Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Demonslayer]

Oh, I'd highly disagree that this wouldn't be met with denial by many that it is 'god.' I think it would very much be attempted to be understood as some sort of (physically) natural phenomenon.

I don't know about this. I mean there is a very specific story about Jesus returning to Earth, for example. He's supposed to come back on a flying horse, with an army of angels also on flying horses, and a sword will be sticking out of his mouth.

I'm about as strong an atheist as you can get, but you can dang well bet if I see an army of flying horses led by some dude with a sword jutting out of his face, I'm going to be a believer in an instant, hallelujah!

 

[Demonslayer]

I am a theists that understands / knows human parents to be gods.

That's fine Acim, I get your point of view I just find it symbolic, and thus, not a great use of the word "God" in common practice. That's all I've been saying, I get your comparison though.

 

[Pudding]

I've already elaborated on this enough times and you've stated clearly you disagree with the elaboration as a fair comparison.

You've elaborate most of your position clearly, but the ambiguous statement of your that i point out haven't been clarify yet, i have ask for your clarify but you just ignore and refuse to do so because you said you've already do so.

To prove you have already do so, please quote your post where you have elaborate the ambiguous statement of your that i point out and my post where i have said i disagree with your elaboration for you ambiguous statement.
Don't just making bold empty claims, thank you.

Also stating that I'm lying.

You indeed had lied about my position.

So, how about you go through my posts to find what I've already stated you are claiming as ambiguous. It is rather easily found. Also fairly simple to understand.

Bold empty claims.
I said it's ambiguous, then you refuse to clarify, end of discussion since you refuse to clarify.

Your opposition is to the interpretation of human parents as gods. I get that. I still see them as beings that fit the definition of gods in some examples provided in the dictionary. I fully get that an atheist would resist this.

My previous response:
I'm saying i disagree with how you're making the argument and comparison that "human parents are gods" which should be enough to be a clue to atheists to convince them to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion or interpretation to the definition of god which they consider reasonable to them, but i'm oppose to your using of definition in your argument to imply human parents are gods as a reasonable evidence to convince atheist to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

You takes my response out of context, quote mined and response to some of it then ignore the rest of it, i cannot communicate with such communication pattern.

The rest of what you are conveying, including your flawed invoking of straw man is just you trying to substitute your definition of God and then saying the comparison is false based on that. Thus you are the one introducing the straw man, but suggesting it is me.

You're again making straw man arguments.
That quote of me haven't mention anything about you making any straw man arguments, but then you said i suggest you making straw man arguments in that quote.
That is not very honest of you.

In my previous post i have point out many straw man arguments you've create and explain why i think so but you never response to them just ignore them, in your latest response to me you thoroughly cut out most of my comments which including my point out of your straw man arguments.
I cannot communicate with such evasive communication pattern.

The rest of it just seems to me like you are unwilling to accept any definition for gods as if they are beings that are visible to physical eyes, and if so, then refusing to interpret such beings as gods. Not sure of way around that, but strikes me as not lacking a belief.

Straw man arguments again.
I never say i accept any definition of gods that imply gods are visible to physical eyes.

I don't label human parents as gods makes you come to the conclusion that i does not lacking belief in the existence of universe creator gods?
Please explain how you can come to such conclusion otherwise it's just bold empty claims, thank you.

And it's getting a little bit tired to constantly hearing your straw man arguments about me, the discussion becomes not easy for me to communicate effectively if you'll keep continue to making more straw man arguments.
I shall step out of the discussion by your next post if the situation continue to be so, i cannot communicate with such communication pattern.

 

[LuisDantas]

It cheapens religion to acknowledge that people feel very deeply about their beliefs? If I were religious I think I would be offended.

I think superstition should be differentiated from religion and, if at all possible, purged from it.

Yes, I must assume many will feel offended by the idea.

 

[Acim]

Perhaps, but if I did it's only with relation to your definition of God. Ebola is God. Everything with power over something is God. My boss is God. I am a God to my kids (at least for now). And God is effectively a word without meaning.

I don't get how you reached the conclusion you did, based on the expressed rationale. But given that you disbelieve, I would think it is the likely conclusion based on any understanding/definition for God when first being considered. It would literally be up to you as believer to discern if everything that you perceive as having power over something else a) actually has this power and b) is God. My understandings of God would not assert Ebola as God, because I don't see it as having power for God's Creation. That doesn't mean all believers are going to share in that understanding. You could be a believer who asserts Ebola is God due to the power it has over humans / physical life. But, I'm fairly certain you don't hold this belief and instead are attempting mockery to make a point that I challenged in the first sentence of this paragraph.

I dont know...indeed can't know...all theistic beliefs. The diversity of belief is huge. You also don't know the full diversity of belief. No one does.

A claim of atheism says nothing about what others believe, but rather is a statement of what I don't believe. I have no theism. I am an atheist. You can see the moon, gravity or corn chips as God, and it doesnt impact on that. What impacts on it is if I beieve one of those things to be God. I don't. Atheist.

All this in response to a question, following up on your assertion that said: Call whatever you like God, I could care less. I'm still an atheist. If your God concept diirectly impacts on me, I'll worry about it.

So based on what I asked and how you responded, it seems very clear you have nothing to worry about, even if my God concept did impact you. Seeing that I see your being as God's / divine, I can intellectually assert it would have plausible impact on you, but knowing you do not currently share this concept for own self, then the whole 'if directly impacts me, I'll worry about it' is a non-issue. Which is the point I was asking about.

I don't. But you could replace 'gravity' with 'the sea', and replace 'reverence' for 'respect of its power' and I'd say I do, after a fashion. But I dont recognize the sea as a God. Some do. But I don't. I think it would be disrepectful to those who actually do hold God concepts for me to claim otherwise, apart from anything else.

All this is worthy of exploration in further discourse. To me, it greatly hints at belief (in divinity, with reverence in waiting), but I get that you wish to maintain position of atheism. For you personally, I'm not sure why I would care to deliberate further on this, knowing you are unwilling to budge. But as a matter of intellectual discourse where points are up for discussion, I do care based on the idea that it just seems like substitution of words / symbols for achieving understanding. For me personally, understanding the ability to replace particular concepts with other symbols (words) was a bit of a breakthrough in how I moved from agnostic to theistic. But that was so long ago, I'm not sure if it would hold relevance to a discussion such as this. Perhaps, not sure.

 

[Acim]

I don't know about this. I mean there is a very specific story about Jesus returning to Earth, for example. He's supposed to come back on a flying horse, with an army of angels also on flying horses, and a sword will be sticking out of his mouth.

I'm about as strong an atheist as you can get, but you can dang well bet if I see an army of flying horses led by some dude with a sword jutting out of his face, I'm going to be a believer in an instant, hallelujah!

Which is odd, to me, because if such a spectacle presented itself to me, I would possibly have less belief in God due to such a display.

But not so odd when I realize that for many seekers and doubters it is about an outward-in approach to understanding and/or believing / disbelieving in god(s). Consistently, this is where the request for evidence is desired to be found. I find that unreasonable / irrational, but extremely normal. It is essentially the nature of this (physical) existence. For me, the evidence is found within, where it could never truly be lost. For sure denied, but never lost. So, I have understanding of Second Coming, but it has almost nothing to do with seeing Jesus outside of me to reign in believers and separate them from non-believers. Heck, with such a spectacle being presented, I'd possibly go stand with the non-believers, realizing I'm not being exactly dishonest nor desiring to go through some physical transformation as a manifestation of salvation that also just so happens to uphold the notion of inherent separation.

 

[Acim]

To prove you have already do so, please quote your post where you have elaborate the ambiguous statement of your that i point out and my post where i have said i disagree with your elaboration for you ambiguous statement.
Don't just making bold empty claims, thank you.

Post numbers in this thread that state the position. Going in reverse order:
#261
#241
#217

You indeed had lied about my position.

Debatable. Side point, really.

Bold empty claims.
I said it's ambiguous, then you refuse to clarify, end of discussion since you refuse to clarify.

More like you refuse to look at what's already been clarified. Playing a game really. I could do the same with your posts which lack in clarification, but I choose to move things forward. You appear like you'd rather be stuck in your own ambiguity, projecting that onto me.

My previous response:
I'm saying i disagree with how you're making the argument and comparison that "human parents are gods" which should be enough to be a clue to atheists to convince them to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion or interpretation to the definition of god which they consider reasonable to them, but i'm oppose to your using of definition in your argument to imply human parents are gods as a reasonable evidence to convince atheist to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

You takes my response out of context, quote mined and response to some of it then ignore the rest of it, i cannot communicate with such communication pattern.

That is on you. Why, I wonder do you keep trying if that is going to be your default position?

You're again making straw man arguments.
That quote of me haven't mention anything about you making any straw man arguments, but then you said i suggest you making straw man arguments in that quote.
That is not very honest of you.

In my previous post i have point out many straw man arguments you've create and explain why i think so but you never response to them just ignore them, in your latest response to me you thoroughly cut out most of my comments which including my point out of your straw man arguments.
I cannot communicate with such evasive communication pattern.

Entirely on you, just like the creation of straw man positions.

I shall step out of the discussion by your next post if the situation continue to be so, i cannot communicate with such communication pattern.

That's cool. I don't appreciate such intellectual dishonesty anyway.

 

[Demonslayer]

Which is odd, to me, because if such a spectacle presented itself to me, I would possibly have less belief in God due to such a display.

If you saw an army of angels on flying horses and guy in blood red robes with a sword sticking out of his mouth, that would make you believe LESS in God? You are an odd duck my friend.

 

[Acim]

If you saw an army of angels on flying horses and guy in blood red robes with a sword sticking out of his mouth, that would make you believe LESS in God? You are an odd duck my friend.

Correct. I'm not sure how I (or anyone) would discern the beings are angels, rather than say demons. Either way, I'd be wondering how this could possibly relate to me and if some sort of choice was being called upon to stand with (so called) believers or (alleged) non-believers, I might be just curious enough to see what it is like to stand with non-believers, especially as I would not have indication of what belief in this particular circumstance is intended to mean. I reckon from the hypothetical that was originally dreamt or the one you are possibly suggesting that it would possibly relate to eternal resting place of my soul. All that is stuff I've already considered, via Reason, and thus would think this is a feeble display by (alleged) God to make a point that didn't need such a display to convince (the likes of) me. I'd actually entertain the whole display as humorous, if I took a few moments to consider it. I would want to have fun with it to whatever degree that is permissible, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Demonslayer]

Correct. I'm not sure how I (or anyone) would discern the beings are angels, rather than say demons.

If you're a believer in the Bible and it happens exactly like the Bible says, you'd believe it was angels for the same reason any religious people believes any of it...their holy book says so.

Either way, I'd be wondering how this could possibly relate to me and if some sort of choice was being called upon to stand with (so called) believers or (alleged) non-believers,

Again, if you buy into the stories in the Bible as real, and it happened just as the Bible says it will, you'd have to assume that it would indeed be presenting you with a choice to join the believers or non-believers.

I might be just curious enough to see what it is like to stand with non-believers,

Call me Thomas or someone from Missouri, but once you show me, I'm no longer a doubter. At that point, if the flying space horses, army of angel-looking things and sword sticking out of mouth guy are right there in front of me, as foretold in the Bible, I'd have to assume the rest is true at that point and I would have to decide I was wrong all these years.

I would jump to the side of the believers, not through any choice really, but because if you can show me all of that I don't see how I couldn't believe it.

especially as I would not have indication of what belief in this particular circumstance is intended to mean

But you would have an indication...you'd have the Bible. Unless you weren't aware of Revelations, you'd know that the army of angels, space horses and sword-mouth guy meant that the end of days is here and Jesus had come back to kick off Judgment Day/the reckoning/the rapture or whatever you want to call it. If you were familiar with that story, I would think the physical incarnation of it would be impossible not to recognize.

a feeble display by (alleged) God

I don't know, horses that can fly in from outer space without burning up coming through the atmosphere seems pretty impressive to me. I'm a science guy, but I can't see NASA inventing one of those suckers any time soon.

 

[viole]

I think superstition should be differentiated from religion and, if at all possible, purged from it.

Yes, I must assume many will feel offended by the idea.

Who is offended by the idea? The supersticious or the religious ones?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

If you're a believer in the Bible and it happens exactly like the Bible says, you'd believe it was angels for the same reason any religious people believes any of it...their holy book says so.

Yeah, but you're saying you would believe it.
I have portions of the bible I appreciate, others that make me scratch my head, and others I disbelieve.
I think God has sent nothing but angels (i.e. you and me).

Again, if you buy into the stories in the Bible as real, and it happened just as the Bible says it will, you'd have to assume that it would indeed be presenting you with a choice to join the believers or non-believers.

I find it hard to buy into Revelations. And am surprised you would buy into it, make you transform into believer instantaneously.
Again, I'm not even sure what one would be believing of. Would seem like a rather short leap (of faith) to say this type of scenario would make one a believer. For me, using Reason, it would have me step back and question God, to the point where suddenly I am perhaps best to be standing with the non-believers.

Call me Thomas or someone from Missouri, but once you show me, I'm no longer a doubter. At that point, if the flying space horses, army of angel-looking things and sword sticking out of mouth guy are right there in front of me, as foretold in the Bible, I'd have to assume the rest is true at that point and I would have to decide I was wrong all these years.

I would jump to the side of the believers, not through any choice really, but because if you can show me all of that I don't see how I couldn't believe it.

Seeing that this isn't presenting itself to us right now, and that I claim to use Reason for justifying my belief in God, doesn't that make you curious? I get that you're curious of my deciding to go toward less belief should this present itself, but I find it easy to do that given how Reason works with relation to Spirit/God/Divine. I guess I used to think of belief / faith as an outward-in type of thing, not anymore. I can entertain that notion and I guess I do when I seek films or stories that are depicting some sort of spiritual message. Something like this, I get would be meant to be taken deathly serious. I would honestly find it humorous if given any moment to reflect on what is occurring. I would think of it as a feeble display toward an end that would be questionable as I consider it now.

I can easily think of reasons not to believe it as God/Christ returning, and I'm a believer. I don't actually get why such a display would transform a non-believer, but I guess the outward-in approach to belief being justification for blind faith helps in understanding it.

The more I contemplate on it, the funnier I find it. Honestly. Perhaps in the actual moment of it occurring, I wouldn't come off as finding any humor in it. But again, if given any time to reflect on it, i.e. I am now standing in some sort of line, I'd be likely laughing inwardly for a whole set of reasons. I'd be very surprised if I was the only one that saw humor in that situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is actually an important thing to discuss, frustrating as it turns out.

It taps into the perceptions of what is proper and reasonable regarding presumed belief stances. Which is a field in dire need of questioning.

It's also illuminating to watch people tie themselves in knots to come up with definitions of "atheist" that exclude babies, and in the process make their definitions completely unworkable for adults.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The actual words "human parent" may not be found. Like saying if I don't see "human parent" in definition of evolution, that human parents are not part of evolution. Or if looking at definition of god(s) that say - influential person that is adored/respected, one might reason that applies to human parents who happen to also be creators of other beings.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's also illuminating to watch people tie themselves in knots to come up with definitions of "atheist" that exclude babies, and in the process make their definitions completely unworkable for adults.

Atheism is a conscious position.

Ta-da.

Next.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is a conscious position.

Ta-da.

Next.

You've taken a conscious position on all gods? How did you manage to do that, exactly?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You've taken a conscious position on all gods? How did you manage to do that, exactly?

Irrelevant.

 

[Curious George]

You've taken a conscious position on all gods? How did you manage to do that, exactly?

By defining what is a god . The same way you know a potato is not a god....haven't we been down this road before now?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By defining what is a god . The same way you know a potato is not a god....haven't we been down this road before now?

Yes, we have been. You failed to make your case then. Care to try again?

 

[Nefelie]

That's awesome. Like it!

Except that in this discussion we're not trying to find "god."

I think he is proposing to define god, not finding him. Personally, I do agree that a definition is needed to clear many things up in this discussion.

They're around. Here is an old thread I started that kinda touches on it a little. Please note, it's in the Pagan DIR, so not really somewhere I would normally frequent. I played nice, and they were kind enough to give me some responses. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-purpose-of-worship.176799/

Thanks! I’ll take a look

True...!! It's just a kinda shorthand I fall into. What I mean by it (as you might guess) is that I try to accept the world around me for what it is.

Yes, I got it. But the problem is that the world around you is not as you think/understand it is. Not to mention that the world you see and perceive is your world and yours alone. Because there is no such thing as objective truth about what the world is. Only subjective.

More, it's where I am at in terms of my life experience, and what is has led me to believe about the universe in which I dwell.

The moment you touch the keyboard to type an answer here, do you think/feel that you are actually touching it...?

A lot of it comes down to saying 'I don't know' about things, in truth. I find a level of comfort in that.

That’s very wise and mature of you

The concept that God is unknowable doesn't sit too well with me, since it seems to make assumptions about God I'm not willing to.

Is the universe knowable? And since I’m sure you’ll say “no” (because that is the logical answer), let me continue: how come you are OK with the universe being unknowable but not with god? And what do you mean when you say “god” anyway?

However, I am agnostic in so far as I believe that if there is a form of God, it is most likely nothing like the form of God most humans worship anyway.

We both agree on that

I'll do the google thing at some point. Just thought you might have been aware of some particularly approachable sites where this was discussed.

I do, but they are in Greek... sorry

So last week I was told Gods can be "air" or "my heart." This week we're saying anyone who is a parent is also a God? Good grief!

And now I’m telling you that he could be you! Imagine that!!

So you are proposing to fix a prejudice against atheists by further defaming them AND committing the mistake that you perceive others as committing? Are you sure that is at all a good idea? Except that it amounts to demanding people to assume God's existence regardless of their own preferences. That is an abusive stance with good PR.

Oh, lighten up, will ya?

Is it even possible to be a pantheist before learning of the idea of God? I doubt it and I want to discourage such a misguided notion. Being utterly egocentric is VERY different from being a pantheist.

It’s not egotistic, it’s egocentric. And that’s a huge difference.

And once you “learn” about god, you have lost the essence of the meaning. That is when programming starts. Therefore, the problem starts.

Babies are pure, absolutely un-programmed by society’s “laws” and act purely by natural instinct. The fact alone that their primal instinct is egocentric, should make you wonder.

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." Carl Sagan

I think this explains such a phenomenon. How do you respond?

“I dreamt I was a butterfly and when I woke up I wondered: am I a man who dreamt of being a butterfly or a butterfly that dreams of being a man?” - Zen teaching