Pointless Debate

[Bunyip]

What do you mean? Rephrase

I mean that atheism is a belief, not a claim of knowledge. A claim of knowledge would be gnosticism, not atheism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thanks for clarifying, but I'm afraid I still don't get it. I think you are working under the misapprehension that atheism is not a belief.

Yes. I take it theist Know God exist, atheist Know God does not. Thats the definition in this thread. People have their own def of how they identify as an atheist. One of the many reasons this thread shot up heated. Its silly that thread creators have to make rules for their threads. It turns up like this.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes. I take it theist Know God exist, atheist Know God does not.

Yes, that is where you are going wrong. Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it is a belief.

Thats the definition in this thread. People have their own def of how they identify as an atheist. One of the many reasons this thread shot up heated. Its silly that thread creators have to make rules for their threads. It turns up like this.

Not sure what the problem is, atheism is a belief. I also keep looking through the thread to see where anyone has got at all 'heated' and can not see anything other than polite replies to you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Couple of them. Your posts stick out too because of the caps. If theism is the claim that God "does" exist (any theist..some dont go by faith), I would assume atheism is the direct opposite. To state it as a belief (as in not knowing) sounds like agnosticism. The word belief is flimsy. That is my opinon, though. Everyone identifies differently with words. Two Christians alone cant agree on some core tenants about Jesus, free will, and afterlife. Yet they are both christians and they both say they Know God exists.

Why would it be called atheism, if theist are basing their claims on knowledge (Bible, history, etc) and atheist on belief?

Yes, that is where you are going wrong. Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it is a belief.Not sure what the problem is, atheism is a belief. I also keep looking through the thread to see where anyone has got at all 'heated' and can not see anything other than polite replies to you.

I cant find were gnosticism refers to people who know God does not exist. They believe he does just there interpretation of him and jesus authority over the earth differs than traditional christian thought.

 

[Bunyip]

Couple of them. Your posts stick out too because of the caps.

Yes, caps are sometimes use for emphasis.

If theism is the claim that God "does" exist (any theist..some dont go by faith), I would assume atheism is the direct opposite.

Yes, and both assumptions are incorrect. Theism is the BELIEF (caps used for emphasis only, don't panic) that a god exists, atheism is the rejection of that belief. Neither theism nor atheism are knowledge claims.

state it as a belief (as in not knowing) sounds like agnosticism.

Correct, as several people have pointed out to you most atheists are agnostic.

The word belief is flimsy.

What does that mean to say that a word in 'flimsy'?

That is my opinon, though. Everyone identifies differently with words. Two Christians alone cant agree on some core tenants about Jesus, free will, and afterlife. Yet they are both christians and they both say they Know God exists.

Why would it be called atheism, if theist are basing their claims on knowledge (Bible, history, etc) and atheist on belief?

Well neither are based on knowledge, both are beliefs.

Atheism/theism are about what a person believes.
Gnostic/agnostic is about what the same person KNOWS.

Hope that helps.

I cant find were gnosticism refers to people who know God does not exist. They believe he does just there interpretation of him and jesus authority over the earth differs than traditional christian thought.

A gnostic claims to KNOW that god exists, an agnostic believes that it is not knowable.[/Quote]

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay. That makes sense. All atheist and theist have their own definition of how they identify as such. Incorrect, but thats what they identify themselves as nonetheless..

I have honestly never heard an abrahamic theist state they only "believe" God exist. Instead, they say they Know God exists and that is why they believe. From what I gather, an atheist does not have knowledge as the theist does to base his disbelief on. Unless a theist who knows God exist is not a theist but a gnostic, I see a conflict of how one can be the opposite of the other (given many theist Know God exists)

To me, belief is flimsy or not concrete. "I believe I will win the soccer game" has a different connotation than "I will win the soccer game!" even though both cases arent garrenteed.

Yes, caps are sometimes use for emphasis. Yes, and both assumptions are incorrect. Theism is the BELIEF (caps used for emphasis only, don't panic) that a god exists, atheism is the rejection of that belief. Neither theism nor atheism are knowledge claims. Correct, as several people have pointed out to you most atheists are agnostic. What does that mean to say that a word in 'flimsy'? Well neither are based on knowledge, both are beliefs.

Atheism/theism are about what a person believes.
Gnostic/agnostic is about what the same person KNOWS.

Hope that helps. A gnostic claims to KNOW that god exists, an agnostic believes that it is not knowable.

Most atheists are agnostic, true. I was gearing towards those who are not. That is why those replies did not relate. Disciple made that first comment. I acknowedged it and moved on. I read all the posts. Whats common is when a thread says God most posters post from an abrahamic perspective. Sometimes there is no abrahamic perspective just a theist. It deraila the thread to a definition that was outside of the OP intention. (Not talking about me)

I also see threads derailed because of semantics. Most common I see with my threads is non believers will reply to a thread specified for people who believe in X. Since a lot of people have mixed faiths here, its hard to know someones intent especia when puting down faiths they disagree with.

Anyway, I just wanted to know is it logical for, Ill say gnostics, to talk seriously about the existence of someone who does not exist. Not why (reasons) just does it make sense.

Which lead to the last question. Can actions be illogical by itself (say murder) or does it need a reason (say its illegal) for it to be illogical?

 

[Bunyip]

Okay. That makes sense. All atheist and theist have their own definition of how they identify as such. Incorrect, but thats what they identify themselves as nonetheless..

I have honestly never heard an abrahamic theist state they only "believe" God exist. Instead, they say they Know God exists and that is why they believe.

Sorry, I don't agree. Do you have an example please?

From what I gather, an atheist does not have knowledge as the theist does to base his disbelief on. Unless a theist who knows God exist is not a theist but a gnostic, I see a conflict of how one can be the opposite of the other (given many theist Know God exists)

No, that is not knowable. It is a belief, it is not possible to know god exists.

To me, belief is flimsy or not concrete. "I believe I will win the soccer game" has a different connotation than "I will win the soccer game!" even though both cases arent garrenteed.

Surely in that example 'believe' was the better term? You can not know you will win, you just believe you will.

Most atheists are agnostic, true. I was hearing towards those who are not.

We would need to be discussing a speicific god, otherwise there are no gnostic atheists.

That is why those replies did not relate. Disciple made that first comment. I acknowedged it and moved on. I read all the posts. Whats common is when a thread says God most posters post from an abrahamic perspective. Sometimes there is no abrahamic perspective just a theist. It deraila the thread to a definition that was outside of the OP intention. (Not talking about me)

I also see threads derailed because of semantics. Most common I see with my threads is non believers will reply to a thread specified for people who believe in X. Since a lot of people have mixed faiths here, its hard to know someones intent especia when puting down faiths they disagree with.

Anyway, I just wanted to know is it logical for, Ill say gnostics, to talk seriously about the existence of someone who does not exist. Not why (reasons) just does it make sense.

Sure, and the answer to that is that it affects them, and so is worth discussing.

Which lead to the last question. Can actions be illogical by itself (say murder) or does it need a reason (say its illegal) for it to be illogical?

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Me: "Okay. That makes sense. All atheist and theist have their own definition of how they identify as such. Incorrect, but thats what they identify themselves as nonetheless..​

I have honestly never heard an abrahamic theist state they only "believe" God exist. Instead, they say they Know God exists and that is why they believe."
​

Sorry, I don't agree. Do you have an example please?

Which part? First part, I hear atheist say they believe in a type of god but not the abrahamic. Some say they believe in consciousness that overseas the universe but because of raw experience, say because of christianity or other they disbelief the christian god. There are thoe who are atheist to some gods but not others.

The second part, thats off and online experience. Theist say "I Know God exists! He saved me from this." others "I Know God exist, he healed me from that". Since God is not scientific, it cant be proven. However, we can still know something exist without having outsiders investigate it for validity.

Surely in that example 'believe' was the better term? You can not know you will win, you just believe you wil

Technically, Id agrees thats a better term. Im assuming people say Know because its a stronger word. The sentiment is I assume the same I suppose.

I don't know what you mean

"Which lead to the last question. Can actions be illogical by itself (say murder) or does it need a reason (say its illegal) for it to be illogical?"
​

I talk about God because I love to learn; and, I find it illogical in itself to do so regardless my logical reasons. I find the action illogical because I am creating a illusion that does not help me at all. Like using an invisible Alieve pill to fight a headache. Other people push me to use it. Everyone uses it. It makes sense that medicine relieves pain. But an invisible pill? Reasons are good, yes. The action, no. No benefit...completely illusonary.

EDIT Probably why some posters said they talk to theist in concepts so to speak at the language they understand

Can actions (such as talking about God or taking an invisible pill) be logical by itself....or do we need reasons behind these actions for it to make sense one way or another?

 

[Bunyip]

Me: "Okay. That makes sense. All atheist and theist have their own definition of how they identify as such. Incorrect, but thats what they identify themselves as nonetheless..​

I have honestly never heard an abrahamic theist state they only "believe" God exist. Instead, they say they Know God exists and that is why they believe."
​

Which part? First part, I hear atheist say they believe in a type of god but not the abrahamic. Some say they believe in consciousness that overseas the universe but because of raw experience, say because of christianity or other they disbelief the christian god. There are thoe who are atheist to some gods but not others.

I meant the part where a theist was interpreting theism as a knowledge claim and not a belief.

The second part, thats off and online experience. Theist say "I KNow God exists! He saved me from this." others "I Know God exist, he healed me from that". Since God is not scientific, it cant be proven. However, we can stil know something exist without having outsiders investigate it for validity.

No you can't. There is a BIG (emphasis, not anger ) difference between knowing something and just thinking you know it.

​

Technically, Id agrees thats a better term. Im assuming people say Know because its a stronger word. The sentiment is I assume the same I suppose.

Yes, that's it.

"Which lead to the last question. Can actions be illogical by itself (say murder) or does it need a reason (say its illegal) for it to be illogical?"
​

I talk about God because I love to learn; and, I find it illogical in itself to do so regardless my logical reasons. I find the action illogical because I am creating a illussion that does not help me at all. Like using an invisible alive pill to fight a head ache. Other people push me to use it. It makes sense that medicine releaves pain. But an invisible pill? Reasons are good, yes. The action, no. No benefit...completely illusonary.


Can actions (such as talking about God or taking an invisible pill) be logical by itself....or do we need reasons behijd these actions for it to make sense one way or another?

Yes, they can be logical by themselves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No you can't. There is a BIG (emphasis, not anger ) difference between knowing something and just thinking you know it

From an atheistic perspective, I can see that.

Yes, they can be logical by themselves

That is what I wanted to know in my OP and if yes, how. (Rethorical question) You dont have to answer.

 

[Bunyip]

Carlita

Perhaps that is really our point of contention here? About belief and knowledge. Weather or not what we believe we know and what we know are the same thing?

 

[Bunyip]

From an atheistic perspective, I can see that.


That is what I wanted to know in my OP and if yes, how. (Rethorical question) You dont have to answer.

How? In that it is useful to do so. It is instructive, it is educational, it is stimulating. It is essentially how science works - you imagine a solution (formulate a hypothesis) and then proceed to test it. Until tested the accuracy of the hypothesis is not known.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How? In that it is useful to do so. It is instructive, it is educational, it is stimulating. It is essentially how science works - you imagine a solution (formulate a hypothesis) and then proceed to test it. Until tested the accuracy of the hypothesis is not known.

Guess thats different than taking an invisible pill. We can formulate a hypothesis that it will cure the headache but knowing that it will not, whats the use of testing it.

I get what your saying.

My OP was wrapped around a person knowing God does not exist. (Like knowing the pill wont work) so why talk about it (swollow the pill). If it is just around belief, peoples belief can change so it seems logical to talk about it. If one was a gnostic, well, that would be odd if they talked about it as if it "seriously" existed.

/shrugs/

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?

i.e. If I had an invisible box (whats in the box!! Sorry, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt movie flash back) and millions of people just believed it exist and I know it does not....why would I say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

Maybe it could be because in some atheist definitions, there is only a disbelief in God which, that, doesnt require that God be non-existent. It leaves room for debate because they are hanging on possibilities, theory, philosophy.

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

After 9 pages of discussion, would you care to rephrase this in a cogent manner?

 

[Typist]

Everyone is taking it personal. Its not a personal question.

The whole inquiry is about our relationship with reality. On the surface level that's an intellectual question, on a deeper level it's a personal one. Theists tend towards the personal, whereas atheists lean towards the intellectual, perhaps a key difference between the two.

To gain some insight in to the nature of the question, we can examine the phrase "our relationship with reality". This phrase assumes two different things "us" and "reality", and then some relationship between the two. Even just the word "relationship" assumes at least two different things.

As example, let's say you have a roommate. We can guess this roommate probably has welcome and unwelcome qualities, as we all do. What is your relationship with this roommate, the entirety of them, including everything you see as being good and everything you see being as bad? How you answer this question will probably determine how well your time with this roommate goes.

Reality is our ever present roommate. It contains things we like, and things we don't like. Unlike our human roommate reality is huge, powerful, and mysterious beyond our ability to imagine. It controls virtually everything that matters in our lives, leaving us to manage only the smallest of details. It can give us the most wonderful experiences, and then in the next moment give us pancreatic cancer or some other horror. It's close to impossible to predict what reality will dish out to us on any given day.

Intellectualism is a way to keep such existential facts of our existence at arm's length, at a safe distance. While there's nothing wrong with this, it's also a pretty limited method for approaching what in the end is a deeply personal question.

What is our relationship with a power of this scale, whether we call it reality or god or something else?

Because theists (the better ones anyway) grasp that this is at heart a deeply personal question, they approach the question in a personal manner.

Generally speaking, they have replaced the cold abstract phrase of "reality" with a living intelligent entity one can relate to personally the way humans are used to relating.

And because such power, whatever one might call it, dwarfs the human scale, they have correctly seen that the rational response is to love, worship and surrender to such overwhelming power, whatever one might call it.

Imho, it doesn't really matter whether we call it reality, nature, god, universe or some other word, because for issues of this unimaginably enormous scale, none of us have a clue what we're talking about. So, the rational thing is to choose any word we like, and then get on to the real business of the inquiry.

Whatever you call it, what is your relationship with it?

You might win a free trip to Hawaii tomorrow.

Or you might be diagnosed with bone cancer.

What is your relationship with that?

 

[Thief]

THREAD POINT: Does actions demand reasons behind them to be logical or can theaction itself be logical or illogical without justification about it?

Well..how about...
If your hand does anything at all....it's because you thought you should...or because you felt like it.

The latter part would be that effort for no apparent reason....it just feels good.

 

[chinu]

Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?

i.e. If I had an invisible box (whats in the box!! Sorry, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt movie flash back) and millions of people just believed it exist and I know it does not....why would I say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

Maybe it could be because in some atheist definitions, there is only a disbelief in God which, that, doesnt require that God be non-existent. It leaves room for debate because they are hanging on possibilities, theory, philosophy.

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

Very Good Question

 

[jonathan180iq]

Because billions of people on this planet seem to believe in magic fairy dust, and it's troubling.
As a member of the human race, seeing my fellow apes running around screaming their hocus pocus, and influencing others, bothers me. I choose to address it. It's really that simple.

I mean, why do Christians debate Hindus when they know Shiva doesn't exist?
Why do Muslims debate Jews who don't give validity to Mohammed?
Choose any combination you like, the principle still holds true.

 

[Thief]

Because billions of people on this planet seem to believe in magic fairy dust, and it's troubling.
As a member of the human race, seeing my fellow apes running around screaming their hocus pocus, and influencing others, bothers me. I choose to address it. It's really that simple.

I mean, why do Christians debate Hindus when they know Shiva doesn't exist?
Why do Muslims debate Jews who don't give validity to Mohammed?
Choose any combination you like, the principle still holds true.

Equating belief in God to belief in fairy dust.....doesn't help.

It reeks of 'close minded'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

After 9 pages of discussion, would you care to rephrase this in a cogent manner?

Read posts and replies to 114.

If you want to discuss it, we can. The question has been rephrased within those 9 pages. It has been taken as a personal attack to atheisf for some. It was heavily misinterpreted and the points were only understood by Disciple, katscpar, and luis. You can check those posts too (luizs and I have longer discussing this)
--
Does it make sense that someone who Knows God exist to have a serious conversation, Ill say with another person of same views, as if God does?

If it makes sense (not the reasons for the coversation but the actual conversation itself), "how"?

If not, why not?
---
Posters have given me countless "reasons why" it is logical for a person who knows God doez not exist would seriously talk as of he exists. They ranged from political (it affects the nation; we need to educate thiests to reduce harm they are doing to society), personal (it affects us atheist; we cant help but talk about it), for mutual understanding (taking about God in a language the theist understand), curiosity, and fun.

All of these reasons are logical, but what about the action itself?

One person said it aould be odd if two atheist as described in my OP would talk.about God as if He exists.

Regardless of who the atheist talks to, how is it logical?

Similar to how is logical for an atheist to pray to God.

Another i.e. Many theist would not talk seriously as if God does not exist. They say it doesnt make sense ans they explain how. I ask the same of those who Know God Does Not exist. Question is switched.
--

If this question is silly, please answer respectfully or dont reply. Ive gone circles of miscommunicaton over offending atheist and definitions of the word itself.