidity - at least on an objective sphere - of faith. Good work.

"I would submit that there is certainly no convincing objective material evidence for a god. I would like to see the logical proof for the existence of gods. If it is convincing enough, I will capitulate."

I have some proof I think convincing of my conclusions, but if you wish to find them, just browse my various threads. Although this is somewhat irrelevant at the time being.

 

Me thinks you "outofyourfreakingskull"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most theist who hold great authorative powers: i.e. Popes, Presidents, political leaders, Big business executives, are "closet atheists"

No authorative figure such as these can believe in "fantasy" and continue their task of authoraty. Over a great mass of people. They use the influence of religious faith, in order to win the peoples approval of executive desicions.

click

 

In a vain attempt to make me look smart, I made up a completely ridiculous notion in which the necessity of it remaining unknown to anyone supports it.

Wheeeeeeeeee!

 

You mean like Hitler?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And Bush

 

I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Such as?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It seems to me, upon reading about Anthony Flew on Wiki, that he was not a religious person, he just concluded that a force or intelligence that you might call God was responsible for the early building blocks of life. If anything he was probably a closet agnostic, right up to his death.

 

The cultural bias, established as a sort of collective indoctrination through various forces in society, of which you speak, that inclination toward belief being statistically obvious, in fact as a whole argues against you.

Consider McCarthy era America. No person of any success was allowed to be a communist. If they leaned in that direction, it would not have been apparent from any evidence issuing from themselves.

Religion, like politics, resting comfortably in that ambiguous, secretive area of personal opinion and altogether out of bounds in normal discourse is set to background. Rarely will you find atheists go declared and more commonly will you find them feign religion to ease their lives. Nobody is thus a closet theist. There are only closet atheists.

Saying closet theist is akin to saying "closet straight person." It is incongruous to reality, history, and common sense. If someone declares atheism you had better bet that they are of that persuasion. Who in their right mind would choose persecution?

 

James I already know there are closet theists here at sci forums as they have admitted being such to me in pm, they are afraid to speak about their spiritual beliefs on this very forum for fear of ridicule and all that comes along with being honest about such things HERE, let alone else where. They are not the few on the entire planet, thus it is reasonable to assume there are more, not all of course. That is me being provacative.

This site has many aggressive, insulting, derogatory things to say to theists, even though those same theists are quite visibly intelligent beings. Yet they endure 'retard, dumbass stupid, dellusional' comments. Those here who wish to enjoy debate wiothout being reminded they are a woo woo when someone disagrees with their points on a non theist matter, will avoid revealing their true nature if it aids smoother communciations and avoids disrespect.

I myself was nervous and wary re admitting such a thing here. I am not unusual, not alone in the world, it would be stupid to say so. If myself and a few others feel afraid to 'come out' then it is reasonable to assume there are more.

It is not different to closet homosexuality, why do they hide it, why do you think?

This site has a bunch of bullies operating on it.

 

you are in denial, something atheists do every time someone they respect turns out to be theist, why not just live and let live.