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

[Willamena]

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)

A fact is believed. Knowledge is belief that just happens to be true. A strong atheist has a strong belief: there is no "god" in the world that he knows and participates in. For him, it is a fact. It doesn't need to be justified or rationalized. He simply lives a life without regard to the possibilty of gods.

 

[Acim]

Examples?

2b - an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
3a - an adored, admired, or influential person
3b - a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god

 

[ArtieE]

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

I wouldn't.

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.

Then they wouldn't be just "theists" but "gnostic theists"

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

Yes, the opposite of a "gnostic theist" is a "gnostic atheist". Never said otherwise.

The theists no longer believes, he knows.

Gnostic theist.

The atheist no longer disbelieves, he knows.

Gnostic atheist.

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.

Precisely.

That makes sense. If you're saying gnostic theist, you are literally saying "someone who believes in god because he knows god exists".

Someone who knows god exists. Theist we keep so we know what it is he knows.

If a person knows god exist they have no reason to say hey believe he does. He would just say "I know god exists."

Or say he's a "gnostic theist" if he wants to be formal.

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.

No, we just use a little common sense and understand that a "gnostic theist" is simply a person whose belief has turned to knowledge.

 

[ArtieE]

2b - an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
3a - an adored, admired, or influential person
3b - a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god

Acim originally said: "So if a dictionary has other definitions than the two you chose to list, it isn't god they are defining?" These aren't gods, they're just worshiped like or symbolize gods or have some characteristics of gods. Which is why we nickname them gods.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The prophesy of Daniel was written 300 years before the coming of Christ. Your claim is false. If it is true, prove it.

I meant that Daniel written in Palestine in the mid second century BCE is supposed to be about an official in the courts of near-east kingdoms in the sixth century BCE, and that what he "prophesied" prior to the the date the book was really written after the events, and so are hardly prophecy.

As to Daniel 9:25, you may claim it as an "accurate prophecy of Jesus," but I don't read as creatively, apparently.

25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Yerushalayim until an anointed prince, shall be seven weeks: then for sixty two weeks it shall be built again, with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

26. And after sixty two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and none will be left to him: and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and his end shall be with a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are decreed.

27. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week: and during half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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'm an atheist. I find the idea of god or gods to be completely delusional and irrational. They don't exist. Arguing about the nuances of the logic behind why its safer to not make that claim seems a bit silly to me.

Some atheists claim that there are no gods. I am one of them. But that does not mean that all atheists claim this. Most atheists prefer the weaker stance that gods probably don't exist because there is no decent evidence for them. I just take it one step further.

 

[Acim]

Acim originally said: "So if a dictionary has other definitions than the two you chose to list, it isn't god they are defining?" These aren't gods, they're just worshiped like or symbolize gods or have some characteristics of gods. Which is why we nickname them gods.

I would say they are de facto gods.

Like the dictionary definition in first definition makes claim about Christianity which is not accurate for Gnostic Christianity, and is BFD in the distinction between Gnosticism and orthodox / traditional understandings. Thus, from my understanding the dictionary is not defining God, and is going with the nickname that some Christians give to the demiurge. The second definition is one I'd go along with, but it obviously has things that are not explained via the definition, yet can be understood (at least a little bit) by referencing other terms in the dictionary.

Concluding "they aren't gods" is the atheistic filter expressing itself.
For arguably all things existing are gods (for some people) and appropriated that supreme importance or reverence (worship) as having power/influence over own fortune or all people's fortune.
And arguably all things that people don't (nick)name god, or gods, could be treated in that fashion that gods are treated, with reverence/adoration and noted as having influence over human fortune (or all activity, or some activity). Such that an atheist could be interacting with some things (or all things) in way that amounts to treating it (or observing it, or rationalizing it) in way that theists treat god(s), yet rejecting the naming of it as "god(s)."

Also want to inject here the idea of "no other gods before God" but acknowledge it may not necessarily follow from other points in this post (above). I think it does, because it is (precisely) how such things are treated, and what make-believe assertions are attributed to those things, yet seemingly held as invalid as gods, because of denying the (nick)naming.

Like the mythical things we attribute to Nature or (even) science. Such as, "the scientific method is the best (supreme) method around" that allows us to gain knowledge. Only to come to realize "the" scientific method is mythological and no practicing scientist actually uses that precise method, but loosely follows it, cherry picking elements of the guidance system for whatever may be necessary in current work. Not to mention the fact those elements were part of philosophy (basic reasoning) long before science gained footing.

 

[ArtieE]

I would say they are de facto gods.

If a Christian says "I worship my wife" it doesn't mean that he literally thinks his wife is a god Acim. He doesn't define his wife to be a god worthy of worship. It's just a figure of speech.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.



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.

You have to understand that I don't accept the way you appear to be defining "love" any more Than I accept the various definitions of god that I'm aware of. Love is an emotion. It is, so far as I know, an emotion possessed by higher animals facilitating bonding, and as such, is an evolutionary adaptation as much as any other.

You tend towards some sort of mysticism that holds no attraction or interest for me.

No more do I accept the notion of "illusion" that is so often bandied in these discussions. I accept that our senses do not permit us to perceive everything "as it is," but I never-the-less accept that there is a reality, and that we participate in that reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

As of late I have found myself reflecting on the logical consequences of some claims.

There are those who complain of ancestor worship and even of religious statues. The word "idolatry" is sometimes used.

To the best of my understanding, the idea is that there would be some sort of danger of treating non-deity entities as if deities they were, of confusing the idol for the deity, so to speak.

Apparently it is a big deal for Muslims. I can't claim to understand why, but I have been trying. Hours ago I attempted to pretend that it was somehow important for me to hold a belief in God and to be quite certain that such a God was the sole creator of the Universe and that it was somehow meaningful not to confuse Him with something else.

An alien situation for me, certainly. But I tried it anyway and I found myself wondering why it would be a significant worry. I came to the conclusion that the role of deity in Islam is quite unlike that of even most of Christianity, let alone more functional yet still theistic religions such as Hinduism and Shinto.

For most of healthy religion, a deity is a means to an end. Islam and some of Christianity reverse it all. Their God is somehow both all-mighty and remarkably weak at once, unable or perhaps unwilling to deal with such a minor thing as a simple failure of worshippers in correctly understanding His nature and boundaries.

It is a very odd situation to my eyes. Those often well-meaning people end up spending a lot of good effort attempting to fulfill a task both impossible and meaningless: that of validating their own Supreme God while also making a point of being miserably inferior to Him.

The bottom line is that not all conceptions of deity are sane, and we should not refrain to acknowledging that and guarding against the insanity and the harm that it causes.

People should accept the duty and the burden of Just Saying No to the insanity that takes refuge in theism.

 

[McBell]

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.

ROTFLMAO

Please be so kind as to explain how asking for a source is moving the goal posts?

 

[Altfish]

I'm an atheist and I admit that have not read all of this thread, so if this has been said before, I apologise.
But going back to the thread's title and question..."Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?"

My POV about god is that he/it is a money making/controlling scam that has worked brilliantly for many, many centuries. There is no evidence for god's existence apart books written by man and preachers who can convince many people of a god's existence to further their career / wealth / control.

 

[Sonofason]

I offer the following from the Tao, chapter 1.



The tao(god) that can be told
is not the eternal Tao(god)
The name(god) that can be named(god)
is not the eternal Name(god)


And........'In the middle of the word belief there is a lie' - John Trudel.

Ha ! god is in the same show as the tooth fairy, father christmas and the easter bunny.

Okay, if you say so.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wouldn't.Then they wouldn't be just "theists" but "gnostic theists"Yes, the opposite of a "gnostic theist" is a "gnostic atheist". Never said otherwise.Gnostic theist.Gnostic atheist.Precisely.Someone who knows god exists. Theist we keep so we know what it is he knows.Or say he's a "gnostic theist" if he wants to be formal.
No, we just use a little common sense and understand that a "gnostic theist" is simply a person whose belief has turned to knowledge.

Hey. 226 pretty much wraps up my view on the matter. I think one calling themselves atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist is a matter of personal preference, I guess. Whatever the term is, but I'll say god/s (as in deities) do not exist. Since they don't, I have no reason to say that I am right or wrong because the evidence, experiences, and conclusions lead me to take a step beyond "claiming belief/disbelief" to stating fact.

I did pose hundreds of times (more than likely on RF) how I define god and wondered if anyone can argue against it. Not just to prove me wrong, but at least take a break from talking about the god of abraham and challenge other people's "gods" for a change.

 

[Willamena]

I just take it one step further.

Rather, they do.

 

[ArtieE]

ROTFLMAO

Please be so kind as to explain how asking for a source is moving the goal posts?

Never said asking for a source is moving the goal posts.

 

[Desert Snake]

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)"



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.


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.

When you 'know'' something, does that mean that you disbelieve it?

Do you think that ''Jesus believers'', so forth, are just using the wrong words or something? I mean, 'belief', does not indicate whether the person thinks they 'know' /something, it doesn't indicate anything except what the person believes.. which /can include, something they ''know''.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For most of healthy religion, a deity is a means to an end. Islam and some of Christianity reverse it all. Their God is somehow both all-mighty and remarkably weak at once, unable or perhaps unwilling to deal with such a minor thing as a simple failure of worshippers in correctly understanding His nature and boundaries.

Take your thinking further, and you may start to see what I see. For example, I frequently claim that even believers don't actually, deeply believe what they think they believe.

Look, I believe -- I really believe -- that when the burner on my stove is glowing red, it would be a very bad idea to put my hand on it. I never, EVER, try this, I believe it that strongly. Now compare this to the Muslim who constantly says "Insha'Allah" (God willing) whenever they state an intention. Christians and others express similar notions. They cannot possibly believe, however, that whatt God does not will will not happen? Why do I say that? Because we all, constantly, try to change the status quo (especially religious militants like jihadis and missionaries), and the status quo -- by their own definition -- could not be the case had God willed it to be so!

It is this very deep, but unconscious, cognitive dissonance that I became aware of so long ago that led to my own disbelief. I was certainly not going to believe something that even professed believers so obviously did NOT really, deeply believe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Quick comment. I always find it odd if someone says they know that Will and Grace doesn't come on at 5 p.m. since they've watched it for years and know the T.V. guide by heart never get questioned whether his knowledge should be just mere belief. Why is god different?

When you 'know'' something, does that mean that you disbelieve it?

When you know something, you believe it. Why would you believe something is true if you don't know its true? If I know something is true, why would someone ask me if I believe it is true? (And how could I believe something is not true but know it's true at the same time?)

In other words, what do you mean?

Do you think that ''Jesus believers'', so forth, are just using the wrong words or something?

Wrong words? What do you mean? Each person has their terminology to refer to their beliefs. For example, what some Pagans call gods (not deities), I call spirits. What some people call deities others call entities. Unfortunately, there is no unbiased dictionary that can give us a universal definition of the term. To many African religions, god is female. So, I think the problem is putting god in a Abrahamic box.

I mean, 'belief', does not indicate whether the person thinks they 'know' /something, it doesn't indicate anything except what the person believes.. which /can include, something they ''know''.

I just prefer saying what I have already confirmed fact by evidence, experience, etc as what I know. When I say "I believe this is true" to me, it's like I'm not sure but I am leaning towards the validity of it being true. Knowledge is what you confirm as a fact. So once you know, you no longer need to believe.

Many believers (Christians, Pagans, Bahai, Hindu, whoever) know their god(s) exist. They experienced and confirmed these experiences as facts. So why would they need to say they believe in god when the know god exist? My focus is, if a theist claim is that he knows god exist why would an atheist (who I assume would believe the opposite) only say he believes god doesn't exist? Unless they are leaning towards disbelief but not really sure because of lack of evidence. They are no longer atheist. They're agnostic.

 

[McBell]

Never said asking for a source is moving the goal posts.

Since all I have done is ask for your source, then mentioned that it SEEMS to me that you moved the goal posts, please be so kind as to explain when, where, and how, I moved what goalposts.