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

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm.

I'm getting tongue tied.

If you know something is true based on experience, facts, and evidence, you do not need to use the word belief. If you know god exists there is no reason to say gnostic theist. It's redundant. If you know something exists, of course you believe it does. Most theists, from the definitions you gave me, are gnostics. They know god exists. They don't just "believe it." They know. They also base their knowledge on facts, experiences, and evidence.

And then an agnostic theist? I believe god exists even though I don't know if he does". That sounds like a contradiction. I think the better word is doubt. Seeker maybe?

Gnostic atheist is also redundant. I believe god doesn't exist because I know he doesn't. Of course I believe he doesn't exist because the knowledge I have (and my worldview) tells me he doesn't. It's no longer a belief. It's a fact.

Agnostic atheists, I think, would probably be the only phrase I understand. "I don't know god exist so I don't believe he does (until someone gave me proof)"

When you say you "believe" something the belief has to be based on some sort of fact, experience, or confirmation or evidence.

Once you have that confirmation, it's no longer belief, it's knowledge. So the word atheist is not appropriate once you know god doesn't exist based on the evidence confirmation, and experiences that lead you to that conclusion.

Not many people who are exposed to god-related religions become gnostics. A lot of people in the world are gnostics to god-related religions. Of course they lack belief, but because they know god doesn't exist, saying they lack belief in god is irrelevant.

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.

This is coming more from personal opinion or bias. Not all religious belief is built on faith. Not all religious belief have leaders. Those that do not all are "cults" but well established religions that came way before religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism were around.

Faith, by strict English definition, is trust. You are putting trust into someone or something. Most religions if not all have faith because you must trust what you believe regardless if it's supernatural or not.

As for atheist and theist, the theist says they know. Atheists say they believe. If atheists are based on theists claims, I'd assume they would say they know god doesn't exist regardless if the definition of the word says otherwise.

 

[ArtieE]

If you know something is true based on experience, facts, and evidence, you do not need to use the word belief.

Never said you did.

If you know god exists there is no reason to say gnostic theist.

The reason we say "gnostic theist" is to indicate that the theist has gone from believing to knowing. And saying just gnostic doesn't say what the person knows.

It's redundant. If you know something exists, of course you believe it does. Most theists, from the definitions you gave me, are gnostics. They know god exists.

If you just say a person is a gnostic you wouldn't know whether he was a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist.

And then an agnostic theist? I believe god exists even though I don't know if he does". That sounds like a contradiction. I think the better word is doubt. Seeker maybe?

There's no contradiction. He simply believes god exists but won't go as far as to say he "knows".

Gnostic atheist is also redundant. I believe god doesn't exist because I know he doesn't. Of course I believe he doesn't exist because the knowledge I have (and my worldview) tells me he doesn't. It's no longer a belief. It's a fact.

You can't just say "gnostic" without saying "theist" or "atheist" afterwards. You wouldn't know what it is the person knows.

Once you have that confirmation, it's no longer belief, it's knowledge. So the word atheist is not appropriate once you know god doesn't exist based on the evidence confirmation, and experiences that lead you to that conclusion.

You go from "atheist" to "strong atheist" to "gnostic atheist". If you don't keep the "atheist" behind you wouldn't know whether the person knew that gods exist or that gods don't exist.

Faith, by strict English definition, is trust. You are putting trust into someone or something.

Faith is "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." I don't know how to link to this definition it's the first that comes up when I put in "faith definition" in Google.

As for atheist and theist, the theist says they know.

No they don't. They say they BELIEVE.

Atheists say they believe.

"Weak atheists" don't believe. "Strong atheists" believe gods don't exist.

 

[Acim]

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.

Fine by me if ideas brought up aren't going to be backed up. I too will stick to showing that God is the source of logic, reason and common sense.

 

[Acim]

When you say you "believe" something the belief has to be based on some sort of fact, experience, or confirmation or evidence.

The definition for "believe" does not necessarily base itself on such things. Believe equals acceptance, or as dictionary I'm observing puts it:

1 - accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of
2 - hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose

Whereas disbelief is - refusal to accept as true or real

Religious belief is called faith.

And yet, faith supersedes religious claims. Whatever is fundamental belief, or even understanding of (own) life, (own) existence, (own) self rests on faith. That which is deemed 'self evident' rests on faith and is plausibly reinforced by (circular) reasoning.

Faith requires only that you have faith in what an old book tells you or what your cult leader says.

Faith has no such requirement.

Faith can simply be defined as believing something without evidence or in spite of the evidence.

Thus the "without evidence or in spite of" is not necessary to understand faith. It is simply trust.

 

[Acim]

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.

So if a dictionary has other definitions than the two you chose to list, it isn't god they are defining?

 

[McBell]

What is a fairy? How do you know they do not exist? Which texts do you refer to which claim that fairies actually exist, as opposed to the numerous references and ardent claims that God exists?

I never made any claim fairies do not exist.
I said that they have the same amount and type of evidence as god.

That you want to compare claims and not evidence is most revealing.

 

[McBell]

That is "the" definition of God.

Says who?

And what makes your source "the" authority?

 

[Acim]

The reason we say "gnostic theist" is to indicate that the theist has gone from believing to knowing. And saying just gnostic doesn't say what the person knows.If you just say a person is a gnostic you wouldn't know whether he was a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist.There's no contradiction. He simply believes god exists but won't go as far as to say he "knows".You can't just say "gnostic" without saying "theist" or "atheist" afterwards. You wouldn't know what it is the person knows.

"Knows" is what possibly corresponds with "based on evidence" while belief / faith does not. Perhaps people think "knows" means it is beyond belief, when it could conceivably precede it. "Knows" defined is:

1a - be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information
1b - have knowledge or information concerning
1c - be absolutely certain or sure about something

If going with 1a, it could precede belief. If going with 1c, it could follow from belief, or just skip belief. And depending on how broad stroke the topic is, it could embrace a whole set of beliefs that are part of the information one is aware of.

1c reads to me as closer to trust/faith than to belief. 1a is closer to belief.

 

[ArtieE]

Thus the "without evidence or in spite of" is not necessary to understand faith. It is simply trust.

We were talking about RELIGIOUS faith.

 

[ArtieE]

So if a dictionary has other definitions than the two you chose to list, it isn't god they are defining?

Examples?

 

[ArtieE]

Says who?

And what makes your source "the" authority?

The authority on the definition of the Christian God is the Jews and the Christians and the Bible of course. They are the ones who invented him. And the dictionary just quotes them.

 

[McBell]

The authority on the definition of the Christian God is the Jews and the Christians and the Bible of course. They are the ones who invented him. And the dictionary just quotes them.

Seems you are now moving the goal posts from god to Christian god....
And are ignoring the second definition YOU provided in doing so.

 

[ArtieE]

Seems you are now moving the goal posts from god to Christian god....
And are ignoring the second definition YOU provided in doing so.

See how Mestemia moves the goal posts now. Everybody take a look at post number 207 where you can clearly see that Mestemia only quoted: "That is "the" definition of God." And now he complains that I only explained who's the authority on the definition of God.

 

[`mud]

Wow......with all those adjectives....this thread will never end.
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

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

The believer is the one who sees colour. The colour that you can't see, that you haven't defined--in other words, that is nothing more than a word without content--has no truth value. Belief is seeing things as true.

 

[ArtieE]

The believer is the one who sees colour. The colour that you can't see, that you haven't defined--in other words, that is nothing more than a word without content--has no truth value. Belief is seeing things as true.

From now on if I don't answer your posts it's because I have no idea what you're saying. I'll answer those that makes sense to me.

 

[Willamena]

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?

What you've described, they are both belief. The "knowing" is strong belief, and the "feeling" is weak.

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.

Which also doesn't make sense. He is atheist of a word, not something actual. He's weak atheist.

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.

Strong belief is of the same flavour as weak, whether for the sighted or the blind. Robert has nothing to believe in (a word, but nothing with truth value). He could only hold a weak belief of the kind of trust that Jane is neither lying nor decieved.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Never said you did.

In other words, if you know something is a fact, why would you say you (general world not me or you) believe it?

No they don't. They say they BELIEVE.

This is the key to the conversation. I know theist means "someone who believes in god" but to most if not all theists, they do not believe, they know. They may say belief out of convenience with strangers but when if they are strong in what we call, "their belief", they will say they know.

Going from that point of view only,

My point is an atheist if going by theists claims of knowledge, would say the opposite. They know god does not exist.

The theists no longer believes, he knows. The atheist no longer disbelieves, he knows. The former knows god exist. The latter knows the opposite.

I'm trying to go by how theist define how they see things not how we want to define them as. By how you're quoting the definitions, most theists aren't theists but gnostic theists.

The reason we say "gnostic theist" is to indicate that the theist has gone from believing to knowing. And saying just gnostic doesn't say what the person knows.

That makes sense. If you're saying gnostic theist, you are literally saying "someone who believes in god because he knows god exists". If a person knows god exist they have no reason to say hey believe he does. He would just say "I know god exists."

I have to think a minute. Those two words don't sound right together because it's overlapping belief with knowledge when having knowledge already infers that you have belief in what knowledge you have. As for the "-in god" part, that's the only reason I can see it make sense. But we can't split the word theist in half, so.... :/

You go from "atheist" to "strong atheist" to "gnostic atheist". If you don't keep the "atheist" behind you wouldn't know whether the person knew that gods exist or that gods don't exist./QUOTE]

Good point. It's still confusing because of the overlap of belief in knowledge since knowledge of something already infers you have belief in its existence whether its true or false.

Faith is "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." I don't know how to link to this definition it's the first that comes up when I put in "faith definition" in Google.

This is what you were telling Acim, Religious Faith. Not every religion has "religious faith" in doctrines or believing in doctrines without evidence of their authenticity. Some religions faith is trust.

Also, to use the "link" feature:

1. Type the text you want to use EXAMPLE DICTIONARY

2. Copy the link you want to attach to the text: www.exampledictionary.com

3. Highlight the text you want to use (example above)

4. At the top of your RF box, it has an icon that looks like two links. One looks like a bowtie and the other electric plugs (or something). Click the Bowtie one and paste the link (www.exampledictionary.com) in the box. Press okay.

It should look like this:

EXAMPLE DICTIONARY

"Weak atheists" don't believe. "Strong atheists" believe gods don't exist.

I know this is redundant. Just my train of thought was weak atheist are people who believe god doesn't exist. Strong atheist are those who know he doesn't exist.

Both of them have to do with belief. Just the latter they don't need to say they disbelieve anything because they have the knowledge, experiences, evidence, and confirmation that tells them they know god doesn't exist.

Their believe became knowledge.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What you've described, they are both belief. The "knowing" is strong belief, and the "feeling" is weak.

True. In knowing, I actually mean theist say they know (have full knowledge not feeling) that god exists. I was trying to example to @ArtieE, if god isn't a part of a person's reality, they are an atheist (or rather corrected, gnostic atheist).

If I believe something is true, more than likely, I highly expect it is. When I have experiences to confirm that belief, it's no longer a belief, it's a fact. Now I can dance silly and say "I know this is true."

If theist can say they know god exist why can't a- theists say they know god does not exist? (Regardless the actual definitions of the word)

 

[Acim]

We were talking about RELIGIOUS faith.

You did not stipulate that in the assertion from which I quoted.