Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

[dogsgod]

Objectivity is all points of view. No point of view is called IGNORANCE

Objectivety is a point of view that is the same for everyone. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. That is an objective view of a duck. Another would be the view of gravity. Gravity as it is objectively described complete with mathematical equations applies the same way for everyone. You can lie about your weight but properly balanced and calibrated scales will sort that out.

 

[Atheologian]

Discussions of the historical aspects of theistic belief and discussing what specific gods in different cultures mean for that culture.

Would it make sense for an atheist to engage in a discussion where theists are describing what God means for them? I would say no.

I should probably go back and be a little more specific. What if the discussion was: what role God plays in the community, school, government, etc.? Naturally our opinions will differ from those of a strong theist.
If we assume this discussion was taking place on capitol hill, for example, the ramifications are clear, and I beleive our own input is crucial.

 

[Atheologian]

Objectivety is a point of view that is the same for everyone. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. That is an objective view of a duck. Another would be the view of gravity. Gravity as it is objectively described complete with mathematical equations applies the same way for everyone. You can lie about your weight but properly balanced and calibrated scales will sort that out.

What you describe is "relativity" not objectivity.
Objectivity is accepting that the duck can be dry, wet, loud, quiet, in flight, not in flight, alive, dead, white or green
because the duck is the idea of a duck, and that duck can be in any number of states and meet any number of conditions.
Relativity is the fact that the duck is a duck to all observers, regardless of size, position or color, etc.

 

[Willamena]

So objectivity looks at a thing as the idea of a thing?

I wouldn't dispute that.

Relativity is the fact that the duck is a duck to all observers, regardless of size, position or color, etc.

You and PureX have similar ideas.

 

[Atheologian]

So objectivity looks at a thing as the idea of a thing?

I wouldn't dispute that.

You're getting closer, much better.
Thinking Objectively means considering something in any state or condition.


Relativity would be that "thing" in relation to another observer, in other words, what is the same for everyone.

By posing an "objective" question, you take one of those conditions or states and assume it, even if the assumption is not consistent with your observation.
Posing an objective question is NOT posing a question in a relative manner, that allows all observers to come to the same conclusion. It is the opposite. You pose a question that forces each observer to define the state and condition as they observe it.

What color is the duck, or Is the duck flying? are relative questions. Is the duck flying fast enough? is an objective question.
We assume he's flying and want to know, given any extraneous circumstances, if he is doing so fast enough.

 

[Erebus]

There are a few atheists in here who go on the occasional tirade to try to disprove "god", but since they have to pick one particular version of "god" in order to do this I think they're no better than "one true church" theists. I'm pretty sure the majority are more concerned about the dangers of the religious theocratic movement than the non-existence of god.

Completely agree with you here. I have no problem whatsoever with atheists debating against theism (if I did, then I wouldn't have joined a religious discussion forum) but it does get irritating when you encounter the odd atheist preacher.

Back to the OP though... No, I don't think atheists should simply keep quiet about religion, after all, everybody is entitled to an opinion yes? What I do object to is what has already been mentioned... preaching.

 

[Atheologian]

Completely agree with you here. I have no problem whatsoever with atheists debating against theism (if I did, then I wouldn't have joined a religious discussion forum) but it does get irritating when you encounter the odd atheist preacher.

Back to the OP though... No, I don't think atheists should simply keep quiet about religion, after all, everybody is entitled to an opinion yes? What I do object to is what has already been mentioned... preaching.

I'll even go so far as to say I disagree with the indoctrination of children, but that's my little red wagon

 

[Erebus]

I'll even go so far as to say I disagree with the indoctrination of children, but that's my little red wagon

Sorry I don't quite follow? Do you mean atheistic indoctrination, theistic indoctrination or simply indoctrination in general? I suppose ideally children should be brought up agnostic and allowed to find their own path. Then again I don't have kids so I'm probably talking out of my backside.

 

[Willamena]

You're getting closer, much better.

As long as it's understood that what we are moving towards is your understanding, you're right.

It's the idea of any given "thing" in any state or condition.
In other words, all points of view.

Myriad dharma. I like to think of it as no particular point of view.

Relativity would be that "thing" in relation to another observer, in other words, what is the same for everyone.

Any (object) thing in any relation to any other (subject) thing.

I can't see it being the same for everyone, but rather unique for everyone, as it is relative to each other observer.

By posing an "objective" question, you take one of those conditions or states and assume it, even if the assumption is not consistent with your observation.

Yeah. . . that "assuming" is bias, and that contradicts "no particular point of view". Putting yourself in another person's shoes is an admirable way to try to get to know them, but it's not truly objective.

Posing an objective question is NOT posing a question in a relative manner, that allows all observers to come to the same conclusion. It is the opposite. You pose a question that forces each observer to define the state and condition as they observe it.

An objectively posed question would contain no point of view in the asking, regardless of the audience.

What color is the duck, or Is the duck flying? are relative questions. Is the duck flying fast enough? is an objective question.

If an observer is in a moving airplane, is the duck flying "fast enough" compared to an observer standing on the ground?

 

[Atheologian]

Sorry I don't quite follow? Do you mean atheistic indoctrination, theistic indoctrination or simply indoctrination in general? I suppose ideally children should be brought up agnostic and allowed to find their own path. Then again I don't have kids so I'm probably talking out of my backside.

I mean, more specifically, creationism and teaching children things about hell and such that we couldn't possible know with certainty

 

[Willamena]

Sorry I don't quite follow?

It was probably an objective question.

 

[Atheologian]

As long as it's understood that what we are moving towards is your understanding, you're right.


Myriad dharma. I like to think of it as no particular point of view.


Any (object) thing in any relation to any other (subject) thing.

I can't see it being the same for everyone, but rather unique for everyone, as it is relative to each other observer.


Yeah. . . that "assuming" is bias, and that contradicts "no particular point of view". Putting yourself in another person's shoes is an admirable way to try to get to know them, but it's not truly objective.


An objectively posed question would contain no point of view in the asking, regardless of the audience.


If an observer is in a moving airplane, is the duck flying "fast enough" compared to an observer standing on the ground?

We are talking about the definitions of the words, not your personal beliefs about what they should mean. The definition of a word is not open to theological debate, sorry.
When speaking of something objectively, you speak of it in one or more of its theoretical conditions or states, as it would exist in the material world to any observer.
When speaking of something relatively, you speak of it's condition or state that is the same to all observers.
When speaking of something subjectively, you speak of it in it's present state and condition, as it exists in the material world to a specific observer.
If the duck is flying, he is flying to all observers. relative
If the duck is able to fly, an observer might see him flying or not. objective
If a duck is able to fly, but this one is not, because his wing is broken, that is subjective.
Please stop hijacking the thread with this nonsense.

 

[linwood]

Atheists claim that God does not exist.

I make no claim.
I dispute a claim.

This goes against everything man has learned about his "soul", or "spirit" and the natural world around us.

You could fit everything humanity has learned of the concept of "soul" on the head of a pin.
We`re getting close to needing two pins now though.

In a discussion of the nature of God, does an Atheist have anything useful to say? How can you comment on something you don't believe, therefore could not possibly comprehend?

I don`t fail to comprehend it because I disbelieve it.
I disbelieve it because I fail to comprehend it.

There`s a difference, it`s rather large.

As soon as I get a comprehensive definition of this god thing maybe I will believe it.

To answer the title of the OP...

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...hut-up-about-god-post1719026.html#post1719026

Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

I shut up about god a long time ago.
As long as you don`t bring god up you can be sure I won`t.

 

[Willamena]

We are talking about the definitions of the words, not your personal beliefs about what they should mean. The definition of a word is not open to theological debate, sorry.
When speaking of something objectively, you speak of it in one or more of its theoretical conditions or states, regardless of observation.
When speaking of something relatively, you speak of it in regard to its condition or state.
Please stop hijacking the thread with this nonsense.

I'm okay with that. You make little sense anyway, and it's not like anyone has to understand you to talk with you.

 

[Erebus]

I mean, more specifically, creationism and teaching children things about hell and such that we couldn't possible know with certainty

Ok, of course I would argue that we know nothing with certainty anyway, but right now I'm a little too tired to start a debate, so I'll come back to this thread sometime tomorrow

 

[Atheologian]

I'm okay with that. You make little sense anyway, and it's not like anyone has to understand you to talk with you.

If it makes little sense than why are you ok with it?

 

[Atheologian]

I make no claim.
I dispute a claim.



You could fit everything humanity has learned of the concept of "soul" on the head of a pin.
We`re getting close to needing two pins now though.




I don`t fail to comprehend it because I disbelieve it.
I disbelieve it because I fail to comprehend it.

There`s a difference, it`s rather large.

As soon as I get a comprehensive definition of this god thing maybe I will believe it.

To answer the title of the OP...



I shut up about god a long time ago.
As long as you don`t bring god up you can be sure I won`t.

You don't have to argue the points of atheism to me, I'm an atheist. I'd like some creative dialogue, what would you say if you had a chance to include your opinion when considering God's roll in, say, civil unions, or civil rights?

 

[Willamena]

If it makes little sense than why are you ok with it?

Because it means not talking anymore.

 

[Atheologian]

Ok, of course I would argue that we know nothing with certainty anyway, but right now I'm a little too tired to start a debate, so I'll come back to this thread sometime tomorrow

look forward to it I think some things aren't a matter of certainty as much as common sense. Like teaching kids the Earth is 10,000 years old or that Evolution is a myth, for example.

 

[Atheologian]

Because it means not talking anymore.

You said you were atheist, agnostic and theist, basically implying that you have a broad view of all three, right? So what would you say to someone considering God's role in society?
This is the gist of what I'm asking, or at least the conclusion I hoped most people to come to. Would you weigh personal faith over the civil rights of others, or encourage faith to be private and out of the role of government?

That doesn't require any debate over the meaning of the words, just your own opinion