Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Windwalker]

So if we go for a second with your theory that atheism is all just disbelief, which I don't believe, how then do I define God so as to not believe in him? Even if we talk the Abrahamic God, there seems to exist some debate of specific points.

My argument is that for anyone to self-identify as an atheist, they absolutely have some idea of what that word means when they say they are an atheist in contrast to a theist, or believer in that idea of God. It makes no sense at all for me to say I don't believe unicorns are real, if I've never heard of a unicorn before, does it?

It seems insincere to say "I don't believe in the Christian God", because then people will say "How about this Hindu god? Or how about...."

Why is that insincere? It's technically accurate. In my experience, when I press self-declared atheists about their idea of what God is, after they go through a series of hemmings and hawking and avoidances, when pressed sufficiently enough, invariably they all have the Western mythic-literal traditionalist view of God as an "entity" or being external and transcendent to creation, wholly outside of ourselves and the world.

What is not technically accurate, nor sincere, is to declare as a defense against that question of "what about the Eastern views of the Divine?", is to then say "I mean all gods and all ideas of gods", which is what I've heard time and again in defiance of that question. Then when asked if they understand what those views are, it still comes back to their mythic-literal Abrahamic version.

So how then is it sincere to say someone rejects all ideas of God, when they don't know what they are? As a highly rational, critical thinking person, I see that as irrational and insincere. The correct response to not knowing about them would be to say, "I really can't say. I don't know if I believe or lack a belief in them. I might believe in them already, if I understood what you meant by them". Not this, "I mean all gods, everywhere", and then declare that atheism means nothing more than just a lack of belief as an excuse.

And even if we agree on everything regarding which God to talk about, who is to say you and I don't have different mental images of him almost completely?

Well, that becomes a much more interesting discussion then. That's where the fun begins. Now we find find common frames of reference and take it from there.

 

[Windwalker]

This is a pretty recent explanation of what is meant by being hardwired for belief in God and other religious concepts.

The Human Brain Evolved to Believe in Gods

How belief in the supernatural makes sense in light of evolution.

www.discovermagazine.com

Yes, okay I've considered these things myself in thoughts about religion. I could add a couple myself to the things they touch on, such as mystical states of consciousness common to human experience. In this sense, yes we are very much wired to be 'religious' thinkers.

But this then begs two very critical questions. First, if we are talking about the "default position", or I would state that more appropriately as the default condition, then it seems religiousness is the default condition, not atheism, or rationalism. Not at all. We function evolutionarily much more efficiently as following patterns and types of inherent modes of mind, than using up the enormous amounts of energy inefficiently that would required to critically analyze the world at every step of the way. So this "default position" argument of atheism, is denied by all of this.

Secondly then, it would seem that rejecting our religiousness and propensities towards "faith", goes against nature herself. Total radical Atheism (as opposed to selective disbelief in certain ideas about ultimate reality) then is "unnatural", and out of step with the way were have been evolved by nature. We are not hardwired for critical thinking as the primary mode of living as humans. Rather, it's thing we do, not who and what we are.

That is not to say that rationalism and critical thinking are not powerful tools, and indeed they are. That is what gives humans the edge in problem solving. But my point largely has been that is a tool, not where we live. That's less than 2% of how we function. The rest is through these other natural, instinctual responses using all of those things that the article touches on, as well as quite a lot it does not.

I'll let you chew on that for a bit and I can add plenty more later.

 

[DNB]

What's so funny?!?!

They take turns creating?
They each take different hemispheres or constellations?
They count 1-2-3 then say 'go'?

More than 1 all powerful Creator, and you don't see the humour or the redundancy?

 

[DNB]

Ah! You would like me to have no confidence and agree to whatever trash you offer?

It's extremely undermining and incriminating when one says 'there is absolutely no evidence for ...', when speaking of both atheism and theism.

 

[DNB]

Pedantry is sometimes the only logical response to absurd nonsense. Quit whining; it's what your post earned you.

If you want something less pedantic, then make better quality posts.

Maybe (probably) you don't understand the full implications of being called pedantic, or the ramifications of attempting to apply it as a defense for an argument?

Like I said, you're pedantic.

 

[DNB]

Baring false witness is the only egregious crime I see around here in my opinion.

Who's the arbitrator to determine that?

 

[DNB]

No. Show me the evidence from which you drew this conclusion.

You've never met another human before?
You didn't know that men are religious, as opposed to any other creature on this planet?
Do you know how many religions that there are around the world, since human history began?

You don't understand the implications of the above facts?

 

[DNB]

Religions may exist, but they don't all include gods, and in those that do, a creator/monitor/judge model is unusual.

But they all address either conformity, morality, discipline, peace and love, transcendence, spirit versus flesh, holiness, restraint, diplomacy, etc...

 

[DNB]

You don't like pedants? You're anti-education?
That explains a lot....

??????????????

Look up the word pedantic, please.

Websters Dictionary:

Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

 

[danieldemol]

Who's the arbitrator to determine that?

Arbiter: 'a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
"the Secretary of State is the final arbiter"'

Source: define arbiter - Google Search

Since no God is willing to intervene and settle the matter decisively in my view we could take it to court if you wish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So if we go for a second with your theory that atheism is all just disbelief, which I don't believe, how then do I define God so as to not believe in him? Even if we talk the Abrahamic God, there seems to exist some debate of specific points.

It seems insincere to say "I don't believe in the Christian God", because then people will say "How about this Hindu god? Or how about...."

And even if we agree on everything regarding which God to talk about, who is to say you and I don't have different mental images of him almost completely?

You need to look at what all this "belief" accomplishes. I give you, for example, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and Michelangelo's unbelievably beautiful art -- and the flaming heretics in the Campo dei Fiori -- they are inspired by belief in the same "God," and that seems inexplicable, don't you think?

If you are going to believe in a god, you first really do need to know something about what this god is, wants, stands for, accomplishes, and so on. Is it all powerful? All knowing? Completely devoted to love? Some Hindu gods, for example, seem to like slicing the heads off of people.

Then, when you've completely defined the god you think you believe in -- look around. Carefully examine the world you think it has created. Does the creation seem to be consistent with what you believe about your god? (Don't forget to consider the bad stuff: earthquakes and cancer and critters that eat your eyeballs or poison you with venom.) Take a 30,000 foot view -- and really see if you still believe it all.

 

[DNB]

Atheism is not even one belief. It's the product of two prior beliefs, namely, that nothing should be believed without sufficient supporting evidence and that the evidence for gods is inadequate to support theism.

"God" (as opposed to a god) suggests that one means a specific deity, and in Western culture (and the Muslim world), that's usually the god of Abraham. If you mean that god, it's been ruled out both empirically and using pure reason.

You have a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

Some. Most are agnostic atheists.

Disagree. Left to their own devices, they'd be atheists. I was. My parents didn't raise us with religion, and my sister and I grew up as atheists and are both atheists now, although I tried Christianity for a decade beginning at age 18. It wasn't for me. I guess I'm not hard-wired to believe in gods after all.

He didn't make that claim, but if by "God" you mean the Abrahamic god, yes, it has been ruled out. There was never an Adam and Eve, or six days of creation. If you mean all gods proposed or believed in, no

*you're*

How in the world did you manage to only write 3 sentences to me?
There's hope for you IANS!

 

[DNB]

Do you believe I meant they would actually vocalize speech, that suddenly you hear rocks crying and making human speeches?

Of course these are metaphors or figures of speech, but they are pointing to something real. These rocks, these lilies, these trees, these lakes, these skies, all express the spiritual nature of God!

You don't believe me? What do you think the Psalmist was conveying in his poetry here?

The heavens declare the glory of God;​

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.​

Day after day they pour forth speech;​

night after night they reveal knowledge.​

They have no speech, they use no words;​

no sound is heard from them.​

Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,​

their words to the ends of the world.​

I haven't misinterpreted anything. They are clearly expressing what I was saying, that all of creation is an expression of the Divine, and therefore you can, and should be able to see Spirit in everything.

You disagree with this? Please explain otherwise then.

What do you mean they are inanimate? They are alive, not dead. This is the definition of inanimate:

not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.​

"inanimate objects like stones"​

Plants are living things.

As far as not being 'sentient' goes, let's look at the definition of that as well.

"capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling"​

​

Are animals sentient according the above definition? Of course they are. They clearly are aware of their surroundings and responsive to them through the senses they posses. Correct?

But what about plants? Are they aware of their surroundings and responded accordingly to what they sense? I think the answer to this is clear as well. Of course they are, in the broad sense of the term. They may not "think" using cognitive constructs such as "I don't see the sun out today", but they certainly are aware of its lack of being there and respond accordingly trying to reach out to find it, no?

Basically, they are "aware" at some level of their environment and do what they do in order to survive and live out their life cycles. They are however not "self-determinant". I would never argue that. They are not that complex of a lifeform, but they are a lifeform nonetheless.

But let's look at the metaphor more closely. I would say we could say that Beauty in them as an expression of the Divine itself, "worships" God in return. I believe that is inherent in the meaning of what Jesus said about their glory, their inherent radiance surpassing all of these man-made glories that the human ego comes up with.

The psalmist said that in the 19th Psalm, for starters. The lilies "declare the glory of God", in their simplicity, like a little child in its innocence. It's all there. I'm a little surprised you haven't seen it.

There's partially some validity to your points, but you're either not articulating it well, or leaning too much to hyperliteralism?

I used inanimate loosely and slightly carelessly - plants are not spiritual, due to the inanimate nature of their mind - they don't have one.
Yes, you're correct, all creation reflects God's power and wisdom, but no one ascribes this intrinsic principle to the creation itself - creation does not exude spirituality - it reflects God's nature, not their own.

 

[DNB]

Arbiter: 'a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
"the Secretary of State is the final arbiter"'

Source: define arbiter - Google Search

Since no God is willing to intervene and settle the matter decisively in my view we could take it to court if you wish.

Apparently not you, that was my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They take turns creating?
They each take different hemispheres or constellations?
They count 1-2-3 then say 'go'?

More than 1 all powerful Creator, and you don't see the humour or the redundancy?

It is probably better than an immoral and incompetent creator. We know which one you would choose.

 

[The Hammer]

More than 1 all powerful Creator, and you don't see the humour or the redundancy?

They aren't all powerful. . That's a Christian concept, and not required.in my view.

So no. I see no humor. Only an *******.

 

[danieldemol]

Apparently not you, that was my point.

Apparently not you either if you understood the implications and ramifications of your point.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How in the world did you manage to only write 3 sentences to me?
There's hope for you IANS!

Nothing surprising in that. Normally, atheist answers are short and succinct, while those of theists are long, convoluted, difficult to understand and contrary to science.

 

[Windwalker]

There's partially some validity to your points, but you're either not articulating it well, or leaning too much to hyperliteralism?

Hyper literalism, me? Quite the exact opposite is true. Most people don't understand that most of what they believe to be literally true, is actually all metaphors. BTW, I believe I'm articulating it well enough. I think the issue may be that you don't understand the basis for what I'm saying.

I used inanimate loosely and slightly carelessly - plants are not spiritual, due to the inanimate nature of their mind - they don't have one.

Well, this is a tricky matter. I believe the nature of all living things is spiritual, but whether or not they are consciously aware of that, in the ways a human being might be is an entirely different matter.

Plants are not spiritual in the sense that they have a "spiritual life", the way humans might differentiate that as a compartmentalized aspect of their lives. However, because Life itself, that Spirit which animates all living things arises from God, it is therefore not broken off and away from God. God does not stop at some boundary somewhere between Spirit and the material world. God is Infinite and is not bounded up outside of creation. That is not possible.

Maybe if I state it this way it might make more sense. We think of ourselves as humans on a spiritual journey. But what we really are is spirit on a human journey. In other words, everyone core nature is spiritual. But that doesn't mean we live life spiritually, because of getting caught up in the concerns of the world. But plants and animals and little children do not have such concerns, and as such are more authentically as God created them - spiritual creations, from Spirit itself.

Yes, you're correct, all creation reflects God's power and wisdom, but no one ascribes this intrinsic principle to the creation itself - creation does not exude spirituality - it reflects God's nature, not their own.

I've never understood this "reflects God's nature" idea. The word I use is it radiates God's nature. It's more like the sun, rather than the moon. Nature radiates Spirit. It declares it. It speaks it. It emits it. It communicates it. It doesn't reflect it. It shines through it like light through a window.

The only thing that keeps us from seeing it, is the dimness of our own eyes, by us pulling down the blinders on that window. It is not a limitation of nature or creation. But a limitation of our darkened perceptions. And a spiritual awakening, is a removal of those blinders which allows us to see that glory in every moment, in everything.

So when Jesus says consider the lilies of the field, he mean look beyond the veil of your own perceptions and see what is already there which you are not seeing. It is the glory of God shining in them, and through them. And that is Truth.

 

[F1fan]

My argument is that for anyone to self-identify as an atheist, they absolutely have some idea of what that word means when they say they are an atheist in contrast to a theist, or believer in that idea of God.

There's more than one God, religion, and set of believers. What any critical thinker is exposed to is very broad. The specific concepts of the many versions of Gods they hear about can come from many sources, and with the internet they are exposed to even more. All of are. There are pagan gods we hear about that are largely benign, or any of the various Abrahamic versions, whether Jewish, Christian, Mulsim, Mormon, or even Baha'i. etc. And all these categories have different sects within them, from liberal, to moderate, to conservatives, or extreme. None of us, including you, are exposed to only one god concept. Even you reject many just because you have decided your preference is what you prefer. How easy is it for you to reject the God others believe in? How about the God that the 9-11 hijackers thought was so real that they died for it? The thing is none of us can control the gods we are exposed to and hear about. Who else gets to decide for us whether these many ideas make sense or have adequate evidence to judge true? You are responsible for what you believe, and I am responsible for what I believe, and i don't take it lightly.

In my experience I was exposed to three different sects of Christianity that conflicted, and this caused problems. I saw it for myself. I asked my grandmother why we went to church, and she said to worship God. And I asked why we had to do that, and it was so we were saved. And i asked what that was about, and all I got was the dogma. It didn't answer my questions, and I was suspicious. I know now I am rare. Most just go along with what they are told by parents and don't seek any answers beyond that. Most believers I encounter in life and online don't really know wht they are attracted to believe in religious ideas, they just do, it is satisfying for some reason. What the social sciences reveal is that the end users, the believers, are not knowledgable about human behavior, evolution and the brain. It's not a surprise that many believers don't like what the social sciences reveal about how they behave and think.

The Irony is that believers tend to see themselves as special and enlightened, but still exhibit anxiety about explanations that don't follow their assumptions and validate their beliefs. To my mind if believers are what they think they are they would be able to accept conclusions in science and be at peace with the results. It suggests they are absorbed in their beliefs and not present with their feelings and inner conflicts. That too backs up some of the results of examining religious belief, how it is illusory, that it can distract.

It makes no sense at all for me to say I don't believe unicorns are real, if I've never heard of a unicorn before, does it?

But you understand why you don't believe in unicorns. It's becaue the idea doesn't correlate to anything we can detect in reality. How do any of the many gods correlate to something anyone can detect? And if it is detectable then why are they not apparent to critical thinkers?

Look at what @DNB thinks God is, yet you disagree. How do you know that DNB is incorrect and you are correct?