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

[Segev Moran]

Hi Segev,



I agree. It's a common misunderstanding of atheism.

You describe the difference between asserting that no gods exist (i.e. hard atheism) and lacking belief in gods' existence (i.e. soft atheism). The former implies a firm resistance to believing in gods, while the latter is a more open-minded view amenable to being convinced otherwise.

Just for the sake of honesty...
I am an Atheist... I Don't claim that there is no God in a 100% certainty..
But I DO find it very very improbable that there is a God..
I Think that's true for most Atheist.
As I know, Even "Hard Atheists" I encountered, base their claim no the very low probability God exists.. and they never say I am 100% sure, without a doubt that there is no God.

 

[Willamena]

Just for the sake of honesty...
I am an Atheist... I Don't claim that there is no God in a 100% certainty..
But I DO find it very very improbable that there is a God..
I Think that's true for most Atheist.
As I know, Even "Hard Atheists" I encountered, base their claim no the very low probability God exists.. and they never say I am 100% sure, without a doubt that there is no God.

I'm 100% sure... that God is a mythic image, and gods are an aspect of the world.

 

[Kartari]

Hi syncretic,

I don't know if it's a language difference, or a culture difference, but usually, here, if someone is using the label atheist, there is no 'agnostic', or weak atheism, position to it inferred. It's usually an asserted position of dis-belief. The 'weak atheism' that you're referring to, is here usually referred to as simply ''agnostic''. Hence the 'gnosis', here is not really a factor. Theism, as well, here, is really never assumed to be agnostic; Unless the person specifies their agnosticism, any theistic adherence here is generally a 'gnostic' position.

note : gnostic and agnostic, being completely subjective, don't actually tell us anything, besides a description that the person for whatever reason is attaching to the 'theist or 'atheist' label

I think part of the problem of terminology is a matter of words possessing multiple meanings. This leads to a considerable degree of fruitless discussions where posters are debating two entirely different points, yet at least one of them incorrectly thinks they are debating the same point nonetheless.

One form of this manifests when some posters (like me) prefer to use the etymological meanings of terms, while other posters instead favor the terms' literal translations. For instance, the term Gnostic etymologically refers to a specific group of early Christians, deemed heretics by the Church forefathers (Bishop Iraneus had particular distaste for them), whose religious beliefs have had relatively recent light shed onto them by the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts unearthed in the mid-20th century. Yet in recent decades, I've seen more people use the same term, in lower case, as you have above, to indicate a more general meaning: one who claims to have knowledge about a given subject matter.

The term agnostic is similarly misunderstood. Etymologically speaking, an agnostic is one who asserts that knowledge about gods is both unknown and unknowable. It is a position which implicitly asserts the belief that our ability to possess ultimate knowledge is irrevocably and forever limited, therefore. This is very different from how you are using the term agnostic, which seems to be a literal translation (i.e. merely a lack of knowledge about a given subject matter, lacking the unknowable portion of etymological agnosticism).

Another issue imo is, to be frank, a misunderstanding of what exactly is meant when distinguishing between strong atheism and weak atheism. A strong atheist asserts the belief that no gods exist. A strong atheist is absolutely convinced that no gods exist with 100% certainty. A weak atheist is a broader category of atheist, and is defined as one who disbelieves in the existence of deities but does not necessarily 100% discount their existence. Given the etymological meaning of agnostic, weak atheism does not equate with agnostic. In fact, one can be an agnostic theist - a person who believes we cannot possibly know if gods exist or not, but who believes in one or more gods nonetheless. An agnostic atheist by contrast is someone who lacks belief in gods but also believes this position cannot possibly be known for certain. A weak atheist by contrast (who is not an etymological agnostic) simply disbelieves in deities, and holds no conviction that knowledge of deities is either unknown or unknowable. Typically, most weak atheists I've encountered are open to changing their minds if presented with convincing evidence of theism, though this is not set in stone: the only given for an atheist is the lack of faith in the existence of god(s).

This is why I tend to go back and begin with word definitions when I am seriously trying to debate someone. If two people are using different meanings to the same words, that discussion or debate will be fruitless and will end only in frustration.

 

[Segev Moran]

I'm 100% sure... that God is a mythic image, and gods are an aspect of the world.

Interesting
How will you disprove Deism?

 

[Segev Moran]

Hi syncretic,



I think part of the problem of terminology is a matter of words possessing multiple meanings. This leads to a considerable degree of fruitless discussions where posters are debating two entirely different points, yet at least one of them incorrectly thinks they are debating the same point nonetheless.

One form of this manifests when some posters (like me) prefer to use the etymological meanings of terms, while other posters instead favor the terms' literal translations. For instance, the term Gnostic etymologically refers to a specific group of early Christians, deemed heretics by the Church forefathers (Bishop Iraneus had particular distaste for them), whose religious beliefs have had relatively recent light shed onto them by the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts unearthed in the mid-20th century. Yet in recent decades, I've seen more people use the same term, in lower case, as you have above, to indicate a more general meaning: one who claims to have knowledge about a given subject matter.

The term agnostic is similarly misunderstood. Etymologically speaking, an agnostic is one who asserts that knowledge about gods is both unknown and unknowable. It is a position which implicitly asserts the belief that our ability to possess ultimate knowledge is irrevocably and forever limited, therefore. This is very different from how you are using the term agnostic, which seems to be a literal translation (i.e. merely a lack of knowledge about a given subject matter, lacking the unknowable portion of etymological agnosticism).

Another issue imo is, to be frank, a misunderstanding of what exactly is meant when distinguishing between strong atheism and weak atheism. A strong atheist asserts the belief that no gods exist. A strong atheist is absolutely convinced that no gods exist with 100% certainty. A weak atheist is a broader category of atheist, and is defined as one who disbelieves in the existence of deities but does not necessarily 100% discount their existence. Given the etymological meaning of agnostic, weak atheism does not equate with agnostic. In fact, one can be an agnostic theist - a person who believes we cannot possibly know if gods exist or not, but who believes in one or more gods nonetheless. An agnostic atheist by contrast is someone who lacks belief in gods but also believes this position cannot possibly be known for certain. A weak atheist by contrast (who is not an etymological agnostic) simply disbelieves in deities, and holds no conviction that knowledge of deities is either unknown or unknowable. Typically, most weak atheists I've encountered are open to changing their minds if presented with convincing evidence of theism, though this is not set in stone: the only given for an atheist is the lack of faith in the existence of god(s).

This is why I tend to go back and begin with word definitions when I am seriously trying to debate someone. If two people are using different meanings to the same words, that discussion or debate will be fruitless and will end only in frustration.

It is mostly so all over.
When one claims for Atheism, It is mostly the dis-belief in a God..

 

[Kartari]

Hi Segev,

Just for the sake of honesty...
I am an Atheist... I Don't claim that there is no God in a 100% certainty..
But I DO find it very very improbable that there is a God..
I Think that's true for most Atheist.
As I know, Even "Hard Atheists" I encountered, base their claim no the very low probability God exists.. and they never say I am 100% sure, without a doubt that there is no God.

As a fellow atheist, I agree and also find it a highly unlikely but not a 100% impossible proposition (depending on the definition of "god"). And indeed, the term atheism (not qualified by either strong or weak) does indeed imply nothing more or less than the lack of belief in deities (i.e. atheism implies weak atheism, unless explicitly qualified as strong).

The term strong atheist has taken on a few meanings, I've found. Though very rare, I have in fact encountered a couple of people in my time whom I would label as strong atheists because they have asserted zero chance of gods existing whatsoever. I have long thought of this as the defined distinction between strong and weak atheism: if a given atheist is at least open to the possibility of one or more deities existing, they're a weak atheist in my book. That said, I've seen strong atheism also used to mean something identical to weak atheism but with the added and strong conviction that theistic religion is generally harmful, though I instead call this anti-theism...

Anyway, what's in a word?!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe I already have, but you clearly stated: 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.

Thus, you are rejecting whatever it is I put forth.

Somehow, I've got to try and make you see what I'm saying. You don't get it (as, I admit, I also do not get what you're saying, so in one sense we're on a level playing field). I am not rejecting "whatever [you] put forth." I am saying that defining one thing by calling it another undefined thing provides no additional information. So, let's move on and see how you define that other thing...

I think not-statements do help understand / describe it. To say that is inherently meaningless would mean atheism is arguably inherently meaningless (via not believing).

In my view, not-statements provide nothing at all in the absence of some prelimary positive definition. I could have provided a great many positive statements about pomegranates (a fruit, red, seeds, juicy, edible but why bother?, used to make sickly-sweet syrup grenadine, etc.), but if I don't do any of that, then simply saying what it is not will tell you just about precisely nothing.

I can provide understandings of love that do not utilize not-statements. I can also do so without relying on emotional feeling, yet that last part is debatable, for anything can be put in that category if one wants it there. Knowledge can be an emotional feeling.

Another definition that I disagree with. I can feel good (or bad) about knowing something, but I do not think that knowledge itself is an emotional feeling. Knowledge is the possession of information that truly corresponds to your accepted (believed) reality. JTB.

But in the interest of being fair with what you asked, and with understanding that you'll likely reject whatever I put forth, I'll give you a couple of such assertions:
- Love is the desire (or idea) to give (all of) what you have to all (or at least willingness to give to someone).
- Love knows that strength is gained by giving / sharing what you have

*Wish to note that I could've stipulated both assertions with contrasts to how things appear to work in this world, and why those might not seem accurate, but chose instead to maintain positive assertions only.

I'd like you to look at your definitions again. The first contains the words "desire (or idea)", "you" and "someone." The second contains the words "knows," "giving," and "you." All of these imply something really important -- agency.

But by implying that "love" itself, alone, is the agent, you are now turning a human-language-defined word into something altogether other, and still not showing how "love" manages to be both the agent and the result -- at one and the same time.

Not accurate. I say in previous post "God equals Love." If you need that parsed out, I'll also say "God means Love to me." I also said this entity is not over yonder, but is within. That means to me that God is within Me (and You). Felt I was explicit with that. Said other things about what it means to me to understand God within context of my life, all life, and how this relates to forgiveness.

And here, you are talking quite explicitly about yourself, and then trying to impute your own meanings and desires to some other agency.

Isn't it good enough being you?

Love has no requirements.

Does it not? As its own agency, or as something expressed (felt) by some other agency?

And more to the point, if love as no requirements, then there is nothing to fulfill, and no matter at all whether it exists or not.

I desire (wouldn't say require) God/Spirit communicate with me in some fashion daily. Usually multiple times a day. I receive such communications in discernible ways often. I would argue that God never stops speaking with Us, but admit I don't always have awareness of experiencing that.

I call that living in, observing and thinking about the world. And I too miss things sometimes. Probably walked right by a lost $20 recently, for all I know!

I would forego Knowledge. I imagine I would resort to a position where doubt and fear would be my primary guides.

Now, here I'm going to provide some deeply personal stuff -- might make you hate me, but here goes.

Do you really think that not believing in God means you would "forego Knowledge" and be guided only by doubt and fear? Without belief in God you wouldn't know who won the last World Series, or how many floors the Empire State Building has? That you would lose hope?

I was a battered child, and taken over by Children's Aid at an early age. Nearly killed by step-father, thrown out of high school and dumped on the streets at 17, knowing little about survival. I was good looking so I earned money by selling my body -- not a nice thing, I assure you. Eventually found work, then went to night school, became an accountant, then learned programming, eventually winding up Vice President of Information Technology for a major international insurance company.

Through all that time -- and without ever having had the glimmer of a belief in God (or your version of Love, though I have loved) -- I never lost my hope, and neither doubt nor fear was every my guide. Knowledge and hope were!

God / Spirit does not want. Though I would think in some technical semantical way, I could concede to idea of God wanting, but would be a bunch of semantical stuff occurring.

Which would lead -- with proven certainty -- to religion. Always has.

I use proper noun as a way to distinguish from generic form of god(s). That I am referencing a particular God, in vein of Gnostic Christianity.

But whether you capitalize or do not, you still conceive of god(s) and God as personal -- I have never, ever seen a description of god(s) or God that was not in some way an agent.

I have either no issue, or very little with referencing 'it' as god (and would know for myself what I mean). Also have very little issue with referencing it with Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Yahweh, or Spirit, or perhaps countless other symbolic representations, and would know what I mean by it.

Yes, but would anybody else?

 

[Willamena]

Interesting
How will you disprove Deism?

I wouldn't disprove anything.


I don't believe that disproving is a productive use of time.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't doubt the person Jesus existed I'm still waiting for any evidence there was something supernatural about him.

And what sort of evidence would that be? All we have is words written by the people who claim to have seen Jesus perform miraculous things. You can either by faith disbelieve that what they have said is true, or believe that what they have said is true. I suppose you could say you're not going to make any judgments whatsoever until you see convincing evidence either way, but we both know that you have already made your decision, and it is not based on any evidence whatsoever. Why do you not consider a person's testimony as evidence?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And what sort of evidence would that be? All we have is words written by the people who claim to have seen Jesus perform miraculous things. You can either by faith disbelieve that what they have said is true, or believe that what they have said is true. I suppose you could say you're not going to make any judgments whatsoever until you see convincing evidence either way, but we both know that you have already made your decision, and it is not based on any evidence whatsoever. Why do you not consider a person's testimony as evidence?

Actually, for the most part, you do not he words written by people who claim to have seen Jesus perform miraculous things. You have hear-say -- words written by people who claim to have heard other people make those claims. Mark, primary source for both Matthew and Luke, wasn't ever an Apostle, and wrote about 40 years after the events that he didn't personally witness. John seems unlikely to have been written by the Apostle, just because it comes so very long after (he'd have been older than most anybody got back then), and Luke was an associate of Peter, not an eye-witness.

But leave all that aside, you ask a valid question: "Why do you not consider a person's testimony as evidence?" Good, I'll ask you the same thing: about Mohammed, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite? Many people throughout history -- in writing "history," in testifying at criminal trials, in testifying before Congressional committees, in job interviews, in wooing a mate -- have given "testimony." Do you really think that it is all "evidence?" Did not a single one of them have an agenda of their own, that they sought to achieve through giving testimony that was not -- how shall we put it -- entirely accurate?

In fact, I would ask you this: how many people in the history of the world can you think of who have "given testimony" that you -- yourself -- DO NOT BELIEVE?

 

[Segev Moran]

Hi Segev,



As a fellow atheist, I agree and also find it a highly unlikely but not a 100% impossible proposition (depending on the definition of "god"). And indeed, the term atheism (not qualified by either strong or weak) does indeed imply nothing more or less than the lack of belief in deities (i.e. atheism implies weak atheism, unless explicitly qualified as strong).

The term strong atheist has taken on a few meanings, I've found. Though very rare, I have in fact encountered a couple of people in my time whom I would label as strong atheists because they have asserted zero chance of gods existing whatsoever. I have long thought of this as the defined distinction between strong and weak atheism: if a given atheist is at least open to the possibility of one or more deities existing, they're a weak atheist in my book. That said, I've seen strong atheism also used to mean something identical to weak atheism but with the added and strong conviction that theistic religion is generally harmful, though I instead call this anti-theism...

Anyway, what's in a word?!

I Think that Theism and Religion are two different things.
I Also think that religion MIGHT be a very harmful concept..
unfortunately, we can see the affects of it in many place in world today.
Please don't get me wrong.. It is of course respective to each religion.. but once the word Worship Or Divine or Holy is mentioned, Its a bad concept IMO

 

[Segev Moran]

I wouldn't disprove anything.


I don't believe that disproving is a productive use of time.

Ok.. Lets try and look at it this way:
If you claim that there is no God (Not Biblical God or Theistic God), then this means you are sure there is none.
If you are sure there is one, you probably have a very solid base to make that claim..
If not, It is no different than saying there is a God.
Your claim of wouldn't disprove anything is probably not so honest...
For example, If you will be diagnosed with a possibility of being sick with a very aggressive disease..wouldn't you try and disprove it?
Most times BTW, in medicine, you disprove disease rather than trying to find the right one.. You have a list of 10 matching possible causes for a symptom for example, and you go one by one and disprove the disease based on other symptoms that should appear if you have that diseased.

 

[Sonofason]

Another bold empty claim from you based upon your bias assumptions.

I never said I have not seen any evidence for god, or fairies for that matter.

Perhaps you should stop trying to dictate to others what they believe?

Okay Mestemia, I will try to stop trying to dictate to you what you believe. Sometimes the way you talk, it seems like you don't think there is any evidence for the existence of God. Can I safely say that you think the evidence is very weak and unconvincing? Or do you actually believe in God?

 

[Willamena]

Ok.. Lets try and look at it this way:
If you claim that there is no God (Not Biblical God or Theistic God), then this means you are sure there is none.
If you are sure there is one, you probably have a very solid base to make that claim..
If not, It is no different than saying there is a God.
Your claim of wouldn't disprove anything is probably not so honest...
For example, If you will be diagnosed with a possibility of being sick with a very aggressive disease..wouldn't you try and disprove it?
Most times BTW, in medicine, you disprove disease rather than trying to find the right one.. You have a list of 10 matching possible causes for a symptom for example, and you go one by one and disprove the disease based on other symptoms that should appear if you have that diseased.

I'll leave medicine to the professionals.

 

[Sonofason]

First of all, though I should not have to point this out, you have no basis whatsoever to make bald-faced proclamations about my "discernment," and I find it somewhat egotistical for you to pretend that you have a special gift just because you're a believer.

In any case, the text above is part of an extremely unhistorical book, written long after it claims (for itself) to be written, which is dishonest, and the text in question is completely impenetrable -- written, as these things often are, to be just exactly that. It's a pretty lousy "prophet" (and one quickly and easily proven wrong!) who makes prophecy in clear and certain terms, complete with actual dates.

There is simply no reason (except, as I shall point you to, trying to make previous prophecy somehow "fit") to claim "weeks" doesn't really mean what it says, but rather, "multiply (unmentioned) years by 7." That's the subterfuge part. It's trying to reconcile Jeremiah's promise of 70 years, written 434 years previously, which obviously had not yet happened.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crosse...ction-a-skeptical-approach-prophecy-70-weeks/

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and suppose by "discernment" you mean "the ability and imagination to be able to read into any text, no matter the source or readability,
precisely what I want to see there." If that's your meaning, then I'll give it to you. Otherwise, 'fraid not.

You may be wrong about, well everything you've said.

Consider what the Bible says in the book of Leviticus concerning the year of Jubilee:

Leviticus 25:8-13 states:

You shall count off seven Sabbaths of years, seven times seven years; and there shall be to you the days of seven Sabbaths of years, even forty-nine years. Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. You shall make the fiftieth year holy, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee to you; and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee to you. In it you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself, nor gather from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat of its increase out of the field. In this Year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property.

And when you put this together with the proper definition that I have given you for the Hebrew word shabua, which I have told you means "a period of seven (days, years) heptad, week.

If you had discernment, or even a dismal ability to reason, you would understand.

 

[Sonofason]

What is, in your opinion, the probability of Superman ruling a planet in our galaxy?

Please, justify your estimation with hard data.

Ciao

- viole

Knowing that superman is a fictional character that was created by a person that we can all identify, who has never claimed that superman was anything more than a fictional character he made up, a character that no person on the planet believes is real, nor would ever consider him to be real, the probability that superman is actually ruling a planet in our galaxy is a big fat Zero.

 

[Sonofason]

Wow...
You do realize we can actually get to Mars right?...it is not that far from us (in universe distance terms), it actually takes less than a year to get there...

Okay so you are hopeful there is life on Mars...okay. We'll see.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually, for the most part, you do not he words written by people who claim to have seen Jesus perform miraculous things. You have hear-say -- words written by people who claim to have heard other people make those claims. Mark, primary source for both Matthew and Luke, wasn't ever an Apostle, and wrote about 40 years after the events that he didn't personally witness. John seems unlikely to have been written by the Apostle, just because it comes so very long after (he'd have been older than most anybody got back then), and Luke was an associate of Peter, not an eye-witness.

But leave all that aside, you ask a valid question: "Why do you not consider a person's testimony as evidence?" Good, I'll ask you the same thing: about Mohammed, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite? Many people throughout history -- in writing "history," in testifying at criminal trials, in testifying before Congressional committees, in job interviews, in wooing a mate -- have given "testimony." Do you really think that it is all "evidence?" Did not a single one of them have an agenda of their own, that they sought to achieve through giving testimony that was not -- how shall we put it -- entirely accurate?

In fact, I would ask you this: how many people in the history of the world can you think of who have "given testimony" that you -- yourself -- DO NOT BELIEVE?

Fair enough. I guess you're right. I don't believe the Bible simply because of the testimony written in it. I believed it because it felt true to me. It could be all false.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You may be wrong about, well everything you've said.

Consider what the Bible says in the book of Leviticus concerning the year of Jubilee:

Leviticus 25:8-13 states:

You shall count off seven Sabbaths of years, seven times seven years; and there shall be to you the days of seven Sabbaths of years, even forty-nine years. Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land. You shall make the fiftieth year holy, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee to you; and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee to you. In it you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself, nor gather from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat of its increase out of the field. In this Year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property.

And when you put this together with the proper definition that I have given you for the Hebrew word shabua, which I have told you means "a period of seven (days, years) heptad, week.

If you had discernment, or even a dismal ability to reason, you would understand.

And if you had even the tiniest understanding of human nature (not to say discernment and ability to reason), you would see that you've just quoted millennia-old magic formulae. Humans have always used such formulae (pretty much uselessly) to try to make things go their way.

But I know how to count, and I know how to measure -- whether the Hebrews did or not. And I know that 7 is not 70, nor is it .7. And I know that a years is not a week, nor a day, nor a decade. These things are muddled ON PURPOSE.

See, I don't believe saying "abracadabra" or "hocus pocus" will get me what I want, and in precisely the same way, I don't believe that waving magic number 7 all over will do much, either.

I'm going to quote you in my last comment: "If you had discernment, or even a dismal ability to reason, you would understand." I only get to be that rude because I'm using your own words. But do not dare to put your superstitious, magical woo-woo gullibility against my ability to reason.

 

[Sonofason]

And if you had even the tiniest understanding of human nature (not to say discernment and ability to reason), you would see that you've just quoted millennia-old magic formulae. Humans have always used such formulae (pretty much uselessly) to try to make things go their way.

But I know how to count, and I know how to measure -- whether the Hebrews did or not. And I know that 7 is not 70, nor is it .7. And I know that a years is not a week, nor a day, nor a decade. These things are muddled ON PURPOSE.

See, I don't believe saying "abracadabra" or "hocus pocus" will get me what I want, and in precisely the same way, I don't believe that waving magic number 7 all over will do much, either.

I'm going to quote you in my last comment: "If you had discernment, or even a dismal ability to reason, you would understand." I only get to be that rude because I'm using your own words. But do not dare to put your superstitious, magical woo-woo gullibility against my ability to reason.

Yes you are so very right. They are muddled to prevent the faithless from understanding. Which is why I say you lack discernment. You see, discernment is a gift from the Holy Spirit, which you do not have in you. Thus, it would be impossible for you to have it. It is very likely that you never will have it. And, I'm okay with that.