How I Feel About Atheists

[PureX]

I do not need to have unjustified belief ever.

No one does. But the justification very often has to come "after the fact": from applying faith to the belief, and seeing i it works within our experience and understanding of reality.

Incidentally, post 139 contains several statements attributed to me that I did not make, although they are very much like comments I would make. Still, Polymath gets the credit. Would you please edit the post and make the necessary corrections?

It's been difficult keeping up with all the responses. Sorry.

 

[PureX]

To misuse a word gets only to confusion.

We humans use language to deliberately confuse each other as often as we use it to try and find clarity. And both uses, if practiced often enough in relation to a single word, will get recorded in the dictionary. That's why I say it's not the best place to go to looking for 'the truth of things'. Nor the best source to use in trying and defend one's position.

 

[Revoltingest]

We humans use language to deliberately confuse each other as often as we use it to try and find clarity. And both uses, if practiced often enough in relation to a single word, will get recorded in the dictionary. That's why I say it's not the best place to go to looking for 'the truth of things'. Nor the best source to use in trying and defend one's position.

Sounds like you're not a fan of precision in language.
I prefer the right word for each context because it
more accurately conveys meaning.

 

[PureX]

Exactly!
There are countless ways to define God - many of which are not really refutable... like "God is love."-Bible or "the kingdom (realm) of God is within you."

What Atheists illogically do is take the most ridiculous definition of God (as being tyranical spaghetii monster in the sky) - and say, "See? No way there could be a god." Yet, they fail to consider that in just one religion, God is defined in so many different ways.

Essentially, Atheism is based on straw-man logical fallacy - trying to distort the argument - to make it easier to refute.

I think what is most sad is that they dismiss the possibility of god, all together, as they dismiss someone else's conception of god. And thus, they never actually explore what "god" could mean, to them. And they never discover what faith in their own conception of god might do for them, in their lives. My one real disagreement with atheism as a philosophical position is that it's an unnecessary, unfounded, rejection of a potentially positive possibility.

 

[PureX]

Sounds like you're not a fan of precision in language.
I prefer the right word for each context because it more accurately conveys meaning.

I think we need to be as precise as we can be with language. But we also need to recognize that most of the words we use have multiple meanings. They shouldn't be mistaken for 'bits of truth'. Gays are not always gay. Faith is not the unquestioned acceptance of a religious dogma even though some people put a lot of faith in their religious dogmas. Some even believe their religious dogma is their god. And some religions promote this idolatry as "faith". But just as not all gays aremn't actually gay, not all adherence to religious dogma is the result of faith. Some of it is just plain idolatry. Whether the idolators (or the dictionary) call it "faith", or truth, or whatever else.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we need to be as precise as we can be with language. But we also need to recognize that most of the words we use have multiple meanings.

It sounds like you're objecting to something I said,
but I've been saying exactly that, ie, pick the right
word with the right definition for the context.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, you are - it's just subconscious.
"All have faith but not all are conscious of having faith."

What an incredibly arrogant view to take: that you know better then someone else what they actually believe. The religious person wants to believe that all people have faith like theirs, but are not conscious of it. That is all that is going on.

Paul Tillech (philosopher) defined god as "one's ultimate concern."
You do have some concerns that are more ultimate (more important) than others.
He also suggested that the key is finding what ultimate concern is best in the big picture - for you, others, now and the future.

Again, the term God is then an allegory for what we think is important: it is a fictional device, not an actually existent being. I find no need for such allegories.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, the term God is then an allegory for what we think is important: it is a fictional device, not an actually existent being. I find no need for such allegories.

This reminds me of one devout Xian I know. He says atheists are religious because
money is their god. He's serious....he heard this in a sermon somewhere. I've tried
explaining that he's conflating 2 different definitions. Explaining this fallacy goes nowhere.

Btw, how do you get out of a room with no doors, windows
or openings of any kind, when all you have is a table?
You look at the table.
You then saw the table.
You use the saw to cut the table in two.
You put the 2 halves together to make a whole.
Then you remove the "w" from it, & escape from the hole.

 

[Milton Platt]

We have evidence that god exists, too, The only difference is the criteria for "evidence" we're choosing to use.
Right, because the criteria for something existing is that we all can experience it the same way at the same time.

When you have anywhere near the quantity and kinds of evidence for a god that we have for gravity, the debate will be over.

 

[Polymath257]

You're right - I was quoting many other Atheists about the spaghetii monster.

However, please don't hold me in suspense a moment longer...
Exactly what is it that you do not believe?
How do you define this "God" that you claim to lack belief of?

And while you're at it, please explain logical & intuitive reasons to think as you do.

Well, let's start with saying I don't believe in a supernatural, so I have no belief in a deity that is supernatural. Ultimately, I think the term 'supernatural' is self-contradictory.

If you want to identify God with the universe (a version of pantheism) or the laws of nature, well, I do believe in the universe and natural laws, but I think the term 'God' is misused for such things. The whole 'I am that I am' just identifies God with existence. But I don't think existence itself has a personality or an intelligence, so using the word 'God' is begging several crucial questions.

If you want to say 'God is love', I believe that love exists. It is a human emotion. It isn't a cosmic force, but an aspect of our emotional lives. So, again, the identification with a deity seems very strange to me. Similar identifications as 'truth' or 'beauty' have the same issue.

Ultimately, the idea of 'God' is so value-laden and overused as to be meaningless without clarification. At best it is an allegory for what we value. At worst, it is a claim some being exists for which we have no evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

This reminds me of one devout Xian I know. He says atheists are religious because
money is their god. He's serious....he heard this in a sermon somewhere. I've tried
explaining that he's conflating 2 different definitions. Explaining this fallacy goes nowhere.

Btw, how do you get out of a room with no doors, windows
or openings of any kind, when all you have is a table?
You look at the table.
You then saw the table.
You use the saw to cut the table in two.
You put the 2 halves together to make a whole.
Then you remove the "w" from it, & escape from the hole.

I think I first saw that one when I was in 4th grade.

 

[PureX]

When you have anywhere near the quantity and kinds of evidence for a god that we have for gravity, the debate will be over.

Gravity is a physical phenomena. Why do you expect "God" to be a physical phenomena, providing you with physical evidence, when one of the common aspects attributed to God is the creation of all physical existence? That's an illogical expectation. By most people's definition of "God", God would have to be some sort of omni-metaphysical entity, and the evidence for it would be the nature and existence of existence, itself.

 

[Polymath257]

Everyone has their own version of "god" that they trust in.

No, they really do not.

A lot of atheists think their own reason and knowledge can fulfill that role in their lives. Until they're faced with the true depth of their own unknowing. And they experience their "dark night of the soul", when the 'self' isn't enough.

Reason and knowledge are the small tools we have in a universe that can destroy us without a thought. Faith mainly says we should throw away the tools we have and start playing make-believe.

 

[Polymath257]

Gravity is a physical phenomena. Why do you expect "God" to be a physical phenomena, providing you with physical evidence, when one of the common aspects attributed to God is the creation of all physical existence? That's an illogical expectation. By most people's definition of "God", God would have to be some sort of omni-metaphysical entity, and the evidence for it would be the nature and existence of existence, itself.

Which doesn't count as evidence because a universe that exists without a creator would look exactly the same. In addition, by assuming the existence of an omni-metaphysical entity, you go *way* beyond anything testable.

 

[PureX]

No, they really do not.

Reason and knowledge are the small tools we have in a universe that can destroy us without a thought. Faith mainly says we should throw away the tools we have and start playing make-believe.

So long as you continue to confuse faith with bad religion, you will remain confused about them both. But I can't overcome this bias for you. You have to do that for yourself.

 

[Milton Platt]

Gravity is a physical phenomena. Why do you expect "God" to be a physical phenomena, providing you with physical evidence, when one of the common aspects attributed to God is the creation of all physical existence? That's an illogical expectation. By most people's definition of "God", God would have to be some sort of omni-metaphysical entity, and the evidence for it would be the nature and existence of existence, itself.

Smoke and mirrors. You can define your invisible being any way you wish to avoid providing evidence. But if you are admitting you have no way to validate it's existence, why would you believe it does?

If there is a god, and it does anything at all to disturb the natural laws, then we could measure that interference and infer that at least there might be a god involved, although we still would not know for sure. If the god does not alter reality from what one would expect to occur naturally, then it is valid to assume that at the very least if it exists, it does not matter, since it does not influence reality in any way.

 

[Milton Platt]

When you have anywhere near the quantity and kinds of evidence for a god that we have for gravity, the debate will be over.

I do not believe that it is necessary for everyone on the planet to be able to simultaneously experience the same thing at the identical time in order for there to be evidence that the thing exists.

Sounds like you're not a fan of precision in language.
I prefer the right word for each context because it
more accurately conveys meaning.

Just for further clarity:

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

 

[Polymath257]

So long as you continue to confuse faith with bad religion, you will remain confused about them both. But I can't overcome this bias for you. You have to do that for yourself.

I am not doing so. I am using what *you* suggested, which amounts to relying on make-believe. That isn't 'bad religion', it is pure fiction.

 

[PureX]

Smoke and mirrors. You can define your invisible being any way you wish to avoid providing evidence. But if you are admitting you have no way to validate it's existence, why would you believe it does?

If there is a god, and it does anything at all to disturb the natural laws, then we could measure that interference and infer that at least there might be a god involved, although we still would not know for sure. If the god does not alter reality from what one would expect to occur naturally, then it is valid to assume that at the very least if it exists, it does not matter, since it does not influence reality in any way.

How might one conceive of this entity if it did exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everyone has their own version of "god" that they trust in.

No, they really don't.