Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?

[Desert Snake]

I'm not sure what you mean by "aliens from space".

Are you suggesting that aliens come from space? Is that like coming into existence out of thin air, but without the air? Are you speaking of angels, and demons?
What exactly is an alien from space? Do they have life? And if they do, how do you know this?

I never said anything about the nature of aliens from space, and whether I think I 'know' that, etc. whether I think that aliens exist, what they are, so forth, is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Acim]

We atheists see this sort of thing all the time, and really, it's not very convincing. In fact, what you are doing is the equivalent of saying, "well, the god I believe in is NOT the one you DON'T believe in." But then, you don't say anything about what the god you DO believe in is like.

We gnostics see the same thing as well. I think we understand how unconvincing it can be to equate God to fairies. Or more accurately, to equate God to anything perceived as outside of my self and as 'not me' / separate.

So I would put forth (and have several times before on the forum) the idea that this God I understand exists is a lot like You and Me. Yet if You, and/or Me is filtered through illusion of self that is separated via physical existence, then there is (I think) at best an understanding that occurs. That understanding is based on a couple primary points, one of which is Knowledge based, the other which is understanding how the illusion is undone.

Knowledge base, as I would express it in words is God equals Love. That Love knows no boundaries, is not contained by time, is not divisible by space, regardless of how unfathomable you imagine (that) space to be. This Love is not over yonder, somewhere beyond the stars, resting solely, yet surely with Sky Daddy. That is certainly one way to understand it, but is implausible to know it in that way. That Love is clearly within You. I would say it is (exactly) You, but perhaps that's making too much of an intellectual leap. Me, I don't believe that.

Understanding base, is the illusion is a block to the awareness that Love is all around You, in You, is You (or Me, if you prefer). It's not an actual or real block. That's not possible. The illusion is your making. But the kicker here, and this is highly critical to the intellectual understanding, You are not contained to a single solitary entity (aka a body). That may serve as a starting point (of sorts) within the understanding that has been called forth, yet is the illusion in a most personal form. Undoing the block happens via forgiveness.

But if I keep going in this direction and hard to avoid proselytizing. Perhaps already passed that point, but if going to call out "you don't say anything about what the god you Do believe in is like," then not sure how to respond to that without getting into a diatribe that might look like preaching. How "you" that I may entertain as "not me" processes all this, is truly up to You. In fact, We wouldn't have it any other way.

That's always a little unfair, really. It's like the scientist saying, "I have a theory about how to unite Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but I can't tell you the details -- but prove me wrong!" No thanks! If you have a theory (or an idea about God), present it, and all the details of what it actually means and how you can know. Then we'll have a look. Otherwise, you're just making a belief statement that anyone else is perfectly justified in ignoring.

IMO, it's a great bigger wall of text to walk someone through it intellectually, and I think highly impractical if not pausing along the way for actual application to daily experience as it exists right now (regardless of appearances of circumstances). Walking the path of intellectual understanding has merit, but is like all other things intellectual, which truly are make belief assertions. Perhaps you disagree with that claim. I know I still find it debatable, yet not a debate I care to shy away from. Too interesting for me, intellectually, to think of the ideas as being filtered only through ancient orthodox understandings of particular ideas. Also too shallow to think certain ideas are epitome of make believe while others are backed by (ahem) knowledge.

And while there are perhaps lots of nuggets of wisdom to chomp on, I'd go with idea that You are (most definitely) God who is make believing that you are, or can be, not-God. Hence the apparent block(s), the alleged idea of insufficient evidence, and plausible deniability around the notion that ye are Gods.

 

[ArtieE]

Let me think.

If I were blind since birth and no one mentioned and explained colors, colors would not exist in how I interpret the world. To me, the color red does not exist.

Jane, sighted, comes to me and says "did you know red exists"?

I ask her what is a red and she tries to explain. It still does not make sense. Red isn't in "my world." It's a concept, an idea, a claim. It's not tangible. I can't feel it, smell it, taste it, nor hear it. It is completely non existent.

In my world view red does not exist. (I am an atheist to the color red).

You could believe her and be a "theist" concerning the color red and believe it exists, you could be a "weak atheist" concerning the color red and just go "I don't believe it exists and I don't believe it doesn't exist I have no way of telling" or you can be a "strong atheist" and say "You are just making this up I believe the color red doesn't exist."

If I came to you and said I am agnostic to the color red, that would mean I am giving the probability of the existent of this color without claiming I know it exists.

You would just be saying "I don't know if the color red exists." Nothing to do with probabilities.

 

[ArtieE]

I Would love hearing Atheists here that have a definition of a God...

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

 

[ArtieE]

This might be a language thing. You would both not believe the shoes were there, and also believe that the shoes aren't there. It's the same thing.

If two people are standing before you and one says "The shoes are on the shelf" (gods exist) and the other says "the shoes are in the living room" (gods don't exist) not believing the first one doesn't mean automatically believing the second one. Not having the first belief doesn't automatically mean you have the second belief.

We can meet a person who says "I believe gods exist" and a second person who says "I believe gods don't exist" and a third person who says "I don't believe any of them haven't made up my mind what to believe". As far as I understand Willamena I think she is saying that if you aren't the first person you are automatically the second.

 

[ArtieE]

I suppose it could just be a story, and the evidence discovered and described on the following website is just referring to someone else named Jesus.
http://www.icr.org/article/has-archaeological-evidence-for-jesus-been-discove/

Have you seen these documentaries about Jesus?

http://www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com/

 

[ArtieE]

To me, atheists may as well be saying "I don't believe in existence." If we are going to discuss this at the superficial level, I'll put my kid gloves on and we can have a nice little chat. But if willing to play a little (just a little?) hardball, then this nonsense of faith only deals with religion has gotta be taken down a notch, or perhaps put another way, bring your A game to the debate.

I don't see why I should bother to bring out my "A game" responding to a person who can say "atheists may as well be saying "I don't believe in existence." I'll just stick to using logic, reason and common sense and try to make my posts as informative and educational as possible.

 

[Kapalika]

I have 66 books, written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year time period who with remarkable consistency describe historical and future events with great precision and accuracy. Archaeological discoveries are continually verifying the accuracy of the historical and cultural references in the Bible, proving the veracity of the Bible. The more they dig, the more it is confirmed. Scientists, geologists, astronomers, physicists and mathematicians are continually and unwittingly showing that the record as recorded in these books is accurate and true.

All of the authors of each of the books of the Bible describe with absolute consistency the nature of this being that they all refer to as God. It is abundantly clear from reading these texts that they all believed that what they were writing was true.

There are more than 300 specific prophecies contained in the Old Testament that predict and describe the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is well documented within the pages of the New Testament, that these prophecies have been fulfilled.

There are many other prophesies contained in the Bible which point to a future time which appear to me to be describing events that are happening today in our time.

I have experienced God. I have put this book to the test, and I have been rewarded for it. I have no doubt that God exists. I have no doubt that the Bible is true. I have no doubt that the future events as described in the Bible will come true. I have no doubt that the Messiah is coming. And I have no doubt that it will be very soon.

So basically you have one source that's been refuted on so many levels? Got it.

We don't need to decide anything. I am quite content with the beliefs that I have been convinced are true. That is why they are called my beliefs. If you are content with your beliefs, why question them?

First off, you have no idea if your cat has a belief in God. And if it is true that your cat does not have a belief in God, the following must be true. Either you cat believes that no God exists, or your cat is unaware whether or not a God exists. If your cat believes that no God exists, then your cat is an atheist. If your cat is unaware whether or not a God exists, your cat is agnostic.

Your using those words somewhat imprecisely. You can be agnostic and an atheist at the same time. However my cat doesn't disbelieve anything, my cat simply, literally, can't have a concept of god. Maybe you wouldn't call that atheism, but it sure isn't theism. But I would call that "lacking a belief" in God in the most literal sense, and not in this beat around the connotation sense that a lot of human atheists use it.

 

[ArtieE]

Your using those words somewhat imprecisely. You can be agnostic and an atheist at the same time. However my cat doesn't disbelieve anything, my cat simply, literally, can't have a concept of god. Maybe you wouldn't call that atheism, but it sure isn't theism. But I would call that "lacking a belief" in God in the most literal sense, and not in this beat around the connotation sense that a lot of human atheists use it.

Well, actually the definition of a theist is "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Theist
No cats get involved just because we put an a- in front. We are still talking about persons. A person who does NOT believe in the existence of God or gods.

And by the way, this definition is faulty in a different way. The "God or" is redundant. If you don't believe in gods "God" is included.

 

[`mud]

Whether one believes or not,
the existances of any 'god' like entities,
are purely imaginative fallacies of fear.
To escape that dellema,
one must just smile at the dellusions,
and try to avoid the preacher !
~
'mud

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You could believe her and be a "theist" concerning the color red and believe it exists, you could be a "weak atheist" concerning the color red and just go "I don't believe it exists and I don't believe it doesn't exist I have no way of telling" or you can be a "strong atheist" and say "You are just making this up I believe the color red doesn't exist."

Believing Jane doesn't make it true. The reason why Jane is a theist is because she feels what she believes is fact. It has nothing to do with belief to Jane. It has to do with knowledge. Going by this fact only, why would an atheist say they "lack belief" when Jane isn't saying she believes anything; she says she knows?

The blind person, say Robert, doesn't have that knowledge. He can believe it's true (be agnostic-belief without confirmation) but I don't see the point in that. He could give Jane a benefit of the doubt and say he also knows the color red exists. (Become theist). I don't see the logic in that. Or he could be point blank with Jane and say "In how I see the world without sight, Red doesn't exist. It is what I know not what I believe." He is an atheist to it.

The last part, Robert doesn't have to think about it being "made up." Jane has legitimate reasons for knowing what she knows. Robert is saying red does not exist. Jane says red does exist. Belief (the agnostic part) has nothing to do with it.

You would just be saying "I don't know if the color red exists."

If you were Robert, why make that statement?

Unless you are taking Jane's claim into consideration?

 

[Segev Moran]

Only in your mind. You will never ever know if life exists on other planets.

Of course we will...
It is enough that we find 1 more planet with life on it... and I will know that life can emerge on other planets.
If we do find life for example on Mar's moon... It is not have to be an intelligent life form, we will know for a fact that life can emerge on other planets.

 

[Segev Moran]

So I take it you have little to no understanding of what I am saying to you.
I could probably find a few Matt Dillahunty lectures on this to help you out, if you want.

[Edit]
I should say that you aren't far off, 85% is still absolute certainty to me because 100% certainty only exists in word play.

The 15% is lost within the lack of factual evidence, along with other scenarios that may or may not be plausible and have yet to be disproved.

I Don't think we are saying different things...
What you call near absolute certainty, I Call very probable...
certainty is based on probability...
It is 85% probable that X is true, you must present the statistics upon which you base this assumption.
Having a probability of 1.0 is possible.. if all the sample you check returns the same outcome...
So if you throw 50 million eggs from a 10ft height and they all break, than you can say that you are 99.9~% certain that throwing an egg from 10ft height will end with the egg breaking.

 

[Segev Moran]

God is whatever one feels like worshipping.

Of course, that is to a considerable extent a circular definition.

Yep.. Saying X is whatever someone thinks X is.. is not a definition of X, its just stating that someone else have a definition of X

 

[ArtieE]

Believing Jane doesn't make it true.

Never said it did.

The reason why Jane is a theist is because she feels what she believes is fact.

She believes that it is true that gods exist but she doesn't know for a fact.

It has nothing to do with belief to Jane. It has to do with knowledge. Going by this fact only, why would an atheist say they "lack belief" when Jane isn't saying she believes anything; she says she knows?

A theist is per definition a person who believes. A gnostic theist knows.

The blind person, say Robert, doesn't have that knowledge. He can believe it's true (be agnostic-belief without confirmation) but I don't see the point in that. He could give Jane a benefit of the doubt and say he also knows the color red exists. (Become theist).

A theist believes. A gnostic theist knows.

What you are writing is so confused that I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Never said it did.She believes that it is true that gods exist but she doesn't know for a fact.A theist is per definition a person who believes. A gnostic theist knows.A theist believes. A gnostic theist knows.

What you are writing is so confused that I'm not sure what to make of it.

I think I know why. I'm using atheist as "those who know god doesn't exist" and theist "those who know god exists."

I use "know" because our beliefs have to be based on some sort of fact, experience, or confirmation. Especially in religion.

If a gnostic knows god exists and an agnostic doesn't know, what is the name for those who knows god does no exist?

 

[Segev Moran]

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Na ha.. You gave other peoples definition of God..
I am asking what is your definition of God...
I Claim I don't really have one as in my eyes god is not something I can relate to.
I Can only relate to what other people consider to be God

 

[ArtieE]

I think I know why. I'm using atheist as "those who know god doesn't exist"

Those would be "gnostic atheists" not just atheists.

and theist "those who know god exists."

That would be "gnostic theists". The words theist/atheists only have to do with belief.

I use "know" because our beliefs have to be based on some sort of fact, experience, or confirmation. Especially in religion.

When you say you "believe" something the belief has to be based on some sort of fact, experience, or confirmation or evidence. Religious belief is called faith. Faith requires only that you have faith in what an old book tells you or what your cult leader says. Faith can simply be defined as believing something without evidence or in spite of the evidence.

If a gnostic knows god exists

A "gnostic theist" knows god exists.

and an agnostic doesn't know, what is the name for those who knows god does no exist?

"Gnostic atheist". Short for "gnostic strong atheist".

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Following a Post I wrote, I Heard the claim that Atheism is claiming there is No god,
I tried correcting the person and explaining him that Atheism is the lack of belief in a God.
Its not saying there is no God, rather saying you don't believe there is A god based on current evidence.

I Would love hearing Atheists POV on the matter..

I sometimes still laugh and shake my head a little when I think of this strange thing..atheism. it's a loaded word, originally a slanderous term later adopted as acceptable, and as such retains a modicum of slanderous twang in that it uses language generally reserved for a positive position to describe "not" holding one. Such was the prevalence and power of the religious institutions of yesteryear I suppose.

Frankly, I don't think about it, any more than I sit and wonder if space unicorns control the media, or if we are "actually in the matrix , dude"

 

[ArtieE]

Na ha.. You gave other peoples definition of God

That is "the" definition of God. If other people have their own definitions of God and it's different from this one, it isn't God they are defining.