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

[linwood]

You don't have to argue the points of atheism to me, I'm an atheist.

So you say but..it didn`t sound like it in your OP.
I suppose you might have been being a bit sarcastic, if so I apologize.
It seems my irony meter has been finicky all week.

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?

That would fall under the category of "someone bringing god into it".
I`ll open my mouth then of course only because I won`t live under legislation founded on a myth.

I really prefer reality as basis for law.

 

[Atheologian]

So you say but..it didn`t sound like it in your OP.
I suppose you might have been being a bit sarcastic, if so I apologize.
It seems my irony meter has been finicky all week.

That would fall under the category of "someone bringing god into it".
I`ll open my mouth then of course only because I won`t live under legislation founded on a myth.

I really prefer reality as basis for law.

I think the objective question is kind of a new thing on this forum. I'm using the inspiration of Plato, who always posed questions objectively, regardless of personal observation, to direct a line of reason. You get more honest, reliable discussion this way. Unfortunately, you also risk offending people by the topic itself, I realize this, but I think it's helpful to spark debate, none the less.

 

[linwood]

I think the objective question is kind of a new thing on this forum.

How can one begin to objectively consider the question of god?
All human concepts of god I`ve heard are designed to be inaccessible to objectivity.

 

[Willamena]

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?

God's role in society is that of our images of "God", whether individual or collective.

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?

Well, I'd have to admit I have no personal interest in this question, and wouldn't bother with it at all if you hadn't challenged. Obviously civil rights take a legal precedent, and personal faith takes a personal precedent; religion has no role in government; faith is not religion; civil rights are not goverment; and this question is total non-sequitor.

Well done!

 

[Atheologian]

How can one begin to objectively consider the question of god?
All human concepts of god I`ve heard are designed to be inaccessible to objectivity.

lmao, yeah i get that feeling too. But let's assume we're talking to the deist type, or a religious apologist, a more philosophical version of "God". These Gods are harder to refute, since they exist in the gaps of human knowledge and largely serve the needs of each individual believer, but are also much easier to think of "objectively".
What I mean is, it is far easier to think objectively of something we don't believe in, when it is logically possible, however improbable. The less improbable it is, the easier it is to imagine, even if our own observations say otherwise.

 

[Atheologian]

God's role in society is that of our images of "God", whether individual or collective.


Well, I'd have to admit I have no personal interest in this question, and wouldn't bother with it at all if you hadn't challenged. Obviously civil rights take a legal precedent, and personal faith takes a personal precedent; religion has no role in government; faith is not religion; civil rights are not goverment; and this question is total non-sequitor.

Well done!

That said, how would you be fair to those of "faith" who believe that the freedom to worship openly is comprimised by rules that prohibit worship at school or at work?
By the way, religion was the early form of government, faith is a requirement of most religions, specifically in America, Europe and the middle East, civil rights are an important consideration to any government, and a non-sequitur is a statement of no relevance, usually for comical or conversational purposes. While most of your posts were non-sequiturs, the original topic question and related questions are not.

 

[linwood]

lmao, yeah i get that feeling too. But let's assume we're talking to the deist type, or a religious apologist, a more philosophical version of "God". These Gods are harder to refute, since they exist in the gaps of human knowledge and largely serve the needs of each individual believer, but are also much easier to think of "objectively".

I don`t see how a god concept so personal can be seen objectively by any outsider .
I also never see these god concepts as the basis for change in civil laws.
There is nothing "objectively" to base them on.

What I mean is, it is far easier to think objectively of something we don't believe in, when it is logically possible, however improbable. The less improbable it is, the easier it is to imagine, even if our own observations say otherwise.

I understand I can think of a deistic god objectively but can a deist?

You raise this point in the context of debate or discussion either public or personal and I can`t see such a debate/discussion directly effecting anything objectively.

Such as the earlier mentioned civil liberties.

 

[YmirGF]

Atheists claim that God does not exist.

Actually, I consider myself an atheist because I do not accept any religion's view of what human animals refer to as "god". That rejection does not mean I don't actually believe in god, my belief just does not coincide with religion. Likewise, I don't want theists to get their hopes up too much by thinking I am supportive of their primitive god concepts when I deign to use the term "god". I much prefer "primary energy essence" but its not like many actually understand what I am meaning, so I use the term "god" simply to be somewhat understood. It's more of a literary launchpad, really.

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

Tell me, what exactly have human animals learned about the so-called "soul" or "spirit". I am all ears. The natural universe is another kettle of fish altogether and observation of it is noramlly fairly pedestrian although science has given us some tantalizing tidbits in the last couple of centuries.

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 haven't much difficulty in the comprehension department, though I can't speak for others who believe that alleged deity is incomprehensible. My guess is that they are cornered by their inherent belief structures. The comprehension side is actually the easy part, it is boiling it down into verbal terms that is difficult and hence we end up with these warped, primitive god concepts that we have today.

Oh, and word to the wise, when Willamena comes out to play it is always a good idea to listen to what the dear lady has to say. Only a fool will write Patty off and dismiss what she is trying, so generously, to express.

 

[Willamena]

What I mean is, it is far easier to think objectively of something we don't believe in, when it is logically possible, however improbable. The less improbable it is, the easier it is to imagine, even if our own observations say otherwise.

Something we don't believe in implies something we don't understand --else, if we did understand it we'd believe in it --else we're kidding ourselves into thinking we understand, if in understanding it it makes no sense. Else, we're understanding something else.

If another person believes in a thing, it's because they understand it, right? And if we don't believe in it, isn't logical to think it may be because we don't understand it? We kid ourselves when we think we understand it and not them. It's necessarily not the same thing that we understand.

 

[Atheologian]

Something we don't believe in implies something we don't understand --else, if we did understand it we'd believe in it --else we're kidding ourselves into thinking we understand, if in understanding it it makes no sense. Else, we're understanding something else.

If another person believes in a thing, it's because they understand it, right? And if we don't believe in it, isn't logical to think it may be because we don't understand it? We kid ourselves when we think we understand it and not them. It's necessarily not the same thing that we understand.

You don't have to understand something to believe it, that's called faith. You also are fully capable of understanding something and not believing it, that's called doubt.

 

[Atheologian]

Actually, I consider myself an atheist because I do not accept any religion's view of what human animals refer to as "god". That rejection does not mean I don't actually believe in god, my belief just does not coincide with religion. Likewise, I don't want theists to get their hopes up too much by thinking I am supportive of their primitive god concepts when I deign to use the term "god". I much prefer "primary energy essence" but its not like many actually understand what I am meaning, so I use the term "god" simply to be somewhat understood. It's more of a literary launchpad, really.

Tell me, what exactly have human animals learned about the so-called "soul" or "spirit". I am all ears. The natural universe is another kettle of fish altogether and observation of it is noramlly fairly pedestrian although science has given us some tantalizing tidbits in the last couple of centuries.

I haven't much difficulty in the comprehension department, though I can't speak for others who believe that alleged deity is incomprehensible. My guess is that they are cornered by their inherent belief structures. The comprehension side is actually the easy part, it is boiling it down into verbal terms that is difficult and hence we end up with these warped, primitive god concepts that we have today.

Oh, and word to the wise, when Willamena comes out to play it is always a good idea to listen to what the dear lady has to say. Only a fool will write Patty off and dismiss what she is trying, so generously, to express.

How many times am I going to have to say this? you dissecting the topic is not answering the question. I AM AN ATHEIST. You can't change my mind on that subject, It's already done. What I'm asking is, what you would have to say to those who DID believe, and were using those beliefs in community roles.

 

[Willamena]

That said, how would you be fair to those of "faith" who believe that the freedom to worship openly is comprimised by rules that prohibit worship at school or at work?

That's goverment's decision. The community decides, in a democracy. That's fair.

By the way, religion was the early form of government, faith is a requirement of most religions, specifically in America, Europe and the middle East, civil rights are an important consideration to any government, and a non-sequitur is a statement of no relevance, usually for comical or conversational purposes. While most of your posts were non-sequiturs, the original topic question and related questions are not.

Sorry for speaking of the present. (And the OP made no mention of such.)

 

[Atheologian]

Sorry for speaking of the present. (And the OP made no mention of such.)

It most certainly DID.
I posed the same question then as now.
When discussing matters of theology, do athiests have a place in that?
So far we can conclude that in certain matters yes, and certain matters no.

 

[Willamena]

You don't have to understand something to believe it, that's called faith. You also are fully capable of understanding something and not believing it, that's called doubt.

Well, I don't know about others but I have faith in things I believe, and I believe in what I understand. I'm funny that way.

Doubt is disbelief.

 

[Atheologian]

Well, I don't know about others but I have faith in things I believe, and I believe in what I understand. I'm funny that way.

Doubt is disbelief.

Exactly doubt is disbelief, not misunderstanding.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly doubt is disbelief, not misunderstanding.

Yeah. . . again, I don't believe in things I don't understand. Funny that way.

 

[Atheologian]

The obvious theist argument here, would be that someone of faith is more likely to stand by his convctions, never waver, and remain consistent. This is one of the arguments from conservatives in America. Is steadfastness always a good quality? Can atheists be just as rigid in beliefs?

 

[Willamena]

I think most atheists kid themselves into thinking they understand the same thing theists understand, based on communicated ideas. Of course, as well all know, communication is a very inexact practice.

It most certainly DID.
I posed the same question then as now.
When discussing matters of theology, do athiests have a place in that?
So far we can conclude that in certain matters yes, and certain matters no.

Hmm. . . I didn't get that from OP. But anyway, atheists, like everyone, should only have a place in discussing things they know something about. There's little worse than engaging an uninformed discussion.

 

[Atheologian]

Yeah. . . again, I don't believe in things I don't understand. Funny that way.

Do you understand how black holes work? Obviously not, no one does. No one can get close enough or find a way to analyze them effectively. We only know they exist. We know some of the properties of a black hole, but not how they relate to one another. To say "I don't believe in black holes because I don't understand them" is asanine.

You have the capacity to believe or disbelieve anything you do or do not understand.

 

[Willamena]

The obvious theist argument here, would be that someone of faith is more likely to stand by his convctions, never waver, and remain consistent.

Well, atheists do that too.

This is one of the arguments from conservatives in America. Is steadfastness always a good quality?

Steadfastness in what one believes lends weight to the idea that they have sound reason for their belief, so that can be a good or bad thing.

Can atheists be just as rigid in beliefs?

Of course.