- Q
- How was atheism created?
https://www.quora.com/How-was-atheism-created
[another one of the answers]
- Toby Wilson
- Ex-theist, an atheist.
- Answered Thu
- How was atheism created?
A word was needed to describe a person who lacks belief in gods, so an “a” was tacked onto the word “theism”, a word that describes the belief in at least one god, but which can apply to people who believe in multiple gods.
Generally speaking, when an “a” is put at the beginning of a word, like symmetry, in the English language, it indicates an absence of something.
So, putting an “a” on the beginning of “symmetry” produces “asymmetry”, the absence of symmetry.
This is what so many theists want to avoid understanding, because they cannot conceive of a person who has no belief in something they cherish so dearly, namely gods.
My belief was shattered when I realised that the evidence for the gods I accepted, would work just as well in favour of the ones I rejected, as well as fairies, bogarts and Smurfs.
Like it or not, some people do not accept the god claim, atheism was not created, only the word that describes the lack of belief in gods was created, and as far as we can tell with the evidence to hand, namely nothing at all, gods were invented too.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Thu
- "My belief was shattered when I realised that the evidence for the gods I accepted, would work just as well in favour of the ones I rejected"
Sure you should have rejected their even human existence?
"as well as fairies, bogarts and Smurfs."
Smurfs is overdoing it. Peyó was known to make works of fiction for purposes of entertainment.
I would not reject phenomenal existence of fairies, whatever would be their theological assessment.
- Toby Wilson
- Fri
- “Sure you should have rejected their even human existence?”
I’m not sure what that sentence means, it makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.
I don’t reject the fact that people believe in gods, and that they have believed in numerous gods for a long time.
I do however reject their beliefs for one very simple reason, they lack any corroborating evidence.
If you want to accept that fairies might exist, have at it, but you’re going to have to demonstrate that they’re more real than Smurfs, Peyo might have been writing a documentary about real Smurfs he discovered, you can’t prove that he wasn’t.
If you’re going to accept fairies and ghosts and gods, you’re going to need evidence of any of them before you’ll convince a sceptic.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sat
- "I’m not sure what that sentence means, it makes no grammatical sense whatsoever."
It does.
I reject the divinity of Hercules and Romulus and Krishna and Odin, but I do not reject their human existence.
Odin was a man who fraudulently posed as a god, the other three men who were at least passively taken for gods, and in Krishna's case, if Bhagavadgita is historical about his pep talk to Arjuna, he too used fraudulent means to be taken for a god.
"I don’t reject the fact that people believe in gods, and that they have believed in numerous gods for a long time."
No one does, I think.
"I do however reject their beliefs for one very simple reason, they lack any corroborating evidence."
I would say, giving Arjuna an extatic experience with perhaps hypnotic enhancement is inadequate proof of Krishna being a god.
However, driving Arjuna's chariot is adequate evidence for Krishna having lived as a man.
"If you want to accept that fairies might exist, have at it, but you’re going to have to demonstrate that they’re more real than Smurfs, Peyo might have been writing a documentary about real Smurfs he discovered, you can’t prove that he wasn’t."
Peyó was presenting this to the world as entertainment. Stories about fairies, like the white lady of Rosental ...
DIE SALIGE FRAU IM ROSENTAL
http://www.sagen.at/texte/sagen/oesterreich/kaernten/allgemein/rosental.html
... seem to have more reality to them.
"If you’re going to accept fairies and ghosts and gods, you’re going to need evidence of any of them before you’ll convince a sceptic."
People transmit stories that do not seem to be invented for entertainment. Not sure if it convinces a sceptic, but it does convince most normal men.
co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Sunday, December 3, 2017
How was Atheism Created, Ter, on Quora
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment