Atheism - I don't understand it

[A-ManESL]

lol, it's like you are jumping at any flaws in my sentences. I said I don't know the meaning of believing in God "in the sense of the word being used in this thread". The way "belief" is used as it is some sort of convincement in this thread. I equate belief/faith more with the idea of knowledge of God,(post 128) so my initial question could be rephrased "I don't understand atheists who say that they have the knowledge that God doesn't exist".

 

[helpmeplease]

lol, it's like you are jumping at any flaws in my sentences. I said I don't know the meaning of believing in God "in the sense of the word being used in this thread". The way "belief" is used as it is some sort of convincement in this thread. I equate belief/faith more with the idea of knowledge of God,(post 128) so my initial question could be rephrased "I don't understand atheists who say that they have the knowledge that God doesn't exist".

Doesn't that equate knowledge with belief? So if I have the belief that the world is flat then that is equivalent to my knowledge that the world is flat and is therefore indisputable?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

lol, it's like you are jumping at any flaws in my sentences. I said I don't know the meaning of believing in God "in the sense of the word being used in this thread". The way "belief" is used as it is some sort of convincement in this thread. I equate belief/faith more with the idea of knowledge of God,(post 128) so my initial question could be rephrased "I don't understand atheists who say that they have the knowledge that God doesn't exist".

And which atheists say that, specifically?

And I think it's worth distinguishing between common parlance and rigorous use of the term "knowledge". I mean, I'll sometimes say things like "I know that store X is the cheapest in town for bread" even though if you pressed me on it, I'd acknowledge that it's possible the store just burned down (and therefore no longer sells bread at all) and I haven't heard yet.

Edit: and I'm not trying to jump at your mistakes; I'm just trying to pin down what it is you're saying. You've said things that gave me an impression that later proved to not match your intended meaning, so I'm really just trying to get some clarity.

 

[A-ManESL]

What do you mean which atheists? Doesn't the full sentence tell you which atheists? I am obviously not talking of those leaning towards agnosticism here. I have already said at least twice in this thread that the natural position seems to be of agnosticism (neither accept completely, nor reject completely) for those who aren't swayed by feelings either way. I am still curious about the other atheists who aren't agnostic and aren't swayed by feelings,

I'm not trying to jump at your mistakes; I'm just trying to pin down what it is you're saying.

Its okay. Out of curiosity when I used the words "in the sense of the word belief being used in this thread" what did you think by those?

 

[A-ManESL]

Doesn't that equate knowledge with belief? So if I have the belief that the world is flat then that is equivalent to my knowledge that the world is flat and is therefore indisputable?

Here you are starting from an a-priori meaning of belief and setting that meaning as the meaning of the word knowledge. I usually equate the other way around. Forget the meaning of belief that exists and set belief := knowledge where knowledge is defined before hand to have its usual meaning. I hope it is clear. I sort of mentioned that this is how I consider the Quran etc to use the word faith in post 128, but I think that was just in passing.

 

[waitasec]

i don't understand theists who say that they have the knowledge that god exist

 

[A-ManESL]

Perhaps you ought to start a thread on that topic as well.

 

[waitasec]

Perhaps you ought to start a thread on that topic as well.

hee hee.

there are 2 sides to every coin. but what i want to know is how can anyone define the undefinable... atheists, those that you are referring to, are only saying they see no definition consistent with the definitions religions place on the undefinable god of theirs.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

The crux of the matter is simple. Anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty whether God exists or not is being foolish. I wouldn't even claim with 100% certainty that unicorns are not real. Even people like Richard Dawkin's admit they could be wrong.

To not do so is just arrogance. Fortunately I think you'll find few atheists around who would claim to know that God doesn't exist for a fact.

And those that do? Hell, I don't understand them either A-ManESL, so we're in the same boat there.

 

[helpmeplease]

The crux of the matter is simple. Anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty whether God exists or not is being foolish. I wouldn't even claim with 100% certainty that unicorns are not real. Even people like Richard Dawkin's admit they could be wrong.

To not do so is just arrogance. Fortunately I think you'll find few atheists around who would claim to know that God doesn't exist for a fact.

And those that do? Hell, I don't understand them either A-ManESL, so we're in the same boat there.

Bravo:clap

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you mean which atheists? Doesn't the full sentence tell you which atheists?

Not really. What I was getting at that I can't recall ever hearing an atheist actually say "I know that God does not exist." This makes me suspect that one of two things is going on here:

- the atheists you encounter in your life are very different from the atheists I encounter in my life.

- you're making some sort of unstated assumption here... maybe that all people who call themselves atheists believe that they know that God does not exist.

I am obviously not talking of those leaning towards agnosticism here. I have already said at least twice in this thread that the natural position seems to be of agnosticism (neither accept completely, nor reject completely) for those who aren't swayed by feelings either way. I am still curious about the other atheists who aren't agnostic and aren't swayed by feelings,

Personally, I (and many other people) take "atheist" and "agnostic" to describe two separate things. IMO, if a person answers the question "do you believe in any gods?" with anything like "no", they're an atheist. It doesn't matter if it's "no, but I'm not completely sure" - they're still an atheist. And IMO, "I don't know" is not a valid answer to the question; a person either believes in gods or they don't.

However, if you want to look at things on one scale of certainty of belief with "full theist" at one end, "full atheist" at the other, and "agnostic" at the midpoint, then I'd still say that I'm an atheist. While I think that the inherent uncertainty of human knowledge makes it unreasonable to take a position that's at the full extreme of either end, I recognize that I'm still much closer to the "atheist" end than the "agnostic" middle.

Now... if you're saying that anything other than perfect certainty counts as agnosticism, then everyone's an agnostic, IMO. I don't think that's a useful approach.

However, like I said, I don't define the term "atheist" in this way. For me, it's just a straightforward matter of the question "do I believe in gods?" I think about the things I believe, realize that a belief in a god is not among them, and answer "no." Therefore, I'm an atheist.

Its okay. Out of curiosity when I used the words "in the sense of the word belief being used in this thread" what did you think by those?

I think it only added confusion, frankly. I read that as something like "I'm talking about this in the sense that we're using as we talk about it." It seems almost tautological to me, but by saying it, I assume you meant something by it... what, I don't know.

 

[A-ManESL]

Hmm...OK. I have quite understood your position. Although some other questions are still there in mind regarding atheism but I'll probably clarify them after my holiday.

 

[idea]

But what you are doing is attributing events to a particular causation. The question that has to be done is: why did you choose this given cause?

The Spirit testifies it's own source.

"With practice"? Are you talking about some sort of rigorous program where you test what you learn from your personal experiences against external evidence?

If that's not what you're talking about, then how can you know that this practice actually does what you say it does?

As an analogy, my martial arts senseis have generally discouraged their students from doing a lot of practice on their own, because the student's uncorrected mistakes can end up getting reinforced. How do you know this isn't going on in what you describe? Where's the check to tell you you're doing it right?

I mean, you do agree that the mind can be tricked, don't you?

Practice is best done in the company of a teacher, I agree, and the best teacher is the Spirit. It starts with things as simple as following the commandments, and then progresses to following the dictates of your own conscience - when you get a nudge to do something that is good, to immediately go and do it, to never suppress a generous thought, but to act on all your good intentions... from there it progresses to "not my will, but thine be done", that once you see the good that comes from doing the little things, when something big comes, you are able to put what you cannot hold in His hands... As you act on what is good, you will be given more guidance, and as more guidance comes, you grow more aware of and trusting in the Spirit.

 

[idea]

With a little help, yes we can:

LOL, yes, I see the light, but I still can't tell you what they were thinking

 

[idea]

But the question is how could you possibly know or demonstrate any of these things to be so? Just because you believe empathy is "spiritually motivated" doesn't mean it is. I choose to believe empathy is a natural result of human interactivity and social structures - it's an evolutionary mechanism. I don't see any reason whatsoever to attached any spiritual significance to it.

Survival of the herd is a noble ideal and is central within Christianity, (we worship a shepherd). Often when you see a pattern on a small scale, you can take that same pattern and expand it into a larger scale - like a Mandelbrot... There's nothing un-natural about spirituality, it's taking what we know and extending it to a larger sphere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Spirit testifies it's own source.

What does that even mean?

Practice is best done in the company of a teacher, I agree, and the best teacher is the Spirit.

What you're describing is circular. You think you're getting external guidance; I have no reason to think it's nothing more than a feedback loop or an echo chamber.

It starts with things as simple as following the commandments, and then progresses to following the dictates of your own conscience - when you get a nudge to do something that is good, to immediately go and do it, to never suppress a generous thought, but to act on all your good intentions... from there it progresses to "not my will, but thine be done", that once you see the good that comes from doing the little things, when something big comes, you are able to put what you cannot hold in His hands... As you act on what is good, you will be given more guidance, and as more guidance comes, you grow more aware of and trusting in the Spirit.

So over time you grow in certainty? Fair enough. How do I go about confirming that it's actually "the Spirit" at work and not something else?

 

[jarofthoughts]

LOL, yes, I see the light, but I still can't tell you what they were thinking

Perhaps you can't, but the neuroscientists that are working within this field are learning how to do this more and more all the time.
Please don't confuse 'I can't do/understand this' with 'No-one can do/understand this' or, even worse, 'Humanity can't do/understand this'.

How Technology May Soon "Read" Your Mind - CBS News

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Survival of the herd is a noble ideal and is central within Christianity, (we worship a shepherd). Often when you see a pattern on a small scale, you can take that same pattern and expand it into a larger scale - like a Mandelbrot... There's nothing un-natural about spirituality, it's taking what we know and extending it to a larger sphere.

But you haven't answered my question. Why do you need to "extend it to a larger sphere" and what does that even mean? How do you know or how can you demonstrate that these "patterns", as you call them, are anything other that perfectly ordinary, natural functions with no spiritual or supernatural cause or intent whatsoever?

 

[Koldo]

The Spirit testifies it's own source.

What does that even mean?

Ditto.

 

[Caladan]

That is the basis of one's religiousness. One gets an a-priory feeling of the existence of a Reality beyond the material world in the heart, and after studying the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) the feeling that this person had truly got the knowledge of that Reality. Once that is settled, then it seems logical that one should follow the way of the Prophet.

Did you read the New Testament and had the same feeling in your heart about Jesus? how about the stories about the Buddha? perhaps the Iliad and Hector?
Maybe even Indiana Jones and a strong emotional reaction about the myth of the holy grail and the sense of adventure?
You seem to be willing to follow/worship anyone who might show resourcefulness or may inspire emotional inspiration in you. That's how it seems to me anyway.
Being inspired, listening to our emotions... these are fine things. But putting our sense of discretion and clear judgement on the side and being 'swept off our feet' is a different matter.

One of the best books about Islam that I read was written by Reza Aslan.
He gave a wonderful account of the origins of Islam with pretty much giving a narrative for Muhammad's experience. He wrote it in an inspirational and positive fashion, but as a reader I also put in perspective, I judged Muhammad's actions and dilemmas with my own knowledge, education, and experience... and I don't see how a sense of almost fanatical following after Muhammad or his message is anything other than autosuggestion. In other words compromising your own judgement and understanding in order to take part in a linear narrative.