Atheism and the Greek (Gnostic/Egptian/Hermetic) Model of God!

docphin5

Well-known member
Now you're just strawmanning me. I clearly did NOT include Bilbo and dragons in the class of gods. And as atheists we get to stipulate what we mean by 'god' when explaining the category that defines our position. If you want to believe in a purely material god then you can, but that is not the kind of 'god' any atheist needs to reject. Again, we can clearly be rational in rejecting a class of entities without being able to name all members of that class. Are you going to continue digging your heels in by refusing to acknowledge this obvious fact?
If you get to define the object you reject is that not the very definition of straw man? I am telling you that on the topic of the Christian or gnostic God your definition does not apply. And if it does not apply to the christian one then dont you think your application of it to the other 9,999 poorly defined gods you lumped in with it as a illogical? And you did lump Baggins and dragons in with gods in post #90. You implied they both belong to the same “class” of imaginary things.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
If you get to define the object you reject is that not the very definition of straw man? I am telling you that on the topic of the Christian or gnostic God your definition does not apply. And if it does not apply to the christian one then dont you think your application of it to the other 9,999 poorly defined gods you lumped in with it as a illogical?
No, it's not a strawman for us to define what we mean by 'god' in the context of explaining our own position as one who does not believe in any gods. We still leave the door open to theists who believe in a 'god' that is equivalent to mere physical reality. Atheists believe in physical reality too. And I don't agree that the terms 'immaterial' and 'supernatural' are incorrectly applied to the Christian God. Of course there is some semantic wiggle room for saying God is somehow immanent in physical reality, but I don't think anyone can really be a Christian if they think God/Jesus is nothing more than physical reality.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
No, it's not a strawman for us to define what we mean by 'god' in the context of explaining our own position as one who does not believe in any gods.
Yep, strawman!

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Yep, strawman!

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
No, not a strawman. Strawmanning is a matter of misrepresenting another's position, not of defining one's own position. Please consider addressing what I actually said.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
, but I don't think anyone can really be a Christian if they think God/Jesus is nothing more than physical reality.
What is wrong with asserting Jesus in reality? That Jesus is producing souls who manifest love, truth, and good in our world. That Jesus is producing life in himself. That Jesus has a future that is planned for those who love God. That Jesus is reminding souls of their noble heritage. That Jesus is planning to bring all things together to a single, ordered, complex unity and deliver himself and his friends to the Father. Again, your perspective is not my perspective.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
No, not a strawman. Strawmanning is a matter of misrepresenting another's position, not of defining one's own position. Please consider addressing what I actually said.
You might want to read the definition again. It is you creating a poorly defined proposition in order to defeat it rather than trying to defeat my proposition. I think you need some sleep. Your brain is tired.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You might want to read the definition again. It is you creating a poorly defined proposition in order to defeat it rather than trying to defeat my proposition. I think you need some sleep. Your brain is tired.
You're resorting to ad hominems now instead of addressing what I said. Consider an example: Bob defines 'god' as a banana and believes in this God. Fred defines 'god' as any sort of potato, and does not believe in any 'gods'. So far there is no strawmanning here, as each is merely defining their own position. There is only a strawman argument on Fred's part if he starts to argue that Bob's belief is wrong by attributing to him a belief in potatoes and arguing against that. Understand?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
What is wrong with asserting Jesus in reality?
That's not what I objected to. Please read my post again. I said I don't think one can consider themselves a Christian if they believe Jesus to be NOTHING MORE than physical reality.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
That's not what I objected to. Please read my post again. I said I don't think one can consider themselves a Christian if they believe Jesus to be NOTHING MORE than physical reality.
After you get some sleep I invite you to make an argument against my OP titled “Alexandrian Hermetism...” if you want to make a case against my God (versus the imaginary ones you created). If you can persuade me I am wrong using evidence or reason then I will become an atheist. I actually think my theology is evidence based and resilient to any test. But after you get some sleep. You dont have your A game going tonight.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
After you get some sleep...
You realize how timezones work, right? It's the middle of the day here. Could you perhaps be projecting a little?

I invite you to make an argument against my OP titled “Alexandrian Hermetism...” if you want to make a case against my God (versus the imaginary ones you created). If you can persuade me I am wrong using evidence or reason then I will become an atheist. I actually think my theology is evidence based and resilient to any test.
Trying to change the subject again? Why aren't you addressing what I've said?

But after you get some sleep. You dont have your A game going tonight.
More ad hominems? Come on. You're better than this.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Your statement shows that you reject many things that you have not seriously considered. When you reject things that you know nothing about then you do as fundies do. In their case it is evolution. For you it is the thousands of gods you have never heard of but just in case there is one you have never heard, you reject them anyways because it suits your position.
I understand that is how you see it. I personally do not think that I need to study everything every human claims before I reject it pending evidence. I can say that I am the ruler of the merfolk that live under the sea. According to you this claim must be considered as seriously as evolution before rejection. That seems crazy.

All human claims are treated as not true until proven (i.e. the null hypothesis). We do not need to do a rigorous test of the evidence for Bigfoot, lizard aliens living among us, or any of the near limitless number of things humans claim to be true. The person who believes in Bigfoot must present the evidence to us.

We can just say, "I do not believe any human claim until I see evidence." Therefore I can reject 10,000 gods, flat Earth, and the fact that my aunt thinks her husband's spirit lives in her cat. Not only is it logical - it is just practical. We cannot verify the evidence for anything one of the 7 billion of us claim to be true.

I understand you see a contradiction. I do not. I start with the null hypothesis and put the burden of evidence on the person making the claim. You think all human claims are valid until proven otherwise. That's madness :)

And good luck verifying the evidence that I am the king of the merfolk under the sea. Remember - you cannot reject it until a deep analysis of the evidence. If you ask me to show you the evidence then you are agreeing with my approach.

Great talk - I really enjoyed this. Thank you.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I understand that is how you see it. I personally do not think that I need to study everything every human claims before I reject it pending evidence. I can say that I am the ruler of the merfolk that live under the sea. According to you this claim must be considered as seriously as evolution before rejection. That seems crazy.

All human claims are treated as not true until proven (i.e. the null hypothesis). We do not need to do a rigorous test of the evidence for Bigfoot, lizard aliens living among us, or any of the near limitless number of things humans claim to be true. The person who believes in Bigfoot must present the evidence to us.

We can just say, "I do not believe any human claim until I see evidence." Therefore I can reject 10,000 gods, flat Earth, and the fact that my aunt thinks her husband's spirit lives in her cat. Not only is it logical - it is just practical. We cannot verify the evidence for anything one of the 7 billion of us claim to be true.

I understand you see a contradiction. I do not. I start with the null hypothesis and put the burden of evidence on the person making the claim. You think all human claims are valid until proven otherwise. That's madness :)

And good luck verifying the evidence that I am the king of the merfolk under the sea. Remember - you cannot reject it until a deep analysis of the evidence. If you ask me to show you the evidence then you are agreeing with my approach.

Great talk - I really enjoyed this. Thank you.
Still pushing the straw man argument, I see. If your proposition is 10,000 imaginary gods in your head to include nymphs, fairies, unicorns, the ghost in a cat, or whatever you imagine, then reject all of them then all you have done is beat up your straw man. You are poorly defining something then rejecting it. It is insincere. You might as well admit you have no interest in hearing rational evidence. You feign interest in evidence but actually don't care because you have already made your mind up.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Trying to change the subject again? Why aren't you addressing what I've said?
When you begin sincerely discussing the proposition of God that is evidence based and rational then I stand ready to discuss anything. Until then I reject your definition of all 10,000 imaginary gods to be alike, including Baggins and dragons.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
No, not a strawman. Strawmanning is a matter of misrepresenting another's position, not of defining one's own position. Please consider addressing what I actually said.
From Merriam-Webster
Straw Man
: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

You have imagined 10,000 gods, to include Baggins and dragons, and argued against them. That is the very definition of straw man. There can be no sincere discussion as long as you distort truth and deny reality.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Still pushing the straw man argument, I see. If your proposition is 10,000 imaginary gods in your head to include nymphs, fairies, unicorns, the ghost in a cat, or whatever you imagine, then reject all of them then all you have done is beat up your straw man. You are poorly defining something then rejecting it. It is insincere. You might as well admit you have no interest in hearing rational evidence. You feign interest in evidence but actually don't care because you have already made your mind up.
I do not see how saying, "I do not believe in anything without evidence" is somehow controversial. I'm not even sure I follow you any more.

Do I need to fully investigate all 10,000 gods to reject them? Do I need to believe in all 10,000 until I evaluate all the evidence?

I am saying that any of the 10,000 gods are possible but I do not believe in them yet until I see evidence. I have no idea how anyone could argue with that. I must be missing something.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I do not see how saying, "I do not believe in anything without evidence" is somehow controversial. I'm not even sure I follow you any more.

Do I need to fully investigate all 10,000 gods to reject them? Do I need to believe in all 10,000 until I evaluate all the evidence?

I am saying that any of the 10,000 gods are possible but I do not believe in them yet until I see evidence. I have no idea how anyone could argue with that. I must be missing something.
I would much rather talk about the evidence for the God that most of us are already discussing. If you want to talk about the 10,000 imaginary gods in your head then please take it somewhere else. I have no interest in your straw man argument.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
I would much rather talk about the evidence for the God that most of us are already discussing. If you want to talk about the 10,000 imaginary gods in your head then please take it somewhere else. I have no interest in your straw man argument.
I am always open to empirical evidence for God or Jesus. What do you have?

Empirical evidence is evidence that can be tested, measured, and observed. An example might be if God dropped manna on us today. We could test the manna and see if it has supernatural origins.

The Bible sadly is not empirical evidence. It was written 300 years after the events so that is just too prone to error and fraud. Most historians reject evidence created more than 100 years after the event. So we need something like the Pilates Stone which was craved during the time of Jesus.

So what evidence do you have? Which museum is it in? How does it prove Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead? How is it different than the evidence for any other god or religion?

I love to chat about things like Unical 0189 and the Codex Sinaiticus. Do you have more?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I am always open to empirical evidence for God or Jesus. What do you have?

Empirical evidence is evidence that can be tested, measured, and observed. An example might be if God dropped manna on us today. We could test the manna and see if it has supernatural origins.

The Bible sadly is not empirical evidence. It was written 300 years after the events so that is just too prone to error and fraud. Most historians reject evidence created more than 100 years after the event. So we need something like the Pilates Stone which was craved during the time of Jesus.

So what evidence do you have? Which museum is it in? How does it prove Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead? How is it different than the evidence for any other god or religion?

I love to chat about things like Unical 0189 and the Codex Sinaiticus. Do you have more?
You pretend to be interested in evidence for God but you demonstrate no sincerity in discussing it. Therefore, I am not interested in discussing it with you.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
You pretend to be interested in evidence for God but you demonstrate no sincerity in discussing it. Therefore, I am not interested in discussing it with you.
Sounds good. Thank you. I try to be sincere. It is just that I find all of the evidence I've seen for God to to be non-empirical. And people sometimes think I am insincere when I do not accept their evidence. That is not my intent.

However, if your evidence in The Bible, Josephus, Tacitus, personal revelation, or any of the big apologetic arguments (e.g. The Cosmological Argument) then perhaps you are right. I've heard those and have not found them compelling so it might just be frustrating for both of us.

However, I do appreciate the chat - have a great day.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
When you begin sincerely discussing the proposition of God that is evidence based and rational then I stand ready to discuss anything. Until then I reject your definition of all 10,000 imaginary gods to be alike, including Baggins and dragons.
If you can't be honest then I'm not going to bother with your OP.
 
Top