"Lack of belief"

[Grumpuss]

There is only a "dispute" if you can't get past semantics. The reason I say I have a lack of belief is because I don't want to come across as being assertive that there is no god. I simply lack belief; I don't actively disbelieve ... that would be ridiculous.

May I inquire where you live? I only ask because I would like to extend to you a standing offer to attend services at my church. I think it's something you would absolutely benefit from, and definitely worth the investment of time.

If you are ever in my neighborhood, please consider it. We hear great homilies, sing, get advice, take Christ's body and blood into our own, and fill the unfathoming void in our spirit, that would otherwise probably be polluted by video games, rap music, deviant pornography, caffeinated beverages and alcohol/drugs.

It's ever so wonderful and refreshing when you leave at the end, and you can turn off your worrying, questioning brain for the better part of the next week again. Please consider it, Jason- the invitation stands!

 

[ArtieE]

If you are ever in my neighborhood, please consider it. We hear great homilies, sing, get advice, take Christ's body and blood into our own

Isn't cannibalism illegal in your country?

and fill the unfathoming void in our spirit

What void?

 

[Augustus]

I notice that the question in question morphed a bit over the course of your post. Do you understand that "lacking belief in the existence of god" and "lacking belief regarding the existence of god" are not the same thing?

Not enough to make any real difference though. Would probably need an 'a' before it means what I think you are trying to say it does (lacking a [positive] belief in the existence of god)

BTW: do you understand the statement "god exists"? In particular, do you understand the term "god"? If so, maybe you can explain what "god" means.

Yes, I understand the arguments around theological noncognitivism, but remember the word god has to have subjective meaning to the individual, not an objectively complete definition that meets your exacting standards to cover every single god concept in the history of the world.

You make this same mistake repeatedly when you keep claiming that an atheist (as per the traditional definition) has to be able to understand and dismiss every single god concept ever to be an atheist. They only have to dismiss what they are aware of and personally consider to be god.

It is about their subjective interpretation, not your opinion on whether or not it is objectively justified. Belief, not 'fact'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I understand the arguments around theological noncognitivism, but remember the word god has to have subjective meaning to the individual, not an objectively complete definition that meets your exacting standards to cover every single god concept in the history of the world.

It isn't a subjective/objective problem. Even within the subjective understanding of a single person, there would be contradictions in a definition of "god". This is why, for instance, we can recognize Christians and Muslims as monotheists while also recognizing Pagans as polytheists despite the Christians and Muslims believing in angels that are very similar to Pagan gods.

So I ask you again: define "god". It can be your own subjective definition. You claim to have one, so this should be easy.

You make this same mistake repeatedly when you keep claiming that an atheist (as per the traditional definition) has to be able to understand and dismiss every single god concept ever to be an atheist. They only have to dismiss what they are aware of and personally consider to be god.

But even babies do that much. We're you one of the ones who argue that babies can't be atheists?

So by your approach, atheists almost continuously stop being atheists when they become aware of a new god-concept and stay "not atheists" until they learn enough about the concept to dismiss it?

"I was an atheist, but then I met someone with a new kind of theism this morning that I hadn't considered. I won't be an atheist again until at least Thursday - I'm swamped with work, so that's my next chance to research what that guy was talking about."
- does this ever happen?

It is about their subjective interpretation, not your opinion on whether or not it is objectively justified. Belief, not 'fact'.

The subjective interpretation of anyone who considers conflicting theisms to all be theisms is a noncognitivist interpretation of "god".

If you agree that Christians are monotheists and Pagans are polytheistic, and that pantheists are theists while atheists who believe the universe exists are not theists, then you have a noncognitive definition, too.

But if you disagree, feel free to give your definition to demonstrate that it really is coherent.

 

[allfoak]

God is universal infinite living mind.
God is the substance underlying physical reality.

 

[ArtieE]

God is universal infinite living mind.
God is the substance underlying physical reality.

God can be anything people claim him to be. The only limit is human imagination.

 

[PackJason]

It's a semantic discussion, there is no "getting past" that.

There is if you're a grown up person.

 

[PackJason]

May I inquire where you live? I only ask because I would like to extend to you a standing offer to attend services at my church. I think it's something you would absolutely benefit from, and definitely worth the investment of time.

If you are ever in my neighborhood, please consider it. We hear great homilies, sing, get advice, take Christ's body and blood into our own, and fill the unfathoming void in our spirit, that would otherwise probably be polluted by video games, rap music, deviant pornography, caffeinated beverages and alcohol/drugs.

It's ever so wonderful and refreshing when you leave at the end, and you can turn off your worrying, questioning brain for the better part of the next week again. Please consider it, Jason- the invitation stands!

I live in a van down by the river, and if I don't get to huff my spray paint of the regular, I get grouchy.

 

[PackJason]

God is universal infinite living mind.
God is the substance underlying physical reality.

Neat. Now prove it.

 

[Willamena]

There is if you're a grown up person.

No. Even grown-ups can't, and shouldn't want to, get past the very discussion that they are a participant in.

Semantics isn't an undesireable thing. It's a furthering understanding thing.

 

[Augustus]

Even within the subjective understanding of a single person, there would be contradictions in a definition of "god". This is why, for instance, we can recognize Christians and Muslims as monotheists while also recognizing Pagans as polytheists despite the Christians and Muslims believing in angels that are very similar to Pagan gods.

There is no requirement for beliefs to be logically consistent, they can be purely arbitrary if it floats your boat.

So I ask you again: define "god".

Creator and ruler of the universe with power over its inhabitants and events.

It's not really important though, you don't have to be able to define something to understand it. You might have an apophatic view and believe God can only be experienced, never described.

But even babies do that much. We're you one of the ones who argue that babies can't be atheists?

So by your approach, atheists almost continuously stop being atheists when they become aware of a new god-concept and stay "not atheists" until they learn enough about the concept to dismiss it?

"I was an atheist, but then I met someone with a new kind of theism this morning that I hadn't considered. I won't be an atheist again until at least Thursday - I'm swamped with work, so that's my next chance to research what that guy was talking about."
- does this ever happen?

Babies really don't do this & the 2nd point is nonsense. If you don't like curry then you don't 'reset' this belief every time you hear of a new curry. You assume you don't like it until proved otherwise.

The subjective interpretation of anyone who considers conflicting theisms to all be theisms is a noncognitivist interpretation of "god".

If you agree that Christians are monotheists and Pagans are polytheistic, and that pantheists are theists while atheists who believe the universe exists are not theists, then you have a noncognitive definition, too.

But if you disagree, feel free to give your definition to demonstrate that it really is coherent.

I consider the word theist to be one of the most useless words in the English language when used in the way you are describing. To give it any meaning it really needs to mean monotheist (as is its traditional definition). So you get (mono)theist, deist, polytheist, pantheist as separate things.

'Equal opportunities' theism doesn't work. Trying to create a 'one size fits all' approach as you are doing is like forcing square pegs in round holes. All of the traditional usages of these words are straightforward as they developed organically in response to societal need. The problems are with the newer definitions that were created because people looked at the words and thought they "should" mean something else.

This is a problem with 'religious' language in general as it grew from a specific social context and cannot always be 'universalised' or made to be nice and PC. This is why many philosophical discussions will be based around the monotheistic God. Sometimes if you try to expand concepts too much, then they break.

Noncognitivism usually relates to the monotheistic God anyway, as finite polytheistic gods are readily understandable.

 

[atanu]

All it takes to be an atheist is to have no belief in a god or gods. It is no more complicated than that. How this thread has reached 17 pages is beyond me.

But that is nothing, considering that it is a discussion on and a defence of lack of belief.

Ado about nothing.

 

[Grumpuss]

Isn't cannibalism illegal in your country?

I think this is you, trying to be offensive. Fine- it probably wouldn't happen to change into Christ's flesh and blood for you, but feel free to come and have $0.06 worth of white, unlevened bread wafers and splash of Cabernet .

What void?

Are you coming onto me?

 

[allfoak]

Neat. Now prove it.

By Law there must be a substantial reality underlying this one.
Call it what you will.
The reason for that is that this world is transient and ever changing..

 

[allfoak]

I already have proven it to myself.
If you want to know you have to do it yourself.
That's the rules.
sorry

 

[Grumpuss]

I live in a van down by the river, and if I don't get to huff my spray paint of the regular, I get grouchy.

You seem just a little lost and angry, Jason. Seriously, you would really get something out of attending service at my church. HAVE a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, let Him fill your spiritual void with His love.

At the very least, you get credit for trying, and might not be immediately cast into the pit of Hell when it is time for your judgment (assuming you are relatively sinless otherwise).

 

[McBell]

So you believe gods may or may not exist?

Interesting that a scientific paper by an one of the world's leading psychologists is 'plain flat out wrong' simply because you say it is.

Suit yourself.

Your strawmen are amusing.

 

[McBell]

All it takes to be an atheist is to have no belief in a god or gods. It is no more complicated than that. How this thread has reached 17 pages is beyond me.

It is due to the insistence of adding arbitrary conditional modifiers to the definition and rejecting everything they think contradicts their added modifiers

 

[McBell]

By Law there must be a substantial reality underlying this one.

Source please.

Call it what you will.
The reason for that is that this world is transient and ever changing..

Bold empty claims until you can substantiate them.

 

[McBell]

I already have proven it to myself.
If you want to know you have to do it yourself.
That's the rules.
sorry

I have seen people "prove to themselves" all manner of nonsense.
Doesn't mean any of it is anything more than wishful thinking.