Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[viole]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

Ergo, theism does not exist either, because I could use the same argument and say that nobody really believes in God 100%.

If we think about that, we could use the same arguments to infer that no philosophical stance exists. Do realists exist, for instance? I wonder why, considering that they cannot 100% rule out that they are a simulation, together with all the rest they consider real.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Heyo]

Beliefs about God are theological views. You cannot say you believe God does not exist, if you have no idea of how others define God. You are starting with a picture of God, which makes it theological. Theology is what gives you the starting definition.

I'm not an Atheist and I'm only an atheist as a consequence. I'm an Agnostic. I have no idea how you define god or if you even could when questioned. What I know is that that definition won't be shared with many. Or in other words, you don't know what a god is as you can't explain it to others so that they agree. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." - AronRa. Look around you. There are tens of thousands of different religions, denominations, sects - and each one believes to have the truth about the nature of god. Has any one of those ever convinced an other group of their truth? Do they even try?

You can't just say you reject beliefs, if those beliefs have no content (they wouldn't be beliefs if that were true). You would say, "I don't understand the question here". But you do understand the question. And your answer to the question is, it doesn't add up for you. You're working with a theological view, and that is what you question as being true or not.

Do you believe in lskdjikhv? Well, I don't know what a lskdjikhv is therefore I can't say that I believe in lskdjikhv.
Oh, and I may not know what a lskdjikhv is but it has something to do with religion, so it is a theological question. /s

What you say here is senseless. Of course it has meaning. Otherwise you could never say you don't believe it. I've never heard anyone claim the word God has no meaning. It's in the damn dictionary! It obviously has meaning in order for it to appear there.

The "meaning" is an illusion when it has different meaning for different people.

Your denialism here is amazing to me. All believers in God, and all non-believers in God, have to have an image of God they are working with to either believe in or not believe in. It's incredibly simple to understand. If you said to me, "Do you believe X is real", and then never tell me what X is, my response would be obvious, "I can't affirm belief or disbelief in something if I don't have any idea of what it is you are asking me".

Exactly my lskdjikhv example from above. I can't have believe in something I don't know what it is.

Considering there are entire institutions centered around beliefs in God, you obviously have some degree of general consensus going on there.

Start asking questions and you see that there is no consensus, only illusion of consensus.

Obviously, there are difference in how individuals interpret it, but that is true of any and all commonly held beliefs, regardless of the nature of them. If you are going to say those differences equal nobody believing the same things, then that applies to 100% of everything everyone believes. No two are 100% alike, on any topic.

We have a wide consensus of most things we see. We can agree on what a dog is and so can 99.99999% of all people. It gets a bit fuzzy with concepts. But the agreement that there are laws and what they mean is still over 90%.
There is no such consensus about god. Show me a god and over 90% will disagree.

 

[night912]

BTW, one cannot BE 'WILLFULLY' ignorant. That requires that one be aware of truth, and simply refuse to acknowledge it. That's not ignorance, willful or not.

Adding "willfully" changes the meaning of ignorance.

 

[dianaiad]

That's a ridiculous position which assumes you know someones thoughts and beliefs better then they do themselves.

I could just as easily say that that many theists aren't truly theist because deep down they know they don't really believe.

Well, I would agree with your last statement, actually; many theists claim to be so, in spite of their basic lack of belief, because they like the culture.

However, I made the "ridiculous" statement you refer to because of the things I read and hear. I have heard many atheists who are still obsessed with their former faith (or who have become angry for some other reason, though most seem to be 'former members') whose words are aimed, not at believers, but at the object of the belief. Not at the church members, but at the deity they worship.

You know the type..."What sort of god would....(insert perceived horrific act here)" or "A GOOD God would never allow (insert death toll of some natural disaster, or some historical telling of heinous act committed by people who claimed that God told them to do it).

Seems to me that someone who was mad at the people would phrase things differently; laying the blame on the people, not the deity they hold responsible.

(shrug)

 

[dianaiad]

....snip to here...


Remember one thing, someone can misunderstood a statement and think that it is ironic eventhough it's actually not if understood correctly. And someone can be shown that they are wrong even if they don't agree to it. What it means is that they are wrong regardless whether they agree to it or not, they simply just can't accept the fact that they are wrong.

You are quite right. Now why do I think that we two are thinking of two entirely different statements/people?

 

[dianaiad]

Adding "willfully" changes the meaning of ignorance.

Indeed. It's an oxymoron.

 

[Heyo]

It is not possible to be an anti-theist Christian.

"I believe in God am I'm totally against him." - anti-theist Christian

 

[dianaiad]

I know this is something theists like to tell themselves ....

It's difficult to be mad at something you don't think exists.
Do you withhold belief in leprechauns because you're mad at them, or because you've not seen any evidence convincing you that leprechauns exist in the first place?

Well, no....but I also do not take steps to get rid of the worship of leprechauns, nor do I write posts and essays...or make websites...talking about how 'no good leprechaun' would hide his gold in a pot under a rainbow, or curse those who might find one. I guess that makes me a 'weak' a-leprechaunist, not a 'strong' a-leprechaunist.

 

[dianaiad]

"I believe in God am I'm totally against him." - anti-theist Christian

Interesting. However, that's not a theist position, exactly. that's....you might want to read Milton's Paradise Lost.

Now, if that wasn't you being weird and making that up, would you care to give us a cite?

 

[Heyo]

Indeed. It's an oxymoron.

"Seems you know nothing about evolution. Let me teach you." -
"Nah, I'm good. I already have an opinion, don't confuse me with facts."
Willful ignorance.

 

[Heyo]

Interesting. However, that's not a theist position, exactly. that's....you might want to read Milton's Paradise Lost.

Now, if that wasn't you being weird and making that up, would you care to give us a cite?

I was weird and totally made that up. Never read Paradise Lost but I watch bionicdance from time to time. She often says (something like): "If there was proof that god existed, I'd believe in him but I'd also search for the magic ring or flaming sword that could kill him."

 

[Brickjectivity]

A clear choice does not involve suppression of any other thought, it is very straight-forward.

It would be true if we could assume consciousness did not depend upon biochemistry. There is more than one theory of personality. Most take into account the new discoveries in Neurology, that thoughts are aggregate states of neurons which have the potential for expression. In those (very likely true) theories multiple thoughts exist and multiple opinions exist when making a choice. They exist as potential chemical and electrical states in brains. I think this is most obvious when someone desires two contradictory things and when they become overwhelmed by too many possibilities. It is when the choice is unclear that we see there are multiple opinions within the same person. If the conscious state doesn't depend upon biochemistry then this is difficult to explain. In fact you appear to be glossing it over by assuming that there are clear choices. I think either there is a choice or there isn't. What you are calling a 'Clear' choice might be something not requiring a decision.

With some truth, you accept a whole lot of untruth. And the good is not something uniquely created by these scriptures. It has been around for all human history.

You are responding to Jim with that, but it is in the same post that you quote me first. I'm going to reply just to be safe here in case you are looking for a reply from me. It is a little hard to follow what you are replying to: whether you're complaining about missionaries or something like that. I don't see the connection with the OP. Are you just taking this as an opportunity to complain about missionaries in your country? Sorry if I am misunderstanding your point.

 

[stvdv]

I try (though sometimes fail) not to be too hard on them for this. I have trouble relating to theistic positions, too.

I heard a Master once say:
"After age 60 or so, it's very hard to get people to change their views ... better start to learn to be open minded at young age"

You are right it's good not to be too hard on others, and make sure we don't end up in the same trap
Being on RF has helped me a lot to practice this. It's a fine balance not to lose yourself and at the same time respect others

 

[stvdv]

I have to say, though - if someone's trying to start from a position of strength, opening with something that can be paraphrased as "you can be 99.99% sure I'm wrong, but no more than that!" isn't exactly putting your best foot forward.

I was almost going to reply ... that's a nice one, I never heard that
But then vaguely I remember 1% somewhere in the OP
For me it's more 50 ... 50; God exists or not
But the other first needs to give me a clear cut definition of His God

 

[stvdv]

And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.

Okay, I can live with this 0.01%. Personally for me it's more like "50 ... 50". God exists or not.

I have 1 question for you. Can you please give me, in max. 1 line 33 words tops (so I mean "not too long") what you believe God IS. No Bible verses or any other Scriptures of course, that would mean it's only borrowed knowledge; called bookish knowledge. So, just from your own personal experience.

If I know your definition of God, then it's more easy to talk about God for me.

 

[Quintessence]

But can someone affirm that there is 0% chance that God ( or whatever you want to call) created this world?
Not talking about 0.1 or 0.0001.
How can one affirm such a thing?

It's not hard.

God is a word like any other. As a word, it is a linguistic construct defined by humans. All you have to do in order to reduce the possibility of god to zero is to define god in such a way as to make that a possibility. And many atheists do precisely that. For others, absolute certainty is neither a desirable outcome nor something sought after - they simply have to define their god-construct in such a way that makes it a remote and irrelevant possibility.

In any case, reducing the gods down to statistical probabilities is entirely missing the point anyway. Gods are that which a person deems worthy of worship - something they deeply value or hold in high regard. The point is to find and articulate one's deeply held values in a way that orients oneself to living life. Whether or not one applies a word like "god" to that is also missing the point, to my mind.

 

[Rabbi Daniel]

I believe in God 100%

 

[stvdv]

But can someone affirm that there is 0% chance that God ( or whatever you want to call) created this world?
Not talking about 0.1 or 0.0001.
How can one affirm such a thing?

Can you affirm that there is 100% chance that God created this world?

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not an Atheist and I'm only an atheist as a consequence. I'm an Agnostic.

That's fine. What I said is still true for agnostics as well. "I'm not sure I believe in God", likewise has a theological image of God it is evaluating. You can't be "undecided" about something you have no idea of how it is understood to be. There's nothing to be said or considered about things you have no awareness of at all. For both the atheist and the agnostic, there is a theological understanding of God they are evaluating to differing points of views. And my point is, that is the traditional theistic view as held by traditionalist and mythic-literal Christians, not other theological views outside of those.

I have no idea how you define god or if you even could when questioned.

Sure, I could talk about it if questioned. But I am careful to say I don't define God. It's merely an expression of my perceptions of God as I relate personally to it. It's not anything that runs against science or rationality.

What I know is that that definition won't be shared with many.

How do you know that? I would actually say my views are shared by a great many others. But when you don't start with rigid theological definitions, it makes it a little more compatible with the differing ways people express their perceptions. Atheism, and agnosticism in the West particularly, are starting with a fairly rigid theological definition. It's conclusions about that definition of God, are largely something I conclude myself.

Or in other words, you don't know what a god is as you can't explain it to others so that they agree.

Oh, the hell with that. That's nonsense. One can know an experience is real, and not be able to explain it very well. The very nature of spiritual experiences are non-verbal to begin with. They are not conceptualizations. They are experiences. Taking any experience and adequately being able to explain them, is a challenge for any language. That's why people invent new words, to attempt better ways to express the inexpressible Language is an afterthought, not the cornerstone of experience.

"If you can't show it, you don't know it." - AronRa.

Know it how? Show it how? With an intellectual comprehension? There is a difference between apprehension and comprehension. One does understand a thing by experiencing it, without necessarily being able to explain or reason it fully. This will help you see the difference: Apprehension vs. Comprehension - The Difference Between

In the following sentence “He had apprehension about the meaning of the statement” the word apprehension means that he did have the ability to understand what a statement meant. If you use the word comprehension in the same sentence “He had comprehension of the meaning of the statement” it means that he did understand what the statement meant. In the sentence using apprehension, it did not say that he fully understood the meaning, just that he had the ability to comprehend it. In this case apprehension refers to the process of understanding or comprehension. The word “understanding” in itself is complex and refers to what a person knows already and the way a person’s mind acts in the process of comprehending new material.

There are two different mental processes at work in apprehension and comprehension. In apprehension, a person has the ability to understand something, but this ability is dependent on something concrete. For example, if you go outside in the winter without a coat, you will get cold. Therefore you learn not to go out in the cold without first putting on a coat.

You do not need prior experience in order to comprehend something, so comprehension involves a different process. Comprehension refers to understanding through the way in which you interpret concepts and symbols at the present time. It is the complete process of understanding something in which you perceive, interpret and process the knowledge. Students in school demonstrate comprehension by reading a paragraph and answering questions about it.

According to the definition of comprehension from a linguist point of view, it means understanding and making a decision. A linguist defines apprehension as understanding and hesitating. Thus, in comprehension you understand and decide, but in apprehension, you understand and then stop to think about what you should do. Comprehension leads to discussion, but apprehension leads to imagination.

There is no doubt connected with comprehension, but there is with apprehension.
​

As shown, one can in fact understand, or "know" something, without comprehending it. With apprehension, one can know the reality of a thing, while leaving the door open in how we think about it conceptually, or express it linguistically. In your case, theologically you comprehend what is believed about God, but your understanding is limited to those concepts you have been exposed to. It does not go beyond that into apprehension, where you have an experience of something, and know about it through that experience. Both know about God, in different ways, through different processes.

Look around you. There are tens of thousands of different religions, denominations, sects - and each one believes to have the truth about the nature of god. Has any one of those ever convinced an other group of their truth? Do they even try?

Which one of those tens of thousands of different views reflects your understanding of God you find ill-supported? You have to have one you're looking at in order to say anything about it at all.

Do you believe in lskdjikhv? Well, I don't know what a lskdjikhv is therefore I can't say that I believe in lskdjikhv.
Oh, and I may not know what a lskdjikhv is but it has something to do with religion, so it is a theological question. /s

I can't hold any position on something that has no definition. God is not something with no meaning like lskdjkhv. If you told me that jumble of letters meant certain things, then I'd have something to say about it. Since you identify as either atheist or agnostic, you have a definition in your mind about those three letters and what they mean. GOD has specific meaning to you, and Atheist, or Agnostic, is a direct response to a directly defined view of what the word God means. Therefore, it is theological.

The "meaning" is an illusion when it has different meaning for different people.

You are using "meaning" in the sense of value. I am not. I am using it in terms of a definition of a word, what is it meaning when spoken about in language. Not it's value to the believer. The word God has meaning, whether or not you find value in it as a concept or not. Words have meanings, otherwise, they would not be words, like your jumbled letter example above, which in fact has no linguist meaning at all. God, has linguistic meaning.

Exactly my lskdjikhv example from above. I can't have believe in something I don't know what it is.

But God has a linguist meaning. Your jumble of letters has none. It's not in any dictionary. God is, and you most definitely have a comprehension of it's meaning in language.

Start asking questions and you see that there is no consensus, only illusion of consensus.

But there is a consensus. Obviously there is, otherwise there would be no communication and no meaning to the word. You do not have to have 100% agreement in order for it to be considered a consensus. The definition of consensus, is "A general agreement", not 100% agreement. It is a fact that there are general agreements on the use of the word God, otherwise, no one would have any idea of what that word means. And you clearly do, since you say you don't believe God is real, as it is understood by others. You are starting with that consensus view yourself. And that is my point.

We have a wide consensus of most things we see. We can agree on what a dog is and so can 99.99999% of all people. It gets a bit fuzzy with concepts.

Of course things get more fuzzy when you move away from naming concrete objects, like tree, or rock, or car, and get into abstractions, like love, value, truth, meaning, happiness, etc. These are all very real things, but they are vastly more fluid in how they can be viewed, understood, and talked about then talking about a dog pissing on a tree, near a rock, behind the car. All those are really easy, and not too many would have a problem getting the meaning of that image.

But life cannot be reduced down to such simple things. That's why we have so many words, beyond simple words to replace pointing and grunting at objects we see. You really only need a few hundred words to describe a reality that is no more complex than that. But we have tens of thousands of words we use, because we are dealing with real reality, that is a lot more than just rocks flying through space.

But the agreement that there are laws and what they mean is still over 90%.

Not necessarly that figure. You can have a consensus about a lot of differing things. It has to be a consensus, or "general agreement" of the group using that word however in order for it to have functional meaning to the group.. All language operates this way. All worldviews operate this way. That's how a group is held together through common symbols and signs. We use language to communicate and bring us together with each other.

So, again, you definitely know what God means, because you are taking one of these groups uses of it, taking that theological definition, evaluating it, and concluding it doesn't hold up to your critera for something of value to believe in. All of that is perfectly fine, but make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing. There is no way of getting around this. There is no reason to try to get around this. No one is judging your decision.

There is no such consensus about god. Show me a god and over 90% will disagree.

The fact that there are groups of people who come together around the same understandings, shows consensus right there. It is the "general agreement" of that group in what that word means. There can be other general agreements about what that word means by other groups. There is no criteria that says, "Unless 6,300,000,000 people (or 90% of the worlds population) all agree that "God" means the supernatural, magical sky-person deity of traditional theism in the West, then the word has no meaning". That's disingenuous, and false.

 

[stvdv]

I believe in God 100%

100% believe = 000% sure