Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Willamena]

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

By generalization.

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

Could you remind us again what the case is for having to know each and every god in order to take a stance against "all gods"? Do I have to know all people in order to be a misanthrope?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Not mockery so much as extrapolation of what I understood your position to be. It's hard discussing God with a theist without an understanding of what God is to them.

So as well as power, a God has power for God's creation? That strikes me as self -fulfilling. Anything that creates something is the it's God. And gravity is not a God at all. So colour me confused by your terms.

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.

You misunderstand my meaning. I am not suggesting that I'll worry about your God when your God effects me. If gravity is a God I am clearly effected by it. And short of a literal arrival of Thor swinging a hammer at me I'm unlikely to suddenly equate what I see as natural phenomena as God.

What I meant, rather, was that I'll worry about your God-concept when the parliament of my country offer prayer to it before sitting, or it's representatives are given advantage in terms of tax or hiring laws over others. It's a secular mindset, basically. I have no need or desire to convince you your position is 'wrong' in and of itself. That it might lead us to different views on some issues is also true though.

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.

In simple terms all people have belief, reverence, awe. It's whether they have theism that determines if they're atheists.

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.

I have a background in language development. Replacing concepts with other symbols, as you say, is all well and good. It does leave me wondering;
Why? Why use an existing 'symbol' in a different way? What was the driver for this?

Words are useful only when 2 or more parties can use them and understand them. I have little interest in your opinion on atheism, and you can think atheists close-minded if you like (which is a little ironic, but whatevs).

However I would be interested in what you think I see atheism as, and why I describe as such.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

That's not a problem actually. I completely agree. I'm an atheist based on my subjective reality.

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

Yes. Philosophically this may not be 'true', but there appears no discernible advantage or reason to not accept it regardless.

That’s very wise and mature of you

Hah!!! See? I KNEW someone would work that out...

In any case, thanks. It's nice to have a coherent discussion despite differences.

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?

Good questions. Let me think...
The universe is a word without clear boundary (like God), but in terms of common usage, and my usage, it tends to be an all encompassing 'everything out there'. I allow that this is neither an especially scientific nor precise concept, but 'out there' clearly appears to exist in my subjective reality.

God, alternatively, means different things depending who you ask. I'm not an atheist because I know all the various concepts of God. How could I? And there are clearly God concepts which I have no certainty on. But neither do I have a reason to believe they are true based on my subjective reality. Panentheism, for example, commonly appears to be a philosophical position more than a theistic one at all to my mind.

So...speaking only for myself...I dont see a reason to group a bunch of things within this universe I presume exists and call them God. Its unwarranted.

I do call myself an agnostic atheist as a nod towards the fact that my position isnt the Truth, so to speak.

We both agree on that

Perhaps that is why we can discuss differences?

I do, but they are in Greek...

Bah! Showoff!!


Hey, sidenote, but sorry for quoting your smilies back at you through this. Strangely, when I'm on my phone I can't seem to delete smilies. On my laptop it's all good. Weirdness.

 

[Curious George]

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

God is defined, anything in the god box can be said to be non existent, anything out of the god box is said to not be a god....or shall we believe that one cannot believe all dragons don't exist either. It is how our minds work. And if assimilation fails and ever we come across a god that does exist then we simply make an accommodation.

This is not a tough concept.

 

[paarsurrey]

I most certainly will. It may very well be to our mutual benefit, even.
A common trait among Muslims (naturally enough) is such a reverence towards the God described in the Quran.
They way I see it, Gods are useful if dangerous tools (and not good fits for everyone). They provide a convenient name and perhaps an image to invoke when one feels the need to quickly reference a set of hopes, values and goals that are understood to be particularly significant.
However, what most likely began as an exercise on personification seems to have gone out of control at some point between Ibrahim and Muhammad. People began to rely on their God to justify their morality instead of the other way around, which would be the correct way of using the concepts.
Part of it is the insistence that a given religion is truth as opposed to daring, and that a given God is real as opposed to valued and inspirational.
It is always a bit funny for me to attempt to put myself on the shoes of those who adopt such a view. It is just so plain, so obviously wrong. I could not even pretend to believe in such a God, nor even approve of such a belief.
Gods are not to be "believed" in. They are not supposed to be "real". Their scriptures, if any, are not expected to be "eternal".
It is the religious effort that glorifies any deities a religion might have. The other way around... just can't possibly work.

I don't agree with most of that what you have described above my friend and I think it is also not relevant to what I believe and expressed in these forums. But never-mind we have to co-exist in this world peacefully and loving on another.
Regards

 

[Acim]

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

I looked up the word "legs" in the dictionary and it didn't specifically mention dogs, therefore I think we can conclude that dogs don't have legs.

 

[Curious George]

“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

Que sera, sera.

Whether we are butterflies or men, we persist, in spite of our solipsistic whims.

 

[Acim]

Not mockery so much as extrapolation of what I understood your position to be. It's hard discussing God with a theist without an understanding of what God is to them.

I don't get how you would be able to understand what God is for another and also lack belief (in existence)? But that may or may not be pertinent to what we are discussing or what the thread is getting at.

So as well as power, a God has power for God's creation? That strikes me as self -fulfilling. Anything that creates something is the it's God. And gravity is not a God at all. So colour me confused by your terms.

I don't know how to respond. I agree that gravity isn't 'a god' but do understand how a believer could think of it as god's power. This is where I think the question above comes into play as well as my other point about human parents. I don't see it as atheists lacking a belief (in many cases) but instead as ruling out the term god/divinity/deification from not just their own perspective, but anyone that would claim as much.

So, the things / people that are already understood to exist, could be what some believers deem to be divine / God / gods. I think this is well known. But for atheists, it is disbelieving that god(s)/divinity applies. Thus not really lacking belief, but having different interpretation.

You misunderstand my meaning. I am not suggesting that I'll worry about your God when your God effects me. If gravity is a God I am clearly effected by it. And short of a literal arrival of Thor swinging a hammer at me I'm unlikely to suddenly equate what I see as natural phenomena as God.

What I meant, rather, was that I'll worry about your God-concept when the parliament of my country offer prayer to it before sitting, or it's representatives are given advantage in terms of tax or hiring laws over others. It's a secular mindset, basically. I have no need or desire to convince you your position is 'wrong' in and of itself. That it might lead us to different views on some issues is also true though.

From my perspective, with my theistic beliefs, you literally have nothing to worry about. I think you already knew this, but glad this aspect of the discussion is behind us.

In simple terms all people have belief, reverence, awe. It's whether they have theism that determines if they're atheists.

Again, understanding this tells me that many atheists aren't so far away from theistic position. To me, it's kind of how any denial works when confronted with reason to see things from another perspective. Like I'm fairly aware that some atheists criticize some believers for believing in a sky fairy. As I have long understood God to be within and not outside of me, over yonder, then I can rather easily relate to this criticism, if not fully agree with it. But I'd also stand at what appears like opposite position of atheists. It is very rare though that I see an atheist even consider the notion that God / divinity is found within. So, when I hear the whole - if I only had evidence type argument, I'm always wondering what the heck are you looking at? And if I get any indication that it is somewhere in the physical world that the evidence is being sought, I'm like how the heck is that rational? But as this also pertains to a great many theistic types, then it's not a question that I have just for atheists. Me, I'm still seeking objective evidence for a physical 'reality.' Any day now.

I have a background in language development. Replacing concepts with other symbols, as you say, is all well and good. It does leave me wondering;
Why? Why use an existing 'symbol' in a different way? What was the driver for this?

For me personally, it was a way in which to grasp the intellectual meaning without getting hung up on the intellectual label. That's the short version of how I'd answer that. The longer version would be a great big wall of text. The driver is way of understanding the core, without relying on the meaning I give to the symbols. To me, this entails contemplation, meditation and/or listening. Doing my best here to not cloud all this with theistic language and to I guess communicate the psychology of what lead me away from agnosticism into gnosticism / theism.

I would be interested in what you think I see atheism as, and why I describe as such.

I'm not sure how you see atheism, but have guesses. Would you like me to guess? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. So feel free to just volunteer it. I think I've spoken to my theistic understandings enough and openly for you (or anyone) to comment on or inquire about. While also just barely scratching the surface.

 

[Noa]

I am late to the party as always. But to the original post: atheism for me is the default position when I am unsure what I believe. I have been in a couple year phase of trying to figure out what I believe, but during that time I consider the term 'atheist' to be categorically correct. Meaning, when I am without belief then I am by definition an atheist. When I do believe, I'm not. It has never been anything but a description of the state of lacking belief to me.

 

[Nefelie]

That's not a problem actually. I completely agree. I'm an atheist based on my subjective reality.

Good answer!

But I’m still not convinced you are an atheist

Yes. Philosophically this may not be 'true', but there appears no discernible advantage or reason to not accept it regardless.

Not philosophically - physically! Nothing touches anything. To explain it simply: what you feel is your energy intertwining with the keyboard’s energy. You are not really touching. Ask any physicist you want to confirm and explain it to you in more detail

Now consider this: the same thing happens with everything... including your own body. In and out. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Hah!!! See? I KNEW someone would work that out... In any case, thanks. It's nice to have a coherent discussion despite differences.

Good questions. Let me think...
The universe is a word without clear boundary (like God), but in terms of common usage, and my usage, it tends to be an all encompassing 'everything out there'.

Why only “out there”? Why not next to you too? Why not within you also? You are literally inhaling the universe... Ever thought about that?

God, alternatively, means different things depending who you ask. I'm not an atheist because I know all the various concepts of God. How could I? And there are clearly God concepts which I have no certainty on. But neither do I have a reason to believe they are true based on my subjective reality. [...] So...speaking only for myself...I dont see a reason to group a bunch of things within this universe I presume exists and call them God. Its unwarranted.

Very true, but there are some basics where everyone agrees.

I know it is impossible for anyone to consider all view points of the divine, old and new, so I’m usually referring to the most common/well known ones and the ones that have been around for several decades and have been believed by notable many.

So, I’ll agree with Johnnie’s points as “basics”:

1) Must be eternal, never born or created
2) can be EVERYWHERE at the SAME TIME
3) can transform from one thing to another
4) Can’t be destroyed

Do we agree on these?

Panentheism, for example, commonly appears to be a philosophical position more than a theistic one at all to my mind.

It’s a theistic philosophy. Many consider Buddhism to be a theistic philosophy too, instead of a religion. Either way, they both fall under the category of “views on god”.

Bah! Showoff!!

Hahaha... Sorry. I do confess that I’m very proud for being Greek.

Hey, sidenote, but sorry for quoting your smilies back at you through this. Strangely, when I'm on my phone I can't seem to delete smilies. On my laptop it's all good. Weirdness.

No problem. I like smilies!

Que sera, sera.
Whether we are butterflies or men, we persist, in spite of our solipsistic whims.

So I see!

I am late to the party as always.

Welcome!

But to the original post: atheism for me is the default position when I am unsure what I believe.

When unsure, why go for nothing if you can go for everything?

 

[Demonslayer]

Yeah, but you're saying you would believe it.

Sure, if it actually happened I would believe it, how could I not? I don't believe in the 7-headed dragon that is in the Bible, but if one walked up and singed my eyebrows with his flamey breath, I'd believe it and so would you.

I have portions of the bible I appreciate, others that make me scratch my head, and others I disbelieve.

Worst. Book. Ever.

I find it hard to buy into Revelations. And am surprised you would buy into it, make you transform into believer instantaneously.

I mean of course I don't buy into it. I don't buy into any of the Bible, it full of preposterous tales so far fetched I still can't believe I wake up in a world every day where so many people believe them.

However I'm a visual person. If a snake and a bush walk up to me and start a pleasant conversation, the first thing I'm going to think is that I've gone barking mad. The next thing I'll do is ask the guy next to me if he hears the shrub and the serpent yammering on. If he hears what I hear and I'm not crazy, I'd have no choice but to admit I was wrong. Ditto if I get swallowed by a whale and live comfortably inside for three days.

Of course none of that is going to happen because it's all a steaming load of horse apples. All I was saying is if presented with proof, what choice would any of us have but to believe it?

I don't actually get why such a display would transform a non-believer,

What's not to get? If I said "do you believe in fire-breathing dragons" and you said no, and then a flying lizard the size of a school bus flew in and set your house on fire with his breath, as you sifted through the ashes to see if you could salvage a photo album or two, wouldn't you believe?

 

[Acim]

Sure, if it actually happened I would believe it, how could I not? I don't believe in the 7-headed dragon that is in the Bible, but if one walked up and singed my eyebrows with his flamey breath, I'd believe it and so would you.

The latter belief is believing that what you are observing is what you are observing. The former belief is making a leap that because of what you are observing, therefore God exists and this is the end. I think you're trying to make a case that it would suddenly be reasonable to have that belief in God.

All I was saying is if presented with proof, what choice would any of us have but to believe it?

To not believe it is reality, would be the other obvious choice. Akin to lucid dreaming. Aware that you are plausibly manifesting this and/or giving it all the meaning it has for you. I find it plausible, if not wise, to do this with the nature of physical existence, realize that it isn't necessarily independent of my perception/mind. I actually consider that likely as I've asked for objective evidence of the physical world more times than I can now count and am yet to have that proof presented. Still, I have a degree of faith in physical existence.

What's not to get? If I said "do you believe in fire-breathing dragons" and you said no, and then a flying lizard the size of a school bus flew in and set your house on fire with his breath, as you sifted through the ashes to see if you could salvage a photo album or two, wouldn't you believe?

The transformation from non-theist to theist part is what I don't get. If already able to be firm in the notion that anything existing in the physical isn't (evidence for) God, then why would a manifestation from a book you consider the worst ever, made up of false tales be enough evidence/proof for you to become a believer, so fast? In what you've written so far, there's been no second guessing of that, and rationale suggesting there would be no other possible interpretation than - god did it. That's what I don't get.

 

[Demonslayer]

The latter belief is believing that what you are observing is what you are observing.

I tend to believe what I see. I understand ideas like "perhaps this is all a dream," etc., like in the first Matrix movie when Neo wakes up in the vat of goo and realizes his entire reality prior to that moment was false. I'm just not one that buys into any of that. If I see a 7 headed dragon spitting fire and everyone else around me can see it too, and the fire is actually burning things...I'm going to believe that is real.

The former belief is making a leap that because of what you are observing, therefore God exists and this is the end.

I suppose there could be some other reason for the 7 headed dragon, the army of angels on flying horses, or whatever it is that I might be seeing in our hypothetical example here. I mean it would take something that concrete and of that magnitude to make me believe in God, but if it happened exactly like the God people told me it would, I guess I would tend to believe they were right. I mean I don't believe in Superman, but if I see a handsome man fly out of the sky in a blue suit with an S on the chest and a red cape, I'm going to say "holy cow, Superman is real!"

To not believe it is reality, would be the other obvious choice. Akin to lucid dreaming. Aware that you are plausibly manifesting this and/or giving it all the meaning it has for you. I find it plausible, if not wise, to do this with the nature of physical existence, realize that it isn't necessarily independent of my perception/mind. I actually consider that likely as I've asked for objective evidence of the physical world more times than I can now count and am yet to have that proof presented. Still, I have a degree of faith in physical existence.

I suppose so, it's just for me as mentioned above I don't have it in me to question reality like that. I have a much greater degree of faith in physical existence than you, I think.

The transformation from non-theist to theist part is what I don't get.

Evidence. All I've ever asked of theists is to provide a tiny scrap of evidence. Jesus storming in from outer space on flying horses would be more than enough evidence for me.

God, then why would a manifestation from a book you consider the worst ever, made up of false tales be enough evidence/proof for you to become a believer, so fast? In what you've written so far, there's been no second guessing of that, and rationale suggesting there would be no other possible interpretation than - god did it. That's what I don't get.

Only if it happened exactly as the Bible says. If a meteorite hit the Earth, I wouldn't think "hey maybe that's Jesus coming back." It would have to be exactly like the story for me to associate it with the story.

If, on the other hand, a 6 armed pink dude with the head of an elephant walked in, I would suddenly realize the Hindu's were right and all hail Ganesha. Ditto if I was at the beach and an enormous man with a seaweed beard and huge pitchfork rose from the sea...I'd be very surprised to find out that the Greeks were right all those years ago and praise Poseidon!

Perhaps my reliance and trust on what I observe leaves me open in some way for being misled. But this is me...I see what I see and I trust what I observe. To this moment I have not observed anything that would lead me to believe any of the many God-tales is true. Were I to see overwhelming evidence that one of these God-stories WAS in fact true, I can't see how I wouldn't believe.

 

[Acim]

I tend to believe what I see. I understand ideas like "perhaps this is all a dream," etc., like in the first Matrix movie when Neo wakes up in the vat of goo and realizes his entire reality prior to that moment was false. I'm just not one that buys into any of that. If I see a 7 headed dragon spitting fire and everyone else around me can see it too, and the fire is actually burning things...I'm going to believe that is real.

To me, this is all philosophically debatable on the understanding/nature of reality, but is perhaps another topic for another thread. Or I just assume let OP address this, as I observe OP already doing so.

I suppose there could be some other reason for the 7 headed dragon, the army of angels on flying horses, or whatever it is that I might be seeing in our hypothetical example here. I mean it would take something that concrete and of that magnitude to make me believe in God, but if it happened exactly like the God people told me it would, I guess I would tend to believe they were right. I mean I don't believe in Superman, but if I see a handsome man fly out of the sky in a blue suit with an S on the chest and a red cape, I'm going to say "holy cow, Superman is real!"

This preconception of God and then having belief conform to that to instill belief is fascinating in understanding disbelief and how it is positioned. I don't believe in 'that God' and yet am theist, so perhaps you can understand my fascination.

Evidence. All I've ever asked of theists is to provide a tiny scrap of evidence. Jesus storming in from outer space on flying horses would be more than enough evidence for me.

LOL on positioning 'tiny scrap' next to 'wildly imaginative scrap' as evidence. I'm wondering how you would conclude it is Jesus on the flying horses? Because a fellow Christian said so? Or because he'd have a J on his chest?

To me, the evidence that currently exists is way (way way) more obvious than the stuff you are conjuring up. Though it could actually just be a matter or perspective, but as a theist type, I think it does manifest as 'experiencing evidence.' I actually find it not reasonable to suggest that a physical manifestation in and of itself is evidence of a spiritual being. But again, is perhaps a whole other type of discussion.

Only if it happened exactly as the Bible says. If a meteorite hit the Earth, I wouldn't think "hey maybe that's Jesus coming back." It would have to be exactly like the story for me to associate it with the story.

If, on the other hand, a 6 armed pink dude with the head of an elephant walked in, I would suddenly realize the Hindu's were right and all hail Ganesha. Ditto if I was at the beach and an enormous man with a seaweed beard and huge pitchfork rose from the sea...I'd be very surprised to find out that the Greeks were right all those years ago and praise Poseidon!

Perhaps my reliance and trust on what I observe leaves me open in some way for being misled. But this is me...I see what I see and I trust what I observe. To this moment I have not observed anything that would lead me to believe any of the many God-tales is true. Were I to see overwhelming evidence that one of these God-stories WAS in fact true, I can't see how I wouldn't believe.

In the ways you are conveying, I am arguably atheistic. But, because I see it as unreasonable in what is being considered 'evidence' then I see it as perspective, I think. To me, this would be a bit like lacking a belief in the existence of atoms and saying there is no evidence for them, but if I saw an atom that looked exactly like the kind of atom model I learned about in 5th grade, then I would consider them as really existing. If they appeared differently than that precise model, I may conclude that it isn't atoms at all, but must be something else. And if appeared other than what I learned what they look like, but did observe something existing, I would suggest that it no longer be called atoms because that word is already well defined and thus it must conform to my understanding or it is mislabeled. Therefore, I am proper to lack a belief in something that I believe must have a very particular appearance to be determined if it is real or not. Somehow that all makes sense, but currently not sure how exactly. Fascinating, really.

 

[Demonslayer]

To me, this is all philosophically debatable on the understanding/nature of reality, but is perhaps another topic for another thread.

I suppose it is. Whatever, I'm enjoying the conversation either way.

I'm wondering how you would conclude it is Jesus on the flying horses? Because a fellow Christian said so? Or because he'd have a J on his chest?

*blink* I never thought of that. I guess I would assume it's Jesus because the only story I ever heard about someone flying in from space on a horse is the Jesus story. It would be beyond awesome if he had a J on his chest, but the Bible doesn't say that and we all know if the Bible doesn't say it, it can't be true.

I don't believe in 'that God' and yet am theist, so perhaps you can understand my fascination.

So as a theist do you have a specific God you believe in? Or is it a more general idea of a God? If more general, wouldn't that be more like deism?

To me, the evidence that currently exists is way (way way) more obvious than the stuff you are conjuring up.

Are you someone who, and I'll paraphrase here, "simply sees order and complexity in the universe and feel that is evidence of a creator/intelligence?"

To me, this would be a bit like lacking a belief in the existence of atoms and saying there is no evidence for them, but if I saw an atom that looked exactly like the kind of atom model I learned about in 5th grade, then I would consider them as really existing.

That's perhaps the first thing you said that makes me really understand your position with regards to, if I saw a thing I recognized, why would I believe it was the thing I thought it was. Good example.

If they appeared differently than that precise model, I may conclude that it isn't atoms at all, but must be something else. And if appeared other than what I learned what they look like, but did observe something existing, I would suggest that it no longer be called atoms because that word is already well defined and thus it must conform to my understanding or it is mislabeled.

This part though, I think I have an answer for. One thing that aggravates me as an atheist is when theists jump from their specific dogmatic idea of God to some much less specific idea of God, in an attempt to make the atheist look bullheaded or arrogant. It goes like this:

Theist: God created the universe in 7 days, and sent his only son Jesus to die for our sins!
Normal person: Nah, I don't believe in that, I actually don't believe in God
Theist: What, you don't think there could be anything more powerful than you out there?

For a theist to be correct, the whole story has to be true, or at least the vast majority of it. "Something powerful" existing in the universe is not the Christian God unless the Jesus bit is true, and we have souls, and this "powerful thing" is what created the universe and also sends our 'souls' to eternal paradise or damnation.

If it's anything but that...this "powerful thing we don't fully understand" then I'm still right as the atheist and the Christian would be wrong. This is why I find deism to be the only sensible religious position...because they basically say "I think God is some powerful force that we don't understand" and then they make no further claims about it. The more specifics you put around God, the less likely it is that you are right. Agree?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't get how you would be able to understand what God is for another and also lack belief (in existence)? But that may or may not be pertinent to what we are discussing or what the thread is getting at.

Understanding how someone conceptualises God is one thing. Conceptualising God in the same way is another.

I don't know how to respond. I agree that gravity isn't 'a god' but do understand how a believer could think of it as god's power. This is where I think the question above comes into play as well as my other point about human parents. I don't see it as atheists lacking a belief (in many cases) but instead as ruling out the term god/divinity/deification from not just their own perspective, but anyone that would claim as much.

Can't speak for atheists, only for myself. There is some truth in what you say in terms of me (at least currently) ruling out God. But I don't see how I'm making that decision for anyone else. Are you suggesting a theistic position is better in this sense? How so??

So, the things / people that are already understood to exist, could be what some believers deem to be divine / God / gods. I think this is well known. But for atheists, it is disbelieving that god(s)/divinity applies. Thus not really lacking belief, but having different interpretation.

Kind of, but not really. I believe in the Sun. I don't believe the Sun is God, despite it's awesomeness. Some believe the Sun is God. Good luck to them.

From my perspective, with my theistic beliefs, you literally have nothing to worry about. I think you already knew this, but glad this aspect of the discussion is behind us.

Lol...I figured. Incidentally in a secular sense I could easily find myself defending religious freedoms, particularly for non-majority beliefs.

Again, understanding this tells me that many atheists aren't so far away from theistic position. To me, it's kind of how any denial works when confronted with reason to see things from another perspective. Like I'm fairly aware that some atheists criticize some believers for believing in a sky fairy. As I have long understood God to be within and not outside of me, over yonder, then I can rather easily relate to this criticism, if not fully agree with it. But I'd also stand at what appears like opposite position of atheists. It is very rare though that I see an atheist even consider the notion that God / divinity is found within. So, when I hear the whole - if I only had evidence type argument, I'm always wondering what the heck are you looking at? And if I get any indication that it is somewhere in the physical world that the evidence is being sought, I'm like how the heck is that rational? But as this also pertains to a great many theistic types, then it's not a question that I have just for atheists. Me, I'm still seeking objective evidence for a physical 'reality.' Any day now.

Oh, I agree. But I tend to think of it as some theists being close to an atheist position. Perception is a wonderful thing. I'd say 2 things, briefly.

1) There is variance amongst atheists. Don't let the internet convince you otherwise.

2) Objective evidence of reality is either constantly present but unverifiable, or it simply doesn't exist. In either case, welcome to subjectivity, population : everyone.

For me personally, it was a way in which to grasp the intellectual meaning without getting hung up on the intellectual label. That's the short version of how I'd answer that. The longer version would be a great big wall of text. The driver is way of understanding the core, without relying on the meaning I give to the symbols. To me, this entails contemplation, meditation and/or listening. Doing my best here to not cloud all this with theistic language and to I guess communicate the psychology of what lead me away from agnosticism into gnosticism / theism.

Hmm..that doesn't help. Maybe I need the wall of text to better understand what you mean? I would offer that atheism doesn't equate to a repositioning of self, or a lack of contemplation for all else.

I'm not sure how you see atheism, but have guesses. Would you like me to guess? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. So feel free to just volunteer it. I think I've spoken to my theistic understandings enough and openly for you (or anyone) to comment on or inquire about. While also just barely scratching the surface.

I wasn't trying to be cute, I was interested. Theists commonly (but certainly not always) have recognizable dogma and beliefs based on groups and associations. If someone tells me they are a practicing Roman Catholic as a simple example, I know something about their theistic position.

Atheism doesnt speak to my beliefs, nor to how these beliefs may fit with other atheists. It's an umbrella term for people without theistic belief. So I'm generally curious as to how someone views 'an atheist' or makes comment about 'atheists'.

 

[Jabar]

Understanding how someone conceptualises God is one thing. Conceptualising God in the same way is another.



Can't speak for atheists, only for myself. There is some truth in what you say in terms of me (at least currently) ruling out God. But I don't see how I'm making that decision for anyone else. Are you suggesting a theistic position is better in this sense? How so??



Kind of, but not really. I believe in the Sun. I don't believe the Sun is God, despite it's awesomeness. Some believe the Sun is God. Good luck to them.



Lol...I figured. Incidentally in a secular sense I could easily find myself defending religious freedoms, particularly for non-majority beliefs.



Oh, I agree. But I tend to think of it as some theists being close to an atheist position. Perception is a wonderful thing. I'd say 2 things, briefly.

1) There is variance amongst atheists. Don't let the internet convince you otherwise.

2) Objective evidence of reality is either constantly present but unverifiable, or it simply doesn't. In either case, welcome to subjectivity, population : everyone.



Hmm..that doesn't help. Maybe I need the wall of text to better understand what you mean? I would offer that atheism doesn't equate to a repositioning of self, or a lack of contemplation for all else.



I wasn't trying to be cute, I was interested. Theists commonly (but certainly not always) have recognizable dogma and beliefs based on groups and associations. If someone tells me they are a practicing Roman Catholic as a simple example, I know something about their theistic position.

Atheism doesnt speak to my beliefs, nor to how these beliefs may fit with other atheists. It's an umbrella term for people without theistic belief. So I'm generally curious as to how someone views 'an atheist' or makes comment about 'atheists'.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to you and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to you and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object?

Philosophically that argument has a few key holes, since it basically presumes the answer.
But for the sake of the exercise...

The first person to be able to provide details on it would be the first person to see it and offer their perception of it.

Eg. An object or machine materialises. I see it first and say 'Wow. It's red.'

Of course in reality the object or machine would interest me as much as the fact that it materialised, but that kinda feeds into the whole 'presumed answer' to your scenario.

 

[Jabar]

Philosophically that argument has a few key holes, since it basically presumes the answer.
But for the sake of the exercise...

The first person to be able to provide details on it would be the first person to see it and offer their perception of it.

Eg. An object or machine materialises. I see it first and say 'Wow. It's red.'

Of course in reality the object or machine would interest me as much as the fact that it materialised, but that kinda feeds into the whole 'presumed answer' to your scenario.

No, that's wrong. You are grappling with words and beating around the bush. Nobody knows about this object or material. The FIRST PERSON, This is obviously the creator of that object.

 

[JesusFreaKMyHero1]

Philosophically that argument has a few key holes, since it basically presumes the answer.
But for the sake of the exercise...

The first person to be able to provide details on it would be the first person to see it and offer their perception of it.

Eg. An object or machine materialises. I see it first and say 'Wow. It's red.'

Of course in reality the object or machine would interest me as much as the fact that it materialised, but that kinda feeds into the whole 'presumed answer' to your scenario.

I just want to say it's a waste of time trying to figure it out, some things are beyond our comprehension or understanding. What you mean materialized? is this nStar Trek? Also, perception can stand against Truth and Truth is absolute! There can only be 1 Truth. "The Truth is the Truth, whether you believe it or not"!