Poll for people who sometimes argue or protest against some God beliefs (“God” with a capital “G”)

[Jim]

(edited to add the following)
NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

I made a mistake in writing the poll question. Rather than “Are you saying that God does not exist?” it should be “Are you saying that some God does not exist?” The poll question is for people who sometimes argue or protest against some beliefs of people who say they believe in “God” with a capital “G,” that look like beliefs about someone or something that they’re calling “God.”
(end edit)

(the following paragraph has been edited for clarification)

I’m having a discussion with someone about what people are doing when they argue and protest against some God beliefs. I’m thinking that maybe sometimes they’re trying to convince people that some God does not exist, but mostly that is not what they’re trying to do.

(edited to add the following)

Bonus question, to answer in comments, if you say sometimes that there is no evidence for someone to say that their God exists. Are you picturing their God in some way, thinking that it does not exist? Are you thinking that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of anything that you would call “God”? Explain as much as you can what’s happening in your mind, when you say that there’s no evidence for people to say that their God exists.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I argue such a thing based on context, I guess. If someone's view of God is someone who hates certain groups of people, I might argue against it. If we are talking God in a more philosophical sense, their thoughts probably get along pretty cohesively with mine, so it would be difficult to argue anything.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

However, if it matters, when people ask me about God now, it will usually get interpreted as them asking me about the trimurti.

 

[Nimos]

I’m having a discussion with someone about what people are doing when they argue and protest against God beliefs. I’m thinking that maybe sometimes they’re trying to convince people that God does not exist, but mostly that is not what they’re trying to do.

I think one would be lying to say that it isn't, simply because they are opposite sides of the coin, but its inevitable in these discussions, basically any discussion where people disagree.

But turn it around and a person going into such discussion talking about God is basically trying to convince a non believer of God as well.

God cares and love all humans...

Then why are there suffering?...

And there we go, if a non believer accept the statement they would believe in God and be convinced or simply not care, but then its not a discussion , and if they don't they would ask the question and indirectly try to convince the believer.

So a believer will argue their side and the non believer theirs. There is no need to purposeful try to convince anyone of anything when you discuss, it happens automatically as I see it.

 

[Valjean]

The only time I 'argue or protest' against god beliefs is here on RF, on threads such as this where my opinion is asked.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hi @Jim
I'm not 100% sure I've understood what you're trying to find out, so apologies if I have misinterpreted. I voted 'No', but I'll explain more fully.

1) I don't think God exists. If someone specifically asks me if I believe in God, and why, etc, then I could be seen to be arguing that God doesn't exist, I suppose, but ultimately I take a live and let live approach to God's existence. I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist precisely because I don't claim absolute knowledge in this area, merely my belief (if a strongly held one).

2) I do argue or even protest against God beliefs, but only certain religious concepts I believe were established and are policed by man anyway. So, as a simple example, I've signed petitions against apostocism. In doing so I am protesting against a God belief (as in, belief in a God who supports apostasy laws) but I'm not protesting against belief in God per se.

Like I said, not sure I've quite understood your intent, so let me know if I've missed the mark and how. Happy to clarify my position.

 

[Jim]

I’ve added a bonus question to the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I’m having a discussion with someone about what people are doing when they argue and protest against God beliefs. I’m thinking that maybe sometimes they’re trying to convince people that God does not exist, but mostly that is not what they’re trying to do.

(edited to add the following)

Bonus question, to answer in comments, if you say sometimes that there is no evidence for someone to say that their God exists. Are you picturing their God in some way, thinking that it does not exist? Are you thinking that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of anything that you would call “God”? Explain as much as you can what’s happening in your mind, when you say that there’s no evidence for people to say that their God exists.

I wasn't raised with a god-concept that many other atheists have. So, I have three concepts of god that I can think of based on my experiences and observations.

1. God as a deity. A god that can communicate, talk, judge, and bless you. Usually these type of things would be seen as beings or people as spirits. Personified being that can interact with a person regardless their interpretation.

2. God as an experience. I see this a little more commonly in both Abrahamic and Eastern points of view (from what I've learned of the latter). Abrahamic meaning the experience of grace, love, etc they determine as god/holy spirit. The latter, god as life itself without division, name, or so have you. I'm not familiar with Eastern deities.

3. God as the universe/force etc. I see this translated as maybe like air or what is/gives/of life. Breathe of life, I guess you can say. Maybe a metaphysical connection or result of meditation. Not sure how to describe it. I think I resignate with this view the most. From a transcendentalist point of view (I'm Universalist). Probably because I never knew the first definition and the second I'm kinda guessing.

I’m having a discussion with someone about what people are doing when they argue and protest against God beliefs. I’m thinking that maybe sometimes they’re trying to convince people that God does not exist, but mostly that is not what they’re trying to do.

I do not believe deities exist. So, christian deity and Pagan deities I disagree with their existence. I'm not sure about Hindus since each person has their own level of literalness of deites. So, I disagree with the first one.

The second I understand it. They describe it as an overwhelming or life changing experience. I never had that before but I do agree it exists and people have this. I just don't use the word god to define it.

The third makes more sense to me. However, I'm not familiar with using mystical words to describe it. Things like consciousness, all, universe, or so have you confuse me. There's no name. 'just is.

Bonus question, to answer in comments, if you say sometimes that there is no evidence for someone to say that their God exists. Are you picturing their God in some way, thinking that it does not exist? Are you thinking that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of anything that you would call “God”? Explain as much as you can what’s happening in your mind, when you say that there’s no evidence for people to say that their God exists.

I usually don't say there is no evidence because the god (number one) I think is mythological. Something I would read like Zues etc. So, evidence and argument of it doesn't cross my mind. It's irrelevant. It's like asking me if there is something in my hand and I see nothing. Arguing about evidence of what someone else sees that's not there is pointless. If it's not there how do you defend it unless you pretend that it is in order to use this "nothing" to prove that the other person's wrong about his conclusions.

The second does exist. We have experiences that create or liven us to whatever state of spirituality, knowledge, awakeness, whatever. It's a human thing regardless the language, perspective, and personal interpretation one has of the experience; it's individual.

The third exist but its based on interpretation. There's energy. There's H2O. We can personalize it by meditation and call it X or we can see it by science as Y. It really doesn't matter. "What" God is not universal.

 

[rational experiences]

I believe in the God of science, O stone, a planet that owns historically its own spirit/gases. Owner of natural light.

I believe that if the planet and the gases did not exist, then nor would I as the consciousness. So I do not believe that God is consciousness, but it supports human conscious awareness to express information.

In science quotes I do not believe in the power of God, for if you purposely change what you first claim is God, the stone, then obviously the power is not God afterwards.

 

[Skwim]

.

While I don't believe god exists, as characterized in the Abrahamic religions he does have some odious beliefs, principally his belief that slavery is okey dokey, and that innocent lives are worthless and expendable, to say nothing of his belief that evil is worth propagating.

.

 

[osgart]

I go against the requirements of any faith that sets non believers into enemy status whereas they are judged to be under condemnation for not believing. Often times I want to refute the existence of such Gods. It's an easier refutation to make.

I find condemnations against non belief are quite cruel. I don't condemn people for things that are beyond knowing.

 

[Altfish]

Bonus question, to answer in comments, if you say sometimes that there is no evidence for someone to say that their God exists. Are you picturing their God in some way, thinking that it does not exist? Are you thinking that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of anything that you would call “God”? Explain as much as you can what’s happening in your mind, when you say that there’s no evidence for people to say that their God exists.

The only picture I have of god is those produced by Christian and other religions, but since I don't believe there is a god, the picture is like a picture of a unicorn, or fairy or Loch Ness Monster.
God is supposed to be all powerful,creator of the universe, omnipresent, kind, just, etc. (Just fill in the blanks) - but I find that implausible, with no evidence and in most case the answer is in science, not god. I can think of no example where god is the best explanation.
I think people find comfort in their beliefs, I have no problem with that, People find community within their congregation, again that is good. But I do not need god to do either of those things, neither do many other people.

 

[Jim]

My answer to the bonus question.

Are you picturing their God in some way, thinking that it does not exist? Are you thinking that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of anything that you would call “God”? Explain as much as you can what’s happening in your mind, when you say that there’s no evidence for people to say that their God exists.

(edited for clarification)
I don’t actually ever say that there is no evidence for people to say that their God exists, but I’m thinking that there can’t be any evidence that “God” in the Bible is referring to something that exists. When I say that, I’m not picturing anything in my mind that “God” could be referring to. That’s the whole point. I don’t think that anyone is picturing anything in their mind that “God“ in the Bible could be referring to, every time it applears.

 

[Sunstone]

"It's complicated", as they say. I think "yes" or "no" as answers in dealing with questions of this complexity are so simplistic, it's like they don't exist for me. As an American, I know it's popular to demand simplistic answers -- and perhaps express frustration with anything more complex than a stoplight -- but sometimes... the truth just doesn't resemble a stoplight. I know! Appalling!

With that said, when I actually argue against god beliefs, which is not as often as I'm thought to argue against them, it is typically along the lines of "that belief is superficial", rather than, "that belief is wholly wrong." Superficial truths are half-truths, and half-truths are often more misleading than outright falsehoods. They are like baited hooks. The bait is that part of them that is true. The hook is that part that is false. Few fish bite on a naked hook. Few people swallow a total falsehood. At least, few compared to how many will swallow a half-truth. That's why I tend to focus on attacking superficiality, rather than trying to prove god does or doesn't exist.

 

[Sunstone]

I don’t actually ever say that there is no evidence for people to say that their God exists, but I’m thinking that there can’t be any evidence that “God” in the Bible is referring to something that exists. When I say that, I’m not picturing anything in my mind that “God” could be referring to in the Bible. That’s the whole point. I don’t think that anyone is picturing anything in their mind that “God“ in the Bible could be refreshing to.

What about the Biblical notion that "God is Love"? Does that refer to anything in your mind that God could be? I'm not looking for a debate. I'm looking for clarification.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I’ve added a bonus question to the OP.

Hmm...it depends. Useful answer, right?
So, the context becomes important. The more specific a person's belief is, and the more completely I understand that, then the more likely I am to argue that their God doesn't exist.
Basically, I see it as impossible...and largely wasted effort...to argue against an amorphous God concept. But the more somebody ringfences that concept, the more I can look at it from a logical point of view and assess it. Does that God seem consistent? Is the person projecting their own views on God? Assuming this God did exist, what would the impact be on the day to day world I live in?

That type of thing.

I also wouldn't argue against the whole of the thing. What I mean by that is that a self-described Catholic who says to me that they believe God would want us to treat each other with kindness, and not judge is not someone I'm going to readily argue with. Likewise, I'm not going to left field things by saying 'yeah, kindness is all well and good, but that Trinity belief you have strikes me as crazy' (just using that as a hypothetical example.

When talking to religious folk I would commonly have multiple threads of thought going on at once as it relates to God.
Briefly;
1) Does their particular flavour of God seem credible and consistent? So...if some type of God DID exist, could this be the one? Obviously I don't think the God exists, but this is no different to me having a discussion with someone about politics. I might have a position, but evaluating new arguments on their own merit is much more beneficial to me than deciding I don't believe them, and pooh-poohing them out of hand.
2) If their particular flavour of God could exist, would I see that as a positive? Do I understand why this person before me worships this being? This commonly gives me reason to pause. A Christian friend who thought his sister (who I knew well) got MS due to having a girlfriend is problematic to me. Is there any reason to suppose God is 'good' in any way I understand the word? No, of course not. But if you're going to worship a being, you're either so in awe it gets a pass on any behaviour, or you're in agreement with it's edicts. Either way, and regardless of whether that God actually exists, it's informative.
3) Does their particular flavour of God impact on me, or those around me? That can be broad (eg. I don't like God beliefs negatively impacting on atheists anywhere) but there are certain beliefs I just wouldn't see as impactful, so basically live and let live. Eg. If a Catholic wants to wear a hair suit, more power to them. If they start getting their 12 year old kids to, then my opinion changes. If they think all atheists are wrong about God, no problem. If they think atheists are liars, and they secretly believe in God, then my opinion changes.

Long story short, the majority of my thinking isn't about whether their God exists. I don't think it does, but whatever. My thinking is more around whether their claimed belief fits with their actions, if them worshipping a particular type of God makes sense to me, or seems negative, and how their belief informs their actions on the world around me.

Too much for a bonus question? Do I win a prize?

 

[Heyo]

I’m having a discussion with someone about what people are doing when they argue and protest against God beliefs. I’m thinking that maybe sometimes they’re trying to convince people that God does not exist, but mostly that is not what they’re trying to do.

I can't speak for others but I discuss and debate to gain in knowledge (and assume my interlocutor does the same). I want to know if I gaps in my logic (or knowledge).
In the special case of arguing for or against god beliefs I don't argue against the belief but against the epistemology of how people got to their belief. It's just like a match of wits.
It may get heated when people think they can conclude to have privileges because of their faulty logic.

(edited to add the following)

Bonus question, to answer in comments, if you say sometimes that there is no evidence for someone to say that their God exists. Are you picturing their God in some way, thinking that it does not exist? Are you thinking that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of anything that you would call “God”? Explain as much as you can what’s happening in your mind, when you say that there’s no evidence for people to say that their God exists.

I (try to) start with a blank slate. I only form an image based on the definitions given by my interlocutor. I will point out if that image is inconsistent.

 

[HonestJoe]

I’m having a discussion with someone about what people are doing when they argue and protest against God beliefs. I’m thinking that maybe sometimes they’re trying to convince people that God does not exist, but mostly that is not what they’re trying to do.

I think that's poor wording because I don't think anyone argues and certainly doesn't protest against "God beliefs" as such. What triggers debate, argument and protest are assertions of truth and demands for practical consequences.

It might be clearer if you gave examples of what you're actually talking about. It'd also be helpful if you clarified your cryptic comment about what you think people are actually trying to do.

Bonus question, to answer in comments, if you say sometimes that there is no evidence for someone to say that their God exists. Are you picturing their God in some way, thinking that it does not exist? Are you thinking that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of anything that you would call “God”? Explain as much as you can what’s happening in your mind, when you say that there’s no evidence for people to say that their God exists.

You can only express an opinion on whether something exists after it has been defined and God is typically defined by people who belief it does exist. I don't think anyone, believers or non-believers, has the same image in our minds though (about anything, not just gods) so in a way everyone is picturing something unique to them when they say they believe a god does or does not exist.

In practical terms though, the discussion is about a specific aspect rather than the god concept as a whole. If someone asserts that "There is a god and he created the world 6000 years ago", someone who feels there is evidence the world existed more than 6000 years ago can say they don't believe that specifically defined god doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what other features or characteristics anyone imagines about that god.

 

[Jim]

What about the Biblical notion that "God is Love"? Does that refer to anything in your mind that God could be? I'm not looking for a debate. I'm looking for clarification.

I edited that post. Read the revised post, and see if that answers your question.

 

[Jim]

Hmm...it depends. Useful answer, right?
So, the context becomes important. The more specific a person's belief is, and the more completely I understand that, then the more likely I am to argue that their God doesn't exist.
Basically, I see it as impossible...and largely wasted effort...to argue against an amorphous God concept. But the more somebody ringfences that concept, the more I can look at it from a logical point of view and assess it. Does that God seem consistent? Is the person projecting their own views on God? Assuming this God did exist, what would the impact be on the day to day world I live in?

That type of thing.

I also wouldn't argue against the whole of the thing. What I mean by that is that a self-described Catholic who says to me that they believe God would want us to treat each other with kindness, and not judge is not someone I'm going to readily argue with. Likewise, I'm not going to left field things by saying 'yeah, kindness is all well and good, but that Trinity belief you have strikes me as crazy' (just using that as a hypothetical example.

When talking to religious folk I would commonly have multiple threads of thought going on at once as it relates to God.
Briefly;
1) Does their particular flavour of God seem credible and consistent? So...if some type of God DID exist, could this be the one? Obviously I don't think the God exists, but this is no different to me having a discussion with someone about politics. I might have a position, but evaluating new arguments on their own merit is much more beneficial to me than deciding I don't believe them, and pooh-poohing them out of hand.
2) If their particular flavour of God could exist, would I see that as a positive? Do I understand why this person before me worships this being? This commonly gives me reason to pause. A Christian friend who thought his sister (who I knew well) got MS due to having a girlfriend is problematic to me. Is there any reason to suppose God is 'good' in any way I understand the word? No, of course not. But if you're going to worship a being, you're either so in awe it gets a pass on any behaviour, or you're in agreement with it's edicts. Either way, and regardless of whether that God actually exists, it's informative.
3) Does their particular flavour of God impact on me, or those around me? That can be broad (eg. I don't like God beliefs negatively impacting on atheists anywhere) but there are certain beliefs I just wouldn't see as impactful, so basically live and let live. Eg. If a Catholic wants to wear a hair suit, more power to them. If they start getting their 12 year old kids to, then my opinion changes. If they think all atheists are wrong about God, no problem. If they think atheists are liars, and they secretly believe in God, then my opinion changes.

Long story short, the majority of my thinking isn't about whether their God exists. I don't think it does, but whatever. My thinking is more around whether their claimed belief fits with their actions, if them worshipping a particular type of God makes sense to me, or seems negative, and how their belief informs their actions on the world around me.

Too much for a bonus question? Do I win a prize?

I gave up having forum gods, but if I still had them, you would be one of them.

Now I’m starting to miss having forum gods ...