If atheism is a 'lack of a position', then it can't be the default position

[Acim]

I think your mistaken. I Didn't say what God needs to be to make me a believer..
As far as I'm concerned God can be a Red horned Horse with two lumps on his back.
That means nothing.
What i did say probably, is that in order for me to believe that there is a God that affects our reality.. That can manipulate and alter things in our universe, I will have to see a prove of things acting outside the normality or explainable scope (Like for example if I'll see my grandmother knocking on my door saying afterlife was a kick-*** which not necessarily proved God BTW))
So for me to believe that the Biblical God is real for example (another ):
I will have to witness seas tear to two.
I will have to witness talking snakes (or actually i would actually accept a scene like Harry potter, so the snake can also be telepathic) .
I Will have to see people wake to life after being dead for a long time.
I Will probably be afraid of kissing or touching any girl because they just might get pregnant out of the blue.
I Will see angels smacking me on my head when I look at a beautiful girl and imagine the things we could do together in bed.
I Will expect to hear God at least once.
I Will expect a lot of things that should happen if Abraham's God is real.

All this stems from how I think you conceptualize God and what I quoted earlier. Other than the last 2 items you mention, none of that would apply to my gnostic understandings, nor would I call it reasonable to believe that is God (of Abrahamic faith). And given that the 2nd to last one I would argue is occurring all the time, but granted you may not "hear" it as God, then that's where further exploration of understanding comes into play. As I am making a claim that I reckon most in the Abrahamic faith don't even accept/believe - which is that God has not (ever) stopped speaking to humanity. Thus you and other Abrahamic believers are in the same boat when it comes to such a claim. And the last item is just vague enough that it doesn't really help understand what is your expectation.

I Would expect to have at least one time that I've been "touched" by God or at least have some unexplained feeling of divinity (I Come from a very very spiritual family and I led a very spiritual life until I woke up )

So yes, I DO NOT BELIEVE there is a God, Gods, Entity, Spirits, Souls or any notion of that sort.

...because of your expectations for such an entity. I think if all but the last two did occur and you witnessed it, you'd still claim (in all caps) "I do not believe."

Well, Anyone can have hes own God.. That's fine by me..
But if your God meddles with my business, You'll have to prove me that your money really is a God.

But that begs the question of what really is God for you? Thus leads to idea that you definitely have conception of what god(s) are and are not.

To me, money Is nothing but trouble. All troubles (almost) I have ever had in life was caused by money.
a Hugh amount hunger, abuse, violence and so much more is cause over money.. But Money was invented by HUMANS.
It is not something outside our existence.
I Can treat my Dog as my God (Notice the letters game ).. this doesn't make it an actual God!!!
BTW, I really hope that Money isn't really your God.. because I would probably find you a very hard person to trust!

In all of this, the parts that matter are your idea (conception) that God is outside of our existence and where you say "actual God." Again, both of these beg the question of "what is it that you accept/believe about god(s)?"

On the contrary.. That just enforces my claim that God is a Personal invention that people use as an excuse to rationalize things they don't know!

And yet, you are doing this in the items above. You are using it in that same fashion. As a Gnostic Christian, it would not be accurate for how I use God, for I do know!

The sad thing here is that it is anything BUT rational.
I Don't have a God!
I Don't know how to describe what is a God as I don't have one!
I Can say I Value money!
I Can say my Life's Goal is earning a lot of money!
I Can say Money to me is the most important thing in Life..
If that is what you define as your God... Bless you I Can point many many people who share the same belief as you.
And yes, You were right... I Do find in a very very wrong thing!

If you can find many people who share the same belief, in something that clearly does exist, and for them it exists as god conceptualization, then there's your proof/evidence of god. Again, via atheism, you may reject it because that (in reality) is all (strong) atheism is, but you'd not be able to then claim there is no evidence. It may be that there is not sufficient evidence, or more like reason, for you to accept it as god. And that would carry considerable/more weight for you than all other considerations. But could also amount to you being closed minded.

Similarly if I reject that global warming is man made, that will carry more weight for me than all the blind faith type assertions that argue for it being man made. I will likely filter all assertions of "here is further evidence of man made global warming" through filter of, "I inherently reject your premise that this is man made."

You can present evidence of the affect money have on people just the same as you can prove the affect Peanut butter and Jam have on people.
If your definition of God is something that affects my life and is more important than anything else.. Enjoy
It that sense, I Can say my kids Are my Gods!
I Would sacrifice my life for them without a fraction of a thought!
I Will Kill, Steal, Abuse and tear to pieces anyone who will dare harming them!
I Will dedicate my life for their well being and for them to lead the best life they can!
ANYTHING AND EVERYONE is nothing of importance in comparison to them.
You might call it a God.. I Don't...
I Call it Nature

Which gets to synonyms for gods, and how they plausibly relate to this topic. If everything that is currently accurate about "science" is something I call "God's work" and in literally every instance where you say "science is" I say "nope, God's work is" and the exact same words follow for both of us, then wouldn't you filter that as I actually believe in same things you do, but am refusing to call it science? You could ask me (umpteen times) why? And I could say because I have no concept of science. Which if what I'm saying above is true (that everything in science, all of it, is attributed to "God's work") may be hard for you accept that I actually have "no concept" of science. But also thinking, you'd know I surely do, and am just being stubborn based on THE CONCEPT THAT I CLEARLY DO HAVE about science (or in your case, God).

Okay.. Let me show you an example..
If I would have to define you the color Blue..
Its not something I can explain to someone who is blind.. true..
But I could describe it as a color that expresses what cold expresses to touch.
I Can say that Blue is a wave in a specific frequency that is being refracted from an object causing it to appear in a way that represents what we call Blue (Although you know this really isn't the object's color its actually the only color the object is not :0 )
From this point on.. (Although I assume there are some more ways to technically explain the color Blue).. Anything I say is subjective and has got nothing to do what Blue really is:

Nor does it explain the color in what you've already said above.

I Can say its a color that represents vast horizons and makes me feel happy.
I Can say its a color people connect Sadness with.
I Can sat Blue is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen..
none of this is something that will have any thing to do with what Blue really is.

So, because you don't have sufficient explanation, can we then say you have no concept of blue? That no one does?

Far from it.. I am not "Seeing" with my eyes.. my eyes are nothing but a lens and collection of complex NATURAL organs and mechanisms.
What you are really seeing with is your brain...
That's why your dreams might "Look" real but (I hope) you know you are not really seeing those things you dream of (Although I might add that at times I was sure glad if it was so )

I identify that I am seeing things in dreams the same way I "see" things in physical universe.

Fun fact: We actually ALWAYS see the PAST! the sun you are seeing in the sky is actually 8~ min younger than the actual sun because we are bound to the PHYSICAL realm where light takes time to travel from the object to our eyes and takes even longer for our brain to process what it is it is seeing.

If you claim that we don't really see with our physical eyes, How would you explain that we don't see ALL THING as they are right now in the exact moment they exist?
And why are people blind? Was a blind child taught to see only with his physical eye? Sounds to me you got that backwards...

I would note that physical eyes are not seeing and if there is desire for further discussion, I'd go from there.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not really. Is a person a monotheist while they're "shopping" for a god? Are they a monotheist having selected god off a shelf?

The development of religious belief often happens in stages during psychological development as a child. Most commonly before the child has a clear concept of individuality and thus most of what they "believe" is what they have imprinted off their caretakers during this time. These concepts become more and more complex as the child gets older but the child often have been taught whatever ideology their caretakers have instilled within them before they are even capable of understanding what that even is. Its why so many people have profound moments when they have a belief shattered by facts or experiences later in life. These experiences of beliefs being shattered isn't specific to religion as it can happen with any number of beliefs. We hold axioms unconsciously or consciously without question for a long time. Once we develop the necessary skills and self identity to formulate personal opinions we re-visit our ideas and hopefully look at them reasonably. Though in depth internal self reflection is rare and often triggered by something major in our lives. Otherwise we just keep going down that stream.

What that long winded and slightly off track paragraph means (tldr version) we don't have the ability to hold any notion one way or the other usually before we are instilled with religious values of our caretakers. I don't consider babies atheists (though through technicality they are but so are baseballs and anything incapable of thinking or reason so that kind of kills the meaning) but they don't "choose" a religion as they develop. They adopt one

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really. Is a person a monotheist while they're "shopping" for a god? Are they a monotheist having selected god off a shelf?

Anyone who believes in exactly one god is a monotheist, including someone who would be open to the possibility of other gods but hasn't been convinced of them.

 

[Acim]

My explanation of how a mind mentally accepts the physical world around it is not a direct quote of the thoughts within that mind... That shouldn't need to be said. It is merely a summation of the thought process which leads me to take ownership of the claim that babies do have some thoughts. They have them in the the same way that any other animal has thoughts. Dogs know that the sound of dry food shaking in a bag means they are going to be fed. I'll openly claim that dogs have thoughts regarding their feeding times and what certain stimuli in their environment mean for their daily routine. But what are their thoughts on Theism?

Using your argument, can't it be said that a dog sees its master as a god-like figure? Aren't we, in a sense, just de facto gods? Does that mean dogs are theists?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. Yet here we are...

I disagree with "that's ridiculous" and "of course not."

If we need to make the point with animals before we come back to babies, based on the idea that babies are thinking in same way that animals are, then it is no longer ridiculous considerations, but working with what you are bringing to the table.

I'm thinking (without digging back to view earlier posts) that you are the person that argued bringing babies into the discussion of atheism helps us going forward. I don't disagree with that, but do think if sticking with a particular form of atheism (the strong kind), it is ridiculous to bring babies into the discussion.

IMO, if we are getting to heart of what this discussion is actually about, then where you say, "that shouldn't need to be said" with regards to how a mind mentally accepts the physical world, better not be left untouched. In fact, how I moved from agnosticism to "believer" (now Gnostic) started at such a point. I essentially went back to such fundamental cognitive ideas, and instead of writing that off as "not needing exploration" instead got into the midst of what is actually occurring within my mind in those moments. I did this with guidance, though so that ought to be noted. Such that I would for say a full day be conscious of the idea "that my thoughts mean nothing." Or "everything I see is given meaning by me." Isolating these ideas and trying them individually, and then reporting results (such that they may show up via experimentation as not being all that moving), I think would be unfair. Takes a bit of discipline, and I think 40 days at minimum to follow such a discipline, and around a year to me would be upper limit of a fair shot.

But because I don't think such a 'course' is actually necessary for all intellectual types, I am not seeking converts who will try such methods out. I do think it possible to leap frog past certain ideas, but think it more necessary if I encounter posts that are claiming "that shouldn't need to be said." Heck, whenever I encounter the "should" word (or it's negative), I'm in resistance mode to whatever the claim is. Unless "should" is being used in vein of "if."

To me, your wording is as fair as saying, "My explanation of how a mind mentally accepts God within it is not a direct quote of the thoughts within that mind... That shouldn't need to be said. It is merely a summation of the thought process."

And I actually think there is truth to this, and that it (surely) does apply to adult atheists, who clearly do have conceptualization of god(s), along with understandings/expectations, but who are guarding all that based on the rejection filter in place. Yet, either because of that filter or because of how intellectual discussions work, then we aren't allowed to get into that discussion due to the unwritten rule of, "if you make a claim, you're the one that needs to support it." Which your claim here is saying "that shouldn't need to be said." Thus two ideas butting up against one another.

Sooooooooo,
If we come back to the discussion as if the basics of cognitive thinking (even in adults) doesn't really matter to the discussion, then I would say it is not really known that babies do have some thoughts. But if we entertain the idea that they plausibly do, then given how theism can work with relation to at least one or two ideas of god(s), as defined by the dictionary, then babies arguably do have thoughts that align with those ideas of gods. Even if they are not able to verbally express them to us adults.

Yes. Contemplating the complexities of theistic claims is a higher thought, akin to debating which social practices and forms of government are the "best" at implementing equality and justice to a populace while not infringing too harshly on individual freedoms, for example. Expressing and discussing the sensations and origins of mystical experiences would also fall into this category of "higher thought". (Honestly, what are religions other than different forms of language and systems of rationalizing parts of the human experience?) But these things are very different from simply being aware of one's surroundings and beginning to realize motor functions and their ability to serve the body's needs... Don't be obtuse here. You know what I'm talking about.

I'm not being obtuse, and now that such an assertion is on the table, I feel you are plausibly being obtuse in relation to what I wrote.

The idea that God is.... heck just that idea right there "God is" is simplistic enough to not be automatically relegated to "complexity of theistic claims." But I was going to say the idea that God is the (great) "I am" is not needing to considered under banner of complexity of higher thoughts. If a baby has cognition of "I am" without perhaps the ability to express that into words that adults understand, then a baby is plausibly engaging in fundamental theistic thought process. Yet, because intellectual thought process allows for a whole lot of complexity that observably (in this thread and plenty of other places) is treated as worthy of second guessing and non-acceptance, and doubt, and skepticism, and so on and so forth, it is then unfair to bring babies into that and suggest they are inherently non-theist.

The differences between the inability to contemplate a thought and the ignorance of a topic are actually very similar. That's what this whole discussion should be about.

I'd add in meditation of a thought as part of what discussion is about. I see that relating to your "that shouldn't need to be said" commentary. If that type of thought process "shouldn't need to be said" is on the table, and we are bringing babies into the discussion, then clearly babies are exercising the "shouldn't need to be said" what I think or don't think about the made up erroneous understandings you have about "I am."

 

[Willamena]

Anyone who believes in exactly one god is a monotheist, including someone who would be open to the possibility of other gods but hasn't been convinced of them.

I disagree. 'Theism' means actual belief.

 

[Willamena]

The development of religious belief often happens in stages during psychological development as a child. Most commonly before the child has a clear concept of individuality and thus most of what they "believe" is what they have imprinted off their caretakers during this time. These concepts become more and more complex as the child gets older but the child often have been taught whatever ideology their caretakers have instilled within them before they are even capable of understanding what that even is..

If there's no understanding, then it's not actually been taught.

Its why so many people have profound moments when they have a belief shattered by facts or experiences later in life. These experiences of beliefs being shattered isn't specific to religion as it can happen with any number of beliefs. We hold axioms unconsciously or consciously without question for a long time. Once we develop the necessary skills and self identity to formulate personal opinions we re-visit our ideas and hopefully look at them reasonably. Though in depth internal self reflection is rare and often triggered by something major in our lives. Otherwise we just keep going down that stream.

What that long winded and slightly off track paragraph means (tldr version) we don't have the ability to hold any notion one way or the other usually before we are instilled with religious values of our caretakers. I don't consider babies atheists (though through technicality they are but so are baseballs and anything incapable of thinking or reason so that kind of kills the meaning) but they don't "choose" a religion as they develop. They adopt one

I've no disagreement with that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If there's no understanding, then it's not actually been taught.

It is. There isn't a specific line of "not being able to understand" to "understanding". It is a slow increase of our complex reasoning skills as we develop. As a newborn we can tell the difference between cold and warm. We can tell pain. We understand hunger to a degree. At two years old you have some degree of language usage on a rudametnary level. You understand extremely basic concepts and feelings. You do not yet have a sense of self and do not yet understand that you are not simply an extension of your parents in many ways because you are not your own person.

A 4 year old doesn't have the capability to develop a complex or meaningful opinion on religion or any other advanced subject. However they can be taught and recited religious teachings which become etched into their development.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. 'Theism' means actual belief.

And "monotheism" means actual belief in one god.

Belief in one god could take the form of "God is one", or it could take the form of "out of all the many gods that might exist, I only believe in one of them." Both fall under the umbrella of monotheism.

 

[Willamena]

And "monotheism" means actual belief in one god.

Belief in one god could take the form of "God is one", or it could take the form of "out of all the many gods that might exist, I only believe in one of them." Both fall under the umbrella of monotheism.

It's my understanding that theism is strong, as opposed to weak, belief.

Allowing for the possibilty of being wrong (the chosen god is false) is not "believing." It has more the flavour of agnosticism (no truth value).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's my understanding that theism is strong, as opposed to weak, belief.

Allowing for the possibilty of being wrong (the chosen god is false) is not "believing." It has more the flavour of agnosticism (no truth value).

Sorry - I'm not interested in playing this game any more or correcting the bizarre qualifiers you have invented for terms that are pretty straightforward for everyone else (e.g. "believing"). When you're interested in actual communication, let me know.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry - I'm not interested in playing this game any more or correcting the bizarre qualifiers you have invented for terms that are pretty straightforward for everyone else (e.g. "believing"). When you're interested in actual communication, let me know.

You've stated that you're not interested in my opinion by accusing me of not communicating. Brilliant!

 

[McBell]

You've stated that you're not interested in my opinion by accusing me of not communicating. Brilliant!

now that is an awful big stretch....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You've stated that you're not interested in my opinion by accusing me of not communicating. Brilliant!

I'm interested in your opinion. I'm not interested in these games that get in the way of finding out what your opinion is.

 

[Willamena]

I'm interested in your opinion. I'm not interested in these games that get in the way of finding out what your opinion is.

These "games" are my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These "games" are my opinion.

Then I guess I'm not interested in your opinion after all.

 

[Segev Moran]

That somewhat doesn't make sense. If you express a concept of God, even as what another has said, then that says you do have a concept of God, and depending on how you word that, it does plausibly belong to you (that understand/conceptualization). Anyway, I dug up what I was referring to. When you said on another thread:

I Understand your confusion, But the fact is that If you'll ask me what God is.. My answer will be based on what belief?
Me.. Myself, have No definition Of God.

Now, this was said in response to this which was said by @LuisDantas

Please note I was defining a Person.. Not God..
"for me it means a person that believes there is a God/s that takes an active part in our day to day lives."

Not looking to rehash what can be discussed in the other thread, but looking to be fair to what you responded to, and to present. Where you say, "when I say God, I mean an Entity that" - I see that as a conceptualization of God for you. It also comes across to me as a belief (acceptance) of what God is for you, even if it ultimately is an assertion that doesn't make sense, upon further examination.

Again... The fact I have a meaning for a word in a specific (Or multiple) post, that doesn't make it my definition of God.
I Cant just the same use the word Love.. and say:

I Love Chocolate...
In this phrase, I mean That I enjoy the taste of chocolate.. It is however, not my definition of Love.
I Can then say: I Love kids...
This (Obviously) doesn't mean that I love the taste of Kid
Here the term Love means that I enjoy and connect to the presence of children.

If you'll Ask me the definition Of love (The term as it stands by itself) , I Can describe to you what I Think it is in my POV.
For God.. I Have no such term.

When I say for example: "Thank GOD".. This is to me nothing more than a slang to present that I am happy that something happens to my liking.
When I say "God knows", Its a way for me to present absence of knowledge about something and the belief that no one else really knows.
When I say "Oh God", Its a way for me to present a discomfort or fear of something.

I Think, BTW, this is like it for most people.. although some will actually Thank God for something... I Don't...

A) People who believe in truth of the Bible, are using concepts of God as a reference point that are not theirs, yet they adopt it and include it in their understanding or what they mean by God. You appear to be doing similar thing (in part I quoted, though obviously not in identical fashion).

I Disagree.. As people who believe this God, ACTUALLY think that this is what God is..
I Don't. I Think its an invention that was made to explain things that cannot be explained (At best).. or a way to control and have power of other people.
This is not MY definition of God, rather A definition of God made by the bible.

B) If I said I don't have any concept of science, and then said: "when I say science, I mean an endeavor that is a mental construct which actually utilizes the scientific method rather paying lip service to that method." So, if I said that would you think I actually have a concept of what science is, or that I do not?

You can't say that because scientific is based on science... It will be like saying To me God is a Godly entity...
The term science is a very defined thing.
You can interpolate what science is to you.. which is fine.
For example To me science is the only valid way of knowing truth... that doesn't make it a definition of science rather how I consider science as part of my world view.

 

[Segev Moran]

All this stems from how I think you conceptualize God and what I quoted earlier. Other than the last 2 items you mention, none of that would apply to my gnostic understandings, nor would I call it reasonable to believe that is God (of Abrahamic faith).

I Agree.. It is not reasonable.

And given that the 2nd to last one I would argue is occurring all the time, but granted you may not "hear" it as God, then that's where further exploration of understanding comes into play.

Yep.. I heard it all.. God talks to you through your dreams..
Through feelings..
Through conciseness
Through "hunches"
Through symbols
Through love...

Don't you find it comfortable that God talks to one only in ways they can't really understand or define?

Thus you and other Abrahamic believers are in the same boat when it comes to such a claim.

Lol... obviously you didn't read my post
I Find the Abrahamic God the most ridiculous kind of God humans ever invented

And the last item is just vague enough that it doesn't really help understand what is your expectation.

Well.. You know.. falling food from the sky...
Water out of a stone...
Rivers to blood...
People turning to salt..
All that crazy stuff.

...because of your expectations for such an entity. I think if all but the last two did occur and you witnessed it, you'd still claim (in all caps) "I do not believe."

Maybe not, But I'll find the notion of God much less Far fetched

But that begs the question of what really is God for you? Thus leads to idea that you definitely have conception of what god(s) are and are not.

I Have none.. So i guess I can say that God is an invention of Man and each invents his own God to fit he's needs and wills.

In all of this, the parts that matter are your idea (conception) that God is outside of our existence and where you say "actual God." Again, both of these beg the question of "what is it that you accept/believe about god(s)?"

That there probably aren't any! (Same goes for spirits, souls, ghost and such BTW)
As far as I'm concerned.. Anything outside our existence.. DOESN'T EXIST....

And yet, you are doing this in the items above. You are using it in that same fashion. As a Gnostic Christian, it
would not be accurate for how I use God, for I do know!

Where?

If you can find many people who share the same belief, in something that clearly does exist, and for them it exists as god conceptualization, then there's your proof/evidence of god. Again, via atheism, you may reject it because that (in reality) is all (strong) atheism is, but you'd not be able to then claim there is no evidence. It may be that there is not sufficient evidence, or more like reason, for you to accept it as god. And that would carry considerable/more weight for you than all other considerations. But could also amount to you being closed minded.

I'm not saying people don't really believe in a God.
I Think people who believe in God really do have a God in THEIR OWN existence.
But when they claim that this God they invented is part of EVERYONE's reality.. is a wrong, abusive, arogent statement.

Similarly if I reject that global warming is man made, that will carry more weight for me than all the blind faith type assertions that argue for it being man made. I will likely filter all assertions of "here is further evidence of man made global warming" through filter of, "I inherently reject your premise that this is man made."

The difference is that There are undeniable evidence that global warming is occurring!
So regardless of Man made or not, We need to start acting on that fact!
Second, We know the affects that our industries have on the planet and we have a strong case to assume these are not helpful to our planet in any matter and more.. they might be a part of the acceleration of the warming natural occurrence.
So instead of fighting the idea of global warming, We should focus and learn how to stop it before it's too late.
If I had evidence for God.. Then I Would start asking the questions of what is God and what should I do with it..
If there were no evidence that there is a global warming, The question of Global warming wouldn't have been raised.

If everything that is currently accurate about "science" is something I call "God's work" and in literally every instance where you say "science is" I say "nope, God's work is" and the exact same words follow for both of us, then wouldn't you filter that as I actually believe in same things you do, but am refusing to call it science?

You can call Science God.. But that's not the issue..
The issue is one claiming that something have an affect on our reality without any evidence that it is so.
For that matter... Deism is something I cannot dispute (Nor wish to)
If you told me Science can cause miracles to happen, then yes I would debate you regardless if you say Science causes miracles or God causes miracles..
As there is no prove to any miracles happening,

You could ask me (umpteen times) why? And I could say because I have no concept of science. Which if what I'm saying above is true (that everything in science, all of it, is attributed to "God's work") may be hard for you accept that I actually have "no concept" of science. But also thinking, you'd know I surely do, and am just being stubborn based on THE CONCEPT THAT I CLEARLY DO HAVE about science (or in your case, God).

It seems to me you are finding it hard to accept that someone doesn't have a definition to something you obviously have.
But on the same note.. If i'll ask you to define to me the "Magical Ghost of Atlantis (MGA)"...

Can you do it?
I Can have a clear definition of what it is.. and you can debate me that this is not something that seems to be real regardless the fact you have a definition for it or not.
Now.. Lets say my definition to MGA is a very tall human that lives in Atlanta and helps poor people..
You'll have no reason to tell me that it is not probable to be true..
Yet if I told you that MGA is a Magical creature that is invisible and Only shows up when no one is near and its origin is known to be of the lost city of Atlantis..
This is my definition.. And you can claim that you don't believe there is a MGA.

Nor does it explain the color in what you've already said above.

How will you define the color Blue?

So, because you don't have sufficient explanation, can we then say you have no concept of blue? That no one does?

No.. but you can say you don't believe my definition of Blue is true.

I identify that I am seeing things in dreams the same way I "see" things in physical universe.

I would note that physical eyes are not seeing and if there is desire for further discussion, I'd go from there.

There is always a desire for further discussion
Cheers!

 

[Acim]

I Understand your confusion, But the fact is that If you'll ask me what God is.. My answer will be based on what belief?
Me.. Myself, have No definition Of God.

Given what you've written, I find that hard to believe, or understand.

I Disagree.. As people who believe this God, ACTUALLY think that this is what God is..

Yet, it is not their definition they are using. I get that you distinguish between you not believing in the entity, whereas they do. What you're addressing comes after what I'm addressing.

I Don't. I Think its an invention that was made to explain things that cannot be explained (At best).. or a way to control and have power of other people.
This is not MY definition of God, rather A definition of God made by the bible.

Even this would indicate that you have a definition of God, but that you project your ideas of others beliefs as if they belong to others, and not you.

You can't say that because scientific is based on science... It will be like saying To me God is a Godly entity...

It is like that. Perhaps closer to saying certain methods/rituals are godly. Cause how you worded it, it would be like saying science is a scientific endeavor.

The term science is a very defined thing.

Disagree. It is defined in ways like God is. Both can be looked up in a dictionary. Some of these are at least a little bit explained. Such that when you said earlier "things that cannot be explained" - well money as a god, can be explained, and follows from definitions in the dictionary.

I've been on science forums where it was well understood that members were active scientists, what their branch of study/research is, and discussions about recent discoveries, current research and older paradigms were plentiful. Yet, on that forum it was somewhat antithesis of this one, as their were religious types that would every other day 'test' a subject that likely had been brought up many times before, but that was matter of ongoing debate. One I routinely witnessed was threads asking "What is science?" And those were often 40+ pages long, with lots of variation about "what science is precisely." Such that there would be visible rifts among practicing scientists as to how best to define the term.

You can interpolate what science is to you.. which is fine.
For example To me science is the only valid way of knowing truth... that doesn't make it a definition of science rather how I consider science as part of my world view.

Because of interpolation, the definitions (across the board) are askew. If I look up definition of "scientific" I get: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science. Which is clearly allowing for a whole lot of interpolation. Foremost, I would say because what is commonly referred to as "the" scientific method is, I have found, not something most to all scientists actually engage in, as if that is a rigid method. So, what the actual methods are, are based on fields of studies and those are constantly being updated, some less than others. But that does amount to "making it up as you go along." Which is arguably the primary principle of science. But understanding what I understand about philosophy (and history) of science, I realize the "making it up as you go along" would be treated as unfair to science devotees. Thus, things like falsification, inductive reasoning, experimentation, peer reviewed findings are closer to principles for many, yet all of that does (very much) allow for "making it up as you go along."

 

[Acim]

Yep.. I heard it all.. God talks to you through your dreams..
Through feelings..
Through conciseness
Through "hunches"
Through symbols
Through love...

Don't you find it comfortable that God talks to one only in ways they can't really understand or define?

I'd obviously disagree with "can't really understand." I used to not be able to dialogue with (Holy) Spirit the way I do now. So, that's me using the word dialogue, and you hopefully having understanding that we have definitions for that. Prior to my dialoguing, it would've been what you are saying, but even then I would've added in that insights are received, and likely would've said meditation and contemplation ought to be considered. Now, that I am many years post-dialogue abled, I am at understanding that God (really Holy Spirit) has never stopped communicating with humanity. Which from orthodox perspective, is a bit heretical, where the idea there is that it takes 'chosen prophets' to be worthy of really hearing 'the Voice of God' and the rest of us are just lucky if we ever get to encounter their messages. Or unlucky if we are following messages of a "false prophet." With the orthodox version comes idea (and rather substantial in world history) that God's Word(s) are contained to a book, and anything that deviates from that doctrine is probably blasphemous. I'm thinking (and have lots of experience) with idea that non-believers and agnostics (of which I used to be) have their take on God's Word as it is contained to a book. While I have a take that is not entirely separate from that take, and yet my views, from orthodox perspective, would arguably be harder for certain believers to reconcile.

Anyway, I do now understand that there are countless ways Spirit is (constantly) communicating with Us, and yet we may, rather easily, attribute all such messages to something else. I would contend the "something else" is in vast majority of cases "still Spirit" but perhaps just viewed as "not-God" which is really a theological dilemma, that is likely personal, and yet can be discussed/debated (as if it is collective thing that is actually occurring). So, I really do think Spirit (God's Word) is found in song, poetry, movies, books, study findings, things a strange might say to you, friendly message, family messages, and lots more.

Well.. You know.. falling food from the sky...
Water out of a stone...
Rivers to blood...
People turning to salt..
All that crazy stuff.

I thought you covered the "crazy stuff" earlier, but now understand what you meant by, "I Will expect a lot of things that should happen if Abraham's God is real."

I view these things differently than I think orthodox types do. I see them as possible, but as not really able to induce belief in Abrahamic God. While that is debatable, I would just urge anyone that desires evidence, to focus on own daily life and what is within own scope of plausibility, rather than going with idea(s) of having 'faith to move mountains.' There is likely enough in one's own daily life that Spirit can address, help overcome all perceived problems, rather than dealing with spectacles of magical wonders which, as you are noting, don't really change minds by those getting information upon hearsay.

Maybe not, But I'll find the notion of God much less Far fetched

You're saying this as response to my claim that if the spectacles occurred, you'd still claim "I do not believe."
Me, a gnostic, would find all these far fetched for reason to believe in God. I'd be somewhere between skeptical and seeking worldly explanations for "no, really how did this occur?" If there were a bunch of them happening, I'd be dialoguing with Spirit on "why is this occurring?" But even then, unless this stuff was happening directly to me, I'd probably process it as, not really my (theological) concern.

So, it's a little disappointing to my gnostic self that this is still what it takes for fundamental trust (or faith) in God to be deemed reasonable, and yet given the grand influence that orthodox ideas have had on humanity, I see it as par for the course.

As far as I'm concerned.. Anything outside our existence.. DOESN'T EXIST....

And yet it does. Is science (the mental constructed invented by humanity) existing? If yes, please point to this thing in observable nature, such that my physical eyes may see it. Does math exist? Does knowledge exist? I choose these, because if I instead say, "does love exist?" I grant you'd dismiss that based on how you worded this, or even just based on what might pass for 'existence.'

I've asked, I dunno, maybe 50 times in various areas of the internet for objective evidence that the physical exists, stipulating only that the (alleged) physical senses cannot be utilized, or is for me akin to saying that God of Bible exists because the bible says so. I've asked for that evidence here on this forum at least 3 times. Of all the times I've asked, there's really only been a few times (less than 5) that anyone's even stepped to the plate. None, in my view, have gotten even to first base. Now, knowing what I know about the physical from gnostic understandings, my inquiry is a bit rhetorical (perhaps mostly), but is partially my really wishing to understand how we/I truly justify faith in the physical, such that it isn't even seen as 'matter of faith' but instead is understood as 'reality.'

Anyway, apart from physical 'existence,' the topic of existence continues to fascinate me, because of how overwhelmingly dominant mental constructs are for intelligent understandings of the world, and yet how little those matter when going about daily life and not engaged in theoretical inquiry/considerations. As in, if I go about my daily life, and am not in dialogue with other humans, most of the intellectual stuff is really not pertinent to my experience. Certainly the numerous individual parts (think various philosophical ideas) are not all coming up, nor do I think that is plausible that they would all come up. But closer to reality of my experience is very few of them come up, and then when I do dialogue with fellow humans, it seems like the 3 to 10 that I'm entertaining at any given time is around 2 to 9 more than what all others seem to be entertaining. Read as: I perhaps think about philosophical/spiritual ideas more than my peers, and do so while I go about living daily life. And I say all this cause spiritually, I do think/understand the thoughts to be more real than whatever is occurring physically via 'my experience.' I think the thoughts are what actually exists while the physical experience is, for me debatable, if it actually exists, or is more like a night dream in terms of (actual) existence.

I'm not saying people don't really believe in a God.
I Think people who believe in God really do have a God in THEIR OWN existence.
But when they claim that this God they invented is part of EVERYONE's reality.. is a wrong, abusive, arogent statement.

Guess what? I think you have a fair point here. But also know of no way around this. All mental constructs that I'm familiar with (i.e. science) show up this way, that it applies to everyone, and that everyone 'needs to realize this.' Because of the nature of God, and hence our nature, I see us continuing to share what is ideas of reality, and primary influences with as many as possible. I find discernment helps in sorting through stuff. I don't think that it is technically abusive, but do realize how you can make a case for that, such that it would be deemed 'wrong' and arrogant to think it 'needs to be shared with you (general) you.'

The difference is that There are undeniable evidence that global warming is occurring!

I find it rather easy to deny, therefore deniable.

So regardless of Man made or not, We need to start acting on that fact!

Part of me thinks we already have started. Much of me thinks that we being the source of the problem, may not be ideal candidates for solution. I also think our actions for 'solution' could be realized years from now as "now we have this other global problem occurring that stems from what we thought was a solution, but actually kinda made things worse!' I further think, or process the topic as one big political thing, and when someone like Obama is flying around in vehicle that utilizes around 200 times the fossil fuels that I may use in a year, it tells me we aren't really that serious, especially if that's seen as very okay, because he's our king. Most of me understands there's a spiritual solution to the perceived problem, which when enacted, may not be the 'answer' that some alarmists see as 'the only way to resolve this. And that is just undeniable!'

You can call Science God.. But that's not the issue..
The issue is one claiming that something have an affect on our reality without any evidence that it is so.
For that matter... Deism is something I cannot dispute (Nor wish to)
If you told me Science can cause miracles to happen, then yes I would debate you regardless if you say Science causes miracles or God causes miracles..
As there is no prove to any miracles happening,

Yeah, I don't understand miracles as spectacles. So, once again, there's my (gnostic) understandings, and here I am in discussion with a person that appears to think God has to be this great magical being, that does things in the physical for all to see, and that's how we know he/it exists. How God/Spirit affects my daily life is well known to me. And I do actually think my scope is bigger than the scope that you are speaking to, but would concede they are in all likelihood equal.

 

[Segev Moran]

I'd obviously disagree with "can't really understand."

I Think the main issue here is when I say don't understand, I am talking about humanity as a specie.. Not as something that I understand to myself.
For example, Everyone understnads that there is a force of gravity. Some might interpert it as a work of god, some might say its magic, some can say its nothing but an illustion and some can say its not really gravity rather our earth is constantly flying up in a static rate.
But the one thing we all agree upon (excluding some people who might be mentaly misconfigured ) is that if you jump from the top of the building, you are going to hit the ground (asuming there nothing in between).
So again, you speak of personal understanding while I speak of global understanding.

I used to not be able to dialogue with (Holy) Spirit the way I do now. S

Can you explain a bit more about the concept of the Dialogue you refer to?
I Understand that a Dialogue is not limited to words... far from it, but I cannot understand a Dialouge that is based on something that is not part of our senses.

has never stopped communicating with humanity.

Would love an example of one time that God communicated with humans.
(Please try and find a more recent example as I can't accept things like ancient miracles as an example)

I'm thinking (and have lots of experience) with idea that non-believers and agnostics (of which I used to be) have their take on God's Word as it is contained to a book.

I Think your assumption is wrong. Its true that many times atheists speak of the written word (as mostly it is what religion refers to), but we also don't accept that if you thought of someone for example, and a few seconds later he rang to you on the phone, is a communication from God. Unless you will show that every time you think of someone and a few seconds later he calls you, that's a whole different story because you will show that you are not bound to the standard statistics.

I view these things differently than I think orthodox types do.

Most people do btw, even those who believe the bible is literal.. the fact is they don't really believe that today God will do any of the bilbilcal miracles we all know.

You're saying this as response to my claim that if the spectacles occurred, you'd still claim "I do not believe."

Belief is not a matter of choice... You either believe or not.
I Can't choose to believe someone... I can choose to trust his judgment or reason, but I can't choose to believe his claims.
I'll give an example:
If someone was to tell me that he spoke with Jesus...
I Will either believe it or not.
If I believe it, naturally I will think it is a true event.
If I don't believe it, I can choose to trust the person who told me this and assume he was telling the truth or I can assume it was something else entirely.
Until now, I've never encountered someone who gave me any reason to believe that any of the miracles, experiences and whatever the things people tend to address as spiritual thing are nothing more then a personal interpetation to something one cannot explain otherwise.

Does math exist?

No.. Math is nothing more than a term to describe a method of measuring.
2+2=4 is not something that exists. The 2 can be anything you need it to be...
You can say 2 symbolizes items, or marbles, or lines, or organs or anything..
Math is not something that exists for animals as an example...
Math cannot affect our reality...

Does knowledge exist?

Once again, Not really...
What is knowledge?
Is humans knowledge relevant to the animals knowledge?
If all humans were to suddenly be reset and forget everything they ever learned.. the knowledge is knowing a whole different thing.
Knowledge is our way of calling the accumulated things we can measure and observe in our existence.
it doesn't have an actual existence.

I choose these, because if I instead say, "does love exist?"
I grant you'd dismiss that based on how you worded this, or even just based on what might pass for 'existence.'

I think you got that right
What I call exists and what yo call exists are two different things.
How would you define Love?

I've asked, I dunno, maybe 50 times in various areas of the internet for objective evidence that the physical exists

Bang your head on the table..
what do you think will happen?
Why do you assume that?
What is the difference between a table and a piece of cloth?
What is the difference between a piece of cloth and water?

Guess what? I think you have a fair point here. But also know of no way around this.

I Agree.. But once people will accept that their truth is not my truth for example, things will be much more fruitfull.

I find it rather easy to deny, therefore deniable.

please Do...

Part of me thinks we already have started.
Much of me thinks that we being the source of the problem, may not be ideal candidates for solution. I also think our actions for 'solution' could be realized years from now

Do you realize that years from now might be too late?
I Agree, we started.. We are changing.. and the reason we are changing is because there is a massive cry out of scientist around the globe to open our eyes to the reality.
But we are not changing fast enough (yet).
Don't get me wrong.. I'm not saying in 5 years the world will end or something (lol),
but i think that if things won't change, we are heading to a very bad place as a specie.