atheism is a (religious position)

[Augustus]

What about us igtheists, who argue that the notion of a real god, one with objective existence, is incoherent, meaningless?

You share something in common with the Jews, Christians and Muslims who hold to an apophatic theology.

 

[blü 2]

You share something in common with the Jews, Christians and Muslims who hold to an apophatic theology.

Not really. The apophatic view is that God can only be described by what [he] is not, whereas in my view God can be described in any manner you wish, as long as words such as 'imaginary', 'purely conceptual', 'only an idea', are included.

 

[Copernicus]

Not really. The apophatic view is that God can only be described by what [he] is not, whereas in my view God can be described in any manner you wish, as long as words such as 'imaginary', 'purely conceptual', 'only an idea', are included.

If you can define God as a nonexistent being, doesn't that mean that you have rendered the concept of a "God" that exists meaningful? If you have a valid concept that includes the attribute "nonexistent" as part of its meaning, wouldn't that open the door to having a valid concept in which "existent" is a valid attribute? I can't help but feel that you would have a lively and totally unproductive conversation with Saint Anselm over the meaning of "God", if he were still alive. The only difference between your "God" and that of a believer, would be that the believer's "God" would include "actually real" in its definition.

 

[Valjean]

How in the world can you say '...I don't believe in...', and not call it a belief system?

Just as you can say you don't believe in leprechauns and deny it's a belief system.

The universe, humans, all creatures, anthropology, human altruism and wickedness, etc...
Evidence available to, and imposed upon, all humans.

The problem is the atheist's idea of objective evidence - you don't perceive what the theist perceives.

If it's not universally perceptible it's not objective evidence.
The world around us; our behavior and perceptions, are not evidence of God or any plan. They're explainable results of ordinary physics and evolution.
God explains nothing.

That is not the sense that theist understand it to mean, or apply it.
Again, every human employs faith: we hire people based on faith, we make agreements and contracts based on faith, we loan money based on faith, get in the car with other people based on faith, etc...
Faith is wisdom in the theological sense.

This is the commonly understood sense and usage, especially in serious discussion.
Faith in agreements, loan repayment or that the Sun will come up in the morning is not useful in discussions of the nature of Reality. Such usage constitutes a straw man argument.

 

[Valjean]

Faith is wisdom, and equally the lack of. Two people witnessing the exact same event, will walk away having two different conclusions as to what just occurred, and why. The wisest between them both, will be more accurate in their assessment. Both will apply faith in determining what will happen next. The wisest will be the more successful.

Define wisdom.
Assessing an event is best accomplished with observed facts, hypothesis formation and testing, to rule out all but the most likely explanation/mechanism.An explanation based solely on faith will always be merely speculation.

I am a theist base on tangible evidence, and only naivete will cause someone to say otherwise of me, or any other theist.
The existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a transcendent architect and designer.
Human nature demands the existence of a spiritual source, that has endowed mankind with their definitive spiritual dimension.

You are a theist based on indoctrination and poor reasoning, not analysis or testing of objective evidence.

Kalam cosmological argument?
The existence of the universe is explained by the impersonal unfolding of physics. An invisible magician is unnecessary, explains nothing, and is, itself inexplicable and uncaused.
Human nature and our spiritual proclivities are explained by the unguided mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Valjean]

If you can define God as a nonexistent being, doesn't that mean that you have rendered the concept of a "God" that exists meaningful?

You have rendered the concept imaginary or mythological.

If you have a valid concept that includes the attribute "nonexistent" as part of its meaning, wouldn't that open the door to having a valid concept in which "existent" is a valid attribute?

How does non-existence become an attribute of existence?

I can't help but feel that you would have a lively and totally unproductive conversation with Saint Anselm over the meaning of "God", if he were still alive. The only difference between your "God" and that of a believer, would be that the believer's "God" would include "actually real" in its definition.

 

[Copernicus]

You have rendered the concept imaginary or mythological.

No, I haven't. I made a hypothetical claim.

How does non-existence become an attribute of existence?

I didn't say it was. I said that trying to make non-existence an attribute of a word like "God" is just like trying to make existence and attribute of the word, which is what Anselm's scholasticism was all about. Not only does it not work, but it is pure sophistry to try. People use the word "God" all the time to refer to a being that they imagine to exist. Igtheists may not like that, but they don't get to dictate to everyone else how they can use English words.

 

[blü 2]

If you can define God as a nonexistent being, doesn't that mean that you have rendered the concept of a "God" that exists meaningful?

Well, do you consider Superman comics render the concept of humans who simply by their own volition can fly, hover, exert leverage while off the ground, meaningful in the sense of being an aspect of reality?

If you have a valid concept that includes the attribute "nonexistent" as part of its meaning, wouldn't that open the door to having a valid concept in which "existent" is a valid attribute?

I don't deny for a moment that the concept of a real god is possible, but only in the same way the concept of a real Superman is possible. After all, the concept of a round square is possible, but it too is incoherent as an aspect of reality, the world external to the self which we know of through our senses.

I can't help but feel that you would have a lively and totally unproductive conversation with Saint Anselm over the meaning of "God", if he were still alive.

Anselm dead? Gosh, I'd like to say I was sorry to hear that, but ...

The only difference between your "God" and that of a believer, would be that the believer's "God" would include "actually real" in its definition.

Well, to a degree. There are many many many other gods, and kinds of gods, than Yahweh. Though in my small and teenage Pisco church experiences the objective existence of God was constantly asserted, not just implied.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, do you consider Superman comics render the concept of humans who simply by their own volition can fly, hover, exert leverage while off the ground, meaningful in the sense of being an aspect of reality?

I consider them meaningful independently of reality. If Superman actually appeared as a real person, however implausible that might be, I would not need to invent a new name for him. When people depict Joe Biden in political cartoons, we still use his name to talk about the character depicted in the cartoon. Hence, existence is not a necessary component of the concept of Joe Biden, although all of us who are not members of some unhinged conspiracy group like QAnon normally think of him as a real person.

I don't deny for a moment that the concept of a real god is possible, but only in the same way the concept of a real Superman is possible. After all, the concept of a round square is possible, but it too is incoherent as an aspect of reality, the world external to the self which we know of through our senses.

I am disputing your use of the term "concept". The attribute of existence is not usually a necessary component of concepts that we associate with words, but we can certainly harbor beliefs about the existence of the things that the concepts refer to. Are you familiar with Gottlob Frege's distinction between sense and reference? We don't normally define words in terms of whether or not they refer to things that actually exist. Concepts are meaningful whether or not the things they name exist.

Anselm dead? Gosh, I'd like to say I was sorry to hear that, but ...

Well, to a degree. There are many many many other gods, and kinds of gods, than Yahweh. Though in my small and teenage Pisco church experiences the objective existence of God was constantly asserted, not just implied.

I am not arguing with you about whether God or gods exist. I am arguing with you about whether it makes sense to try to make existence a necessary component of the definition of those words. Anselm's scholasticism failed for a reason, although somebody still needs to inform Alvin Plantinga of that.

 

[DNB]

You seem to be struggling to shoehorn the concept of wisdom into the meaning of "faith" by saying that wise people are better at connecting it to some event they experience. That doesn't mean that "faith is wisdom". Being good at interpreting experiences might be part of the general meaning of "wisdom", however. It still remains true that unwise people of deep religious faith can be bad at interpreting events and a lot of other things, as well. The same goes for unwise people that lack religious faith.



I'm not making any judgments there, especially since I have no idea what "tangible evidence" you are talking about.




No, it doesn't.



Human nature demands nothing of the sort.

You probably aren't surprised that I disagree with your bald assertions. After all, I'm an atheist. Nor should you be surprised that bald assertions merit only bald denials.

May the wisest in the room ascertain the truth....

 

[DNB]

Just as you can say you don't believe in leprechauns and deny it's a belief system.

I don't, and never have, denied that my disbelief in leprechauns is a belief system.
My belief system also includes the fact that aliens do not exist, that 911 was not an inside job, that Donald Trump's a fool, that only Christians are saved, that atheists are blind, that Santa Clause does not exist, and that the Epic of Gilgamesh is fiction.

They are all belief systems.

 

[DNB]

Define wisdom.
Assessing an event is best accomplished with observed facts, hypothesis formation and testing, to rule out all but the most likely explanation/mechanism.An explanation based solely on faith will always be merely speculation.

You are a theist based on indoctrination and poor reasoning, not analysis or testing of objective evidence.

Kalam cosmological argument?
The existence of the universe is explained by the impersonal unfolding of physics. An invisible magician is unnecessary, explains nothing, and is, itself inexplicable and uncaused.
Human nature and our spiritual proclivities are explained by the unguided mechanisms of evolution.

Sorry, I do not accept your predicates as fact.
The universe is much too complex and sophisticated, structured and purposeful, cyclical and rational, to ascribe its beginnings to an arbitrary and uncontrolled event. Also, something cannot come from nothing. This is objective and tangible evidence for a transcendent and omnipotent Creator.

If no God exists, then man, in all his religious endeavors, and not to mention his superior intellectual capacity to all other creatures on this planet, is the most demented being on earth.

And since this latter conclusion cannot be sustained, then something has instilled within man a spiritual propensity.
And this something is God, a holy spirit.

 

[Valjean]

I don't, and never have, denied that my disbelief in leprechauns is a belief system.
My belief system also includes the fact that aliens do not exist, that 911 was not an inside job, that Donald Trump's a fool, that only Christians are saved, that atheists are blind, that Santa Clause does not exist, and that the Epic of Gilgamesh is fiction.

They are all belief systems.

How are they systems?

Sorry, I do not accept your predicates as fact.
The universe is much too complex and sophisticated, structured and purposeful, cyclical and rational, to ascribe its beginnings to an arbitrary and uncontrolled event. Also, something cannot come from nothing. This is objective and tangible evidence for a transcendent and omnipotent Creator.

You're arguing from incredulity. Complexity isn't evidence of design.

If no God exists, then man, in all his religious endeavors, and not to mention his superior intellectual capacity to all other creatures on this planet, is the most demented being on earth.

And since this latter conclusion cannot be sustained, then something has instilled within man a spiritual propensity.
And this something is God, a holy spirit.

Whether everything that exists has a cause is debatable, especially in the light of modern theoretical physics.
Man' spiritual propensity, as well as the complexity of the universe, are all explainable by ordinary, natural mechanisms.

 

[blü 2]

I consider them meaningful independently of reality. If Superman actually appeared as a real person, however implausible that might be, I would not need to invent a new name for him.

If a being with the qualities of Superman were to appear in reality, with photos, TV interviews, X-rays and so on, yes, fine. But what he was, exactly, would be a job for the taxonomists, to determine whether he was animal, vegetable, mineral, or (as I suspect, not taken in by this "call me Clark" stuff) other.

When people depict Joe Biden in political cartoons, we still use his name to talk about the character depicted in the cartoon. Hence, existence is not a necessary component of the concept of Joe Biden, although all of us who are not members of some unhinged conspiracy group like QAnon normally think of him as a real person.

Hmm. I'd argue that Joe Biden is in a category clearly distinguishable from his cartoon of the same name.

I am disputing your use of the term "concept". The attribute of existence is not usually a necessary component of concepts that we associate with words,

I totally agree with you. You can have the concept "this chair" with a real chair, or you can have the concept / abstraction "a chair" (or of course a character in a story may refer to "this chair" but both are imaginary).

but we can certainly harbor beliefs about the existence of the things that the concepts refer to.

I first considered this in some depth when I was trying to sort out the status of numbers. Numbers are useful, they work well when applied correctly to reality, but they're entirely conceptual, and that's why you never see an uninstantiated two lurking in the woods. In fact the only way you can detect an instantiated two is through your own mental application in deciding WHAT you want to count and the FIELD in which you want to count it. In your absence, there are no twos.

Are you familiar with Gottlob Frege's distinction between sense and reference? We don't normally define words in terms of whether or not they refer to things that actually exist. Concepts are meaningful whether or not the things they name exist.

Yes, I agree, though I haven't considered what Gottlob might have to say on the matter.

I am not arguing with you about whether God or gods exist. I am arguing with you about whether it makes sense to try to make existence a necessary component of the definition of those words. Anselm's scholasticism failed for a reason, although somebody still needs to inform Alvin Plantinga of that.

Again we're in sweet accord. Anselm wants concepts to necessarily imply things with objective existence. To him I say, "Phooey, Anselm!"

 

[DNB]

How are they systems?

If one can be bothered to elaborate on the theory, and construct parameters as how we come to the conclusion, and apply those same rules in other tenets of the belief, then it has become a system. One that belongs to all other propositions that are rejected as being fallacious.
One who purports that no God exists, does not do so by a single principle. That is, their arguments are multi-faceted i.e. no transcendent Being exists, there is no spiritual realm, man's sense of morality is pragmatic and not virtuous, theists are deluded, theism does more harm than good and should be vilified, etc...

You're arguing from incredulity. Complexity isn't evidence of design.

I mentioned several characteristics of the universe - collectivity they are axiomatic evidence for design

Whether everything that exists has a cause is debatable, especially in the light of modern theoretical physics.
Man' spiritual propensity, as well as the complexity of the universe, are all explainable by ordinary, natural mechanisms.

No, they cannot be explained on a secular level. The universe, and all its creation within, is an absolute and undeniable miracle. Even the laws of physics are what they are not by necessity or intrinsic obligation, they are designed that way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just as you can say you don't believe in leprechauns and deny it's a belief system.

If it's not universally perceptible it's not objective evidence.
The world around us; our behavior and perceptions, are not evidence of God or any plan. They're explainable results of ordinary physics and evolution.
God explains nothing.

This is the commonly understood sense and usage, especially in serious discussion.
Faith in agreements, loan repayment or that the Sun will come up in the morning is not useful in discussions of the nature of Reality. Such usage constitutes a straw man argument.

Useful is not universally perceptible as it has none of the characteristics of experience from the 5 external sense, nor can it be measured using any instrument and there is no scientific theory of useful.
The same is the case with Reality. You are no different than strong gnostic believers in God. You relevant for some debates don't understand, when you are subjective.

 

[Copernicus]

If a being with the qualities of Superman were to appear in reality, with photos, TV interviews, X-rays and so on, yes, fine. But what he was, exactly, would be a job for the taxonomists, to determine whether he was animal, vegetable, mineral, or (as I suspect, not taken in by this "call me Clark" stuff) other.

If I understood your original position as an "igtheist" properly, it was that the concept of "God" was meaningless if it referred to an actual being, because the concept only has meaning for a nonexistent being. My position is that the concept itself does not distinguish between whether God is real or imaginary. That is just a property that people believe to be true or false of God. You and I might feel that there are perfectly good reasons to consider God an imaginary construct, but the concept applies equally well for someone who believes the opposite. Similarly, pretty much everyone except young children and people suffering from delusions think that Superman is a fictional character, but that is true only if Superman is a fictional character. The concept would still apply to a real Superman that existed in an alternate reality. Or take Santa Claus. He uses occult powers--magic--to trick everyone into believing that he is just a fairy tale myth, but he really exists, as any true-SantaClausBeliever will tell you.

I first considered this in some depth when I was trying to sort out the status of numbers. Numbers are useful, they work well when applied correctly to reality, but they're entirely conceptual, and that's why you never see an uninstantiated two lurking in the woods. In fact the only way you can detect an instantiated two is through your own mental application in deciding WHAT you want to count and the FIELD in which you want to count it. In your absence, there are no twos.

Well, we do like to think of numbers as pure abstractions, but there is an interesting alternative take on that, which you can find in the book Where Mathematics Comes from by Lakoff and Núñez. Their position is that formal abstractions of that sort are ultimately grounded in concrete interactions between our bodies and reality. In the case of simple integers, counting objects, i.e. attaching ordinal number names to concrete things, is needed to ground our understanding of the concepts. They have an interesting take on highly abstract concepts such as infinity. Anyway, that's just a side comment here about abstract concepts--that they need to be grounded in sensorimotor modalities. Metaphor and analogy play a key role in the development of abstract concepts, but human cognition is always anchored in bodily experiences.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guys, stop having interesting and nuanced discussions about ideas. We all know the rules: threads about atheism must necessarily always descend into pointless, circular discussions about definitions, meanings, and why atheists are mean and smelly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I understood your original position as an "igtheist" properly, it was that the concept of "God" was meaningless if it referred to an actual being, because the concept only has meaning for a nonexistent being. My position is that the concept itself does not distinguish between whether God is real or imaginary. That is just a property that people believe to be true or false of God. You and I might feel that there are perfectly good reasons to consider God an imaginary construct, but the concept applies equally well for someone who believes the opposite. Similarly, pretty much everyone except young children and people suffering from delusions think that Superman is a fictional character, but that is true only if Superman is a fictional character. The concept would still apply to a real Superman that existed in an alternate reality. Or take Santa Claus. He uses occult powers--magic--to trick everyone into believing that he is just a fairy tale myth, but he really exists, as any true-SantaClausBeliever will tell you.



Well, we do like to think of numbers as pure abstractions, but there is an interesting alternative take on that, which you can find in the book Where Mathematics Comes from by Lakoff and Núñez. Their position is that formal abstractions of that sort are ultimately grounded in concrete interactions between our bodies and reality. In the case of simple integers, counting objects, i.e. attaching ordinal number names to concrete things, is needed to ground our understanding of the concepts. They have an interesting take on highly abstract concepts such as infinity. Anyway, that's just a side comment here about abstract concepts--that they need to be grounded in sensorimotor modalities. Metaphor and analogy play a key role in the development of abstract concepts, but human cognition is always anchored in bodily experiences.

Yeah, the short brutal version is that abstracts is a human behavior in brains as related to how we can act otherwise.
Thomas theorem: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

 

[Valjean]

If one can be bothered to elaborate on the theory, and construct parameters as how we come to the conclusion, and apply those same rules in other tenets of the belief, then it has become a system. One that belongs to all other propositions that are rejected as being fallacious.
One who purports that no God exists, does not do so by a single principle. That is, their arguments are multi-faceted i.e. no transcendent Being exists, there is no spiritual realm, man's sense of morality is pragmatic and not virtuous, theists are deluded, theism does more harm than good and should be vilified, etc...

But our lack of belief does not rest on any arguments or theories, and few are claiming God doesn't exist. Our lack of belief is the default, based on lack of objective evidence to the contrary. The burden is on the believers. If they can't support their claim, there is no cause to believe it.

There's more to a system than just a lack of belief. You lack belief in all sorts of things you've never even imagined.

I mentioned several characteristics of the universe - collectivity they are axiomatic evidence for design

Why?
Things may be orderly or complex, but that's explainable by natural laws and constants. The order is the product of physics.

No, they cannot be explained on a secular level. The universe, and all its creation within, is an absolute and undeniable miracle. Even the laws of physics are what they are not by necessity or intrinsic obligation, they are designed that way.

They can be explained only on a secular level. An attribution of agency explains nothing.
There is no reason to believe the laws of physics are designed in any particular way. The just are, and generate whatever universe shakes out.
If I deal you a hand of cards, is your hand designed, or chance? Is your win or loss intentional, or the chance result of your chance hand?