The Paradox of Atheism and God

[Unfettered]

IOW: It's a feeling that you had, ie, a telepathic message from God.
This is mere belief.
It isn't evidence in the sense that it can be offered to persuade anyone else.

I have already acknowledged that the evidence one possesses for the existence of God (speaking again for myself only) is not transmissible, but I disagree that it cannot be offered to persuade others in some way. Nor do I agree that it cannot be persuasive. Detail must be offered, however, and I have not yet offered any; just the simple disclosure of one kind of evidence. That said, revelation is the prime evidence, not something low on the list.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have already acknowledged that the evidence one possesses for the existence of God (speaking again for myself only) is not transmissible, but I disagree that it cannot be offered to persuade others in some way. Nor do I agree that it cannot be persuasive. Detail must be offered, however, and I have not yet offered any; just the simple disclosure of one kind of evidence. That said, revelation is the prime evidence, not something low on the list.

Consider another view....
Revelation & other such feelings fill a need.
It numbs the rational mind, & leads people
to follow cults that satisfy the need.
Tis not just Christians who fall prey, but also
Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, Bahais, Jains,
Jews, Sikhs, etc.
Consider also that most believers follow a
religion different from yours. Which one
has The Truth? Why you, but not others?

 

[Unfettered]

Consider another view....
Revelation & other such feelings fill a need.
It numbs the rational mind, & leads people
to follow cults that satisfy the need.
Tis not just Christians who fall prey, but also
Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, Bahais, Jains,
Jews, Sikhs, etc.
Consider also that most believers follow a
religion different from yours. Which one
has The Truth? Why you, but not others?

Thank you. These are good considerations. They aren't new, of course. Meaning, not new to me. Suffice it to say that I have paid the price in considerations to stand now on firm ground.

As to the question about which religion, or cult (whatever you want to call them), has the truth, I would offer that all religions teach some truth (it is technically possible that one, or some, teach no truth, but that is highly dubious). But clearly, I identify the religion to which I have bound myself as the "true" church, if you will, as determined by its connection the source of truth (that is both the church's claim and my own).

As to the question of why this religion, but not others, that is not a question with a two-sentence answer. But I would say that a great deal of the response would be in the answer to the question about my evidence God's existence: revelation. The religion I choose teaches its adherents to appeal for confirmation of all truth from the source of truth—God. That is admittedly a simplification of the interaction between church and member, but "personal revelation" is a foundational principle of the religion. From that point flows one's personal journey of coming to answer all questions of eternal significance, including the question of the church's claim to divine connection and authority, etc.

I could go on, and would love to, but I understand that you were not asking me to proselytize. So I will not. A person who desires more than a short answer is welcome to ask for more.

 

[Revoltingest]

They aren't new, of course.

I don't claim new.
Everything said by everyone here has been said before.

Meaning, not new to me. Suffice it to say that I have paid the price in considerations to stand now on firm ground.

As to the question about which religion, or cult (whatever you want to call them)...

I refer to religion as "religion".

I would offer that all religions teach some truth (it is technically possible that one, or some, teach no truth, but that is highly dubious). But clearly, I identify the religion to which I have bound myself as the "true" church, if you will, as determined by its connection the source of truth (that is both the church's claim and my own).

As to the question of why this religion, but not others, that is not a question with a two-sentence answer. But I would say that a great deal of the response would be in the answer to the question about my evidence God's existence: revelation. The religion I choose teaches its adherents to appeal for confirmation of all truth from the source of truth—God. That is admittedly a simplification of the interaction between church and member, but "personal revelation" is a foundational principle of the religion. From that point flows one's personal journey of coming to answer all questions of eternal significance, including the question of the church's claim on divine connection and authority, etc.

Those are foundations of belief, but not "evidence"
in the contextual sense. Your belief in that particular
God seems like my enjoying landscaping...just personal
orientation. I can't argue with evidence that anyone
else should take up & enjoy landscaping, nor is it "true".

 

[Unfettered]

I don't claim new.
Everything said by everyone here has been said before.

I refer to religion as "religion".

Those are foundations of belief, but not "evidence"
in the contextual sense. Your belief in that particular
God seems like my enjoying landscaping...just personal
orientation. I can't argue with evidence that anyone
else should take up & enjoy landscaping, nor is it "true".

Well, I did not offer the answer to your question as evidence of anything. It was very much just a brief answer to your question.

 

[Kfox]

Of course they do, maybe I should have had an 's' on the end of 'god'

Even if you put an "s" at the end, atheism is about not about whether whatever someone chooses to call God/Gods exist or not, it's about not calling it God.

 

[Kfox]

...

They are god

What is your point?

 

[ChristineM]

What is your point?

The point was to dhow the alternative to your comment...

It would be foolish for an atheist to look at the Sun, or stand next to Kumari and claim...

... They are god

 

[lukethethird]

Atheism is the antithetical position to theism. Theism is a philosophical proposition. Atheism is the antithetical position. Philosophy is a logical dialogue between the proponent and the opponent, each stating and defending their relative positions relating to a truth proposal.

Neither of these have anything to do with religion, or anyone's personal beliefs.

Not sharing in the beliefs of another is not a position. Where did you ever get the idea that is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are assuming quite some things about atheists which are not warranted. Some people who happen to be atheists use rationality and value truth, knowledge and morality - but that is not because they are atheists. Atheism doesn't require anything but that the number of gods you believe in is zero.

However, at least in America, atheists tend to habe a better sense of morality, with some research even showing they have more tolerance and respect for other groups than their own.

 

[blü 2]

How is it disorganized?
That is far more complex an approach than what I offered. I mean, mine was pretty binary.
I'm afraid that doesn't help; I'm not big into stereotyping. What is the perspective of the typical non-believer?

I set out one kind of perspective back in #120. I've linked it so you can consider it if you wish.

 

[Unfettered]

I set out one kind of perspective back in #120. I've linked it so you can consider it if you wish.

This post?

Others may think it's the observation that God never appears, says or does, and doesn't appear to have a description appropriate to a real being, so that the word "God" doesn't denote any real thing.


What definition of "God" are we using?


I define objective reality as the world external to the self which we know about through our senses. If we can't find a real God there ─ and so far we can't ─ then God is only a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain, no?

 

[blü 2]

This post?

Yup.

 

[Unfettered]

Thank you for inviting me to consider this perspective. I hadn't seen it before (we tend to fixate on the fragments of a thread that directly involve us).

What definition of "God" are we using?

I'd offer up front that I don't know that it matters how we define god, as long as we understand that we are talking about something that, on some real level, transcends the natural world and senses. Since I assert the existence of God, if you're amenable to it, to start we'll define God as the designer, programmer, creator and administrator of the objective reality to which you refer. Let me know if that works for you. I'll continue with the assumption that you're good with that.

Others may think it's the observation that God never appears, says or does, and doesn't appear to have a description appropriate to a real being, so that the word "God" doesn't denote any real thing.

This point leads me to the thought that testimony exists which asserts that God has appeared, has said, has done, has a description appropriate to a real being, etc. What should one do with that testimony (because it refutes the conclusion that God doesn't denote any real thing)?

I define objective reality as the world external to the self which we know about through our senses. If we can't find a real God there ─ and so far we can't ─ then God is only a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain, no?

I appreciate your definition of objective reality, though it seems (seems) to dismiss everything real that can't immediately be known about through the senses, or that hasn't at some point in human history been known about through the senses. How would you respond to that summary?

Also, it might be noteworthy that in your definition of objective reality you appeal to a collective experience to validate that reality, rather than strictly your own. "...which we know..." "If we can't find..." Would that collective experience include or exclude the testimony I referenced above? Might it be that, to you, the one bearing that testimony is the person who has been pared out of the collective (presumably), as alluded to in the tail end of your objective reality statement, "...then God is only a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain"? IE, "that guy's" brain. He's not part of our collective experience, even though (perhaps because...?) he claims to have seen and interacted with God.

 

[Altfish]

Even if you put an "s" at the end, atheism is about not about whether whatever someone chooses to call God/Gods exist or not, it's about not calling it God.

I understand the point you are trying to make BUT I believe it to be the same.
Yes, the Sun exists, but the Sun God does not

 

[blü 2]

Thank you for inviting me to consider this perspective. I hadn't seen it before (we tend to fixate on the fragments of a thread that directly involve us).

I'd offer up front that I don't know that it matters what how we define god, as long as we understand that we are talking about something that, on some real level, transcends the natural world and senses. Since I assert the existence of God, if you're amenable to it, we'll define God as the designer, programmer, creator and administrator of the objective reality to which you refer. Let me know if that works for you. I'll continue with the assumption that you're good with that.

Before we get round to other questions, does this being exist in objective reality?

Or only as a concept / idea / thing imagined?

If the former, [he] has no description that I'm aware of appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not. All the descriptions are imaginary terms, like omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, eternal &c &c.

(I wonder for example how God knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?)

This point leads me to the thought that testimony exists which asserts that God has appeared, has said, has done, has a description appropriate to a real being, etc. What should one do with that testimony (because it refutes the conclusion that God doesn't denote any real thing)?

There are so many such stories that I suggest the more likely explanation is that Just So stories with gods and devils and heroes and magic are something humans do, apparently related to our evolved instinct to instantly attach a narrative to an unexplained situation and to test it on the basis of such a narrative, rapidly changing it for another until the unknown is either known or no longer seen as a potential threat.

I appreciate your definition of objective reality, though it seems (seems) to dismiss everything real that can't immediately be known about through the senses, or that hasn't at some point in human history been known about through the senses. How would you respond to that summary?

It gives a testable distinction between things that are objectively real and things that are essentially conceptual / imaginary. It also gives an objective test for truth in many cases. Truth is never absolute, only retrospective, of course. For example, the Higgs particle was theoretical, not real, until 2012, when its reality was affirmed. And thereafter there's always been the Higgs particle ─ unless of course our future discoveries show we've misunderstood something.

I use the Higgs particle as an example of how we know we know things. I think my definitions also addresses the question, what do we know to be real and what don't we know that might be real? Dark matter, for example, is presently the name of a problem, not a thing.

Also, it might be noteworthy that in your definition of objective reality you appeal to a collective experience to validate that reality, rather than strictly your own. "...which we know..."

Indeed. The repeatability of an experiment, for instance, is a vital part both of scientific empiricism and scientific induction. If I tell you there are real fairies living in the park near me, your most civil reply would be, 'Really? Show me.' And if I reply, 'Well, they're invisible ...' you may well feel no less doubtful.

"If we can't find..." Would that collective experience include or exclude the testimony I referenced above?

Think repeatable experiment, or perhaps here, repeatable demonstration. Why are all the photos of Bigfoot not really convincing? (Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration, as the saying has it.)

Might it be that, to you, the one bearing that testimony is the person who has been pared out of the collective (presumably), as alluded to in the tail end of your objective reality statement, "...then God is only a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain"?

Off the top of my head, the closest I've been to that is hearing the cousin of a friend of mine describe his NDE, after he'd crashed his light plane in a wooded area, crawled clear as it started to burn, and leant against a tree while lying on the ground. He described the light, the tunnel, a sense rather than a vision of individuals present, and a general benevolence to it. He was unclear how it ended, but guessed he'd just passed out.

But he doesn't think he saw heaven &c. He thinks he experienced a kind of hallucination or illusion which the stresses on his body induced in his brain, though he admits to wondering at times.

I don't think he saw heaven either. The thing NDEs and OBEs have in common is that no one returns from them with new remote information about reality. I read of an experiment in a British hospital some decades back where two doctors placed placards in very large print on top of cupboards and fittings where they could only be seen from above, asking the observer to report the presence of the particular placard immediately. They had no reports for a respectable number of years, and finally gave up. OBEs can be induced 'in the lab' these days, as you may know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theism is an idea. Belief is a way of relating ourselves to that idea. These are not the same things. Whether or not one "believes in" theism is irrelevant to the idea that God/gods exist, and exists in a way that matters to we humans.

Why do you insist on overcomplicating / obfuscating this stuff?
A theist is someone that believes in a theistic god; who follows and believes in a theistic religion. It's that simple.
There's no reason to make it more or less then it is.

Belief AND the lack of it are both irrelevant to the proposed idea that God/gods exist, and to the proposed idea that God/gods do not exist. Belief is a religious practice, not a theological position.

And you continue to obfuscate and overcomplicate.
Yes, belief is irrelevant to what is actually true. It matters not to the point.

Symmetry is an ideal. Asymmetry is the antithetical ideal.

And even with this one you feel the need to obfuscate / overcomplicate.
Symmetry is a property of a shape.
There's no need to get all philosophical about it to the point where the word loses any and all meaning.

Asymmetry is not a "lack of symmetry".

Except that it is.

"lacking symmetry". Literally.

It is the antithetical ideological condition to symmetry. Asymmetry is a THING. Not the lack of a thing.

Nope. When you say of a shape that it is asymmetrical, then you don't know anything about the properties the shape DOES have.
The only thing you know is that the property of "symmetry" is NOT present.

You and some others here work very hard at not understanding this.

Projecting much?
You're the one that insists on obfuscation / overcomplication to the point where words use all meaning.

A claim is not a belief, and a belief is not a claim.

You can't have one without the other.

Why would you make a claim if you don't believe said claim? You'ld be lying if you would do that.
In the other direction, how can you express a belief in something without making a claim which is being believed?

"The sky is blue".
"I believe the sky is blue".

The words "i believe" are implied in the first statement.
In the second statement you express belief in the claim that the sky is blue.

Can't have one without the other.

Make a claim = imply belief in said claim.
Express a belief = belief in what? in a claim.

And neither of them are "truth proposals" until they're expressly presented as such.

Belief = to accept as true, correct, accurate.

That's just a skeptic. Not an atheist.

false

But you don't get this because your definition of atheism has no actual definition. It's just meaningless negation.

It's the dictionary definition. You know... that book where you can look up what words mean.
Atheist: someone who doesn't hold theistic beliefs.
Just like asymmetrical: a shape that lacks symmetry

It's what the "a" prefix means.

That's not true of most of those "atheists" that come on this site, though, as they are very clearly trying to "sell" us on their skepticism.

When an atheist has a mustache and likes milk, that doesn't mean that mustaches and milk are "atheist" things.

And again, you prove my point.

Nope. Your point is bonkers.
Theism concerns personal religious beliefs.
That's literally what it means.

 

[Unfettered]

Before we get round to other questions, does this being exist in objective reality?

Good question. But since this is your objective reality that we're injecting God into, I have to defer to you with "Does anything exist—in actuality—in your objective reality that isn't already known to the senses?" IE, is the test of your objective reality perfectly and unyieldingly strict?

This seems a critical boundary to understand, and I foresee miscommunications if we don't address it now. So I'll forgo other responses until we define clearly this part of the framework of our discussion.

Headed to bed.

 

[blü 2]

Good question. But since this is your objective reality that we're injecting God into, I have to defer to you with "Does anything exist—in actuality—in your objective reality that isn't already known to the senses?"

The answer is, yes, we find out new facts every day (a fact being an accurate statement about a real state of affairs). So the little rascals are out there, but so are the non-facts ─ hence the need for winnowing.

In other words, the question is not whether, but what exactly?

 

[PureX]

Not sharing in the beliefs of another is not a position. Where did you ever get the idea that is?

It's called a philosophical dialogue. Like a formal debate. Neither participant has to "believe" anything. They simply choose a position to propose and defend. In fact, it's far better if the participants are not "believers", as they will be more able to learn from the other's argument.

Your problem is that your presumed position as the judge in your own 'kangaroo court' depends on this idiotic nonsense about atheism = "unbelief". Wherein you get to attack the theist while never having to defend your own position (because you won't admit to having one). And then pretend that you get to define all the terms and impose all the criteria for what is and isn't a valid argument.