Trying To Understand Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill... I'm sure such excruciating details are important to you but we manage with what we've got anyway.

"What we've got" is a list of gods and not-gods: the Greek pantheon are gods; angels aren't. Why? I have no idea - it seems pretty inconsistent to me.

 

[ArtieE]

Well, I flat-out reject a few and have seen no reason to accept any of the others I've heard of. As for the ones I haven't heard of... we can't believe what we've never even conceived, so I don't believe in those ones, either.


I don't have "a general idea about what a god is", but if you do, maybe you could explain it to me.

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."
god

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."
god

So you do think that angels are gods?

Edit: and you don't consider non-omnipotent or non-omniscient creator-gods to be gods? What about the many creator-gods that chose not to rule their creation after creating it; those aren't gods either?

Edit 2: you're going to have to tell me what you think that last definition means, because the word "supernatural" is even less poorly-defined than the word "god".

 

[Thumper]

That puts you in the category of implicit atheist.

Implicit -- "implied though not plainly expressed."

No, I actually clearly expressed that I am an atheist. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? If so, I'll try to be more sensitive when replying.

 

[Thumper]

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."
god

The quality of being omnipotent (all powerful) is an impossible property, either in reality or even in the imagination. Quite simply, can an omnipotent being make an object so big that even he can't lift it? Any answer leads to a being that is less than omnipotent. We know this as kids, but are quickly taught to not ask such questions.

Omniscient (all knowing) doesn't fair any better really. An omniscient being would know everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Which makes all human activity preordained, even me typing these words would be scripted and known by such a being from time immemorial.

The "effect, or a manifestation" of such a being and "control some part of nature" would indicate some observable and measurable effect. Yet there is nothing that points to such, unless you want to argue for the anthropic principle, which is like a puddle of water proclaiming how perfectly the hole in the ground fits his shape.

 

[ArtieE]

So you do think that angels are gods?

Edit: and you don't consider non-omnipotent or non-omniscient creator-gods to be gods? What about the many creator-gods that chose not to rule their creation after creating it; those aren't gods either?

Edit 2: you're going to have to tell me what you think that last definition means, because the word "supernatural" is even less poorly-defined than the word "god".

Is there no limit to the amount of questions you can ask? I am very flattered that you think I know everything and can explain everything to you in every excruciatingly little detail but I'm afraid I must disappoint you. Please feel free to consult other sources such as experts on theology.

 

[Thumper]

So you do think that angels are gods?

According to the Hebrew O.T. a number of them were "lesser gods". The monotheistic religions we have today in fact started as polytheistic in the Pentateuch.

The original translation for Yahweh Elohim was "lord of the gods" (elohim is a plural). Since the time of King James' translators we have translated this as "Lord God." A number of what we now think of as different names for Jehovah were in fact different lesser gods.

 

[ArtieE]

Implicit -- "implied though not plainly expressed."

No, I actually clearly expressed that I am an atheist. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? If so, I'll try to be more sensitive when replying.

You said you are an ignostic.

"The term "ignosticism" is a play on the words "ignorance" and "gnosticism." A direct meaning of ignosticism would mean something like, "ignorance of god(s)," meaning the ignostic doesn't know anything about gods, or doesn't know what the term "god" means. Typically the ignostic takes a position of refraining from making arguments for or against the existence of god(s) until a coherent definition of "god" is provided. Many ignostics are also theological noncognitivists, although the two positions are not mutually inclusive."

Do you have a definition of "god" that is so coherent that you can declare yourself an explicit atheist towards this god?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there no limit to the amount of questions you can ask?

I'm still trying to get you to answer my first question in a coherent way.

I am very flattered that you think I know everything and can explain everything to you in every excruciatingly little detail but I'm afraid I must disappoint you. Please feel free to consult other sources such as experts on theology.

I'm not assuming that you can explain anything beyond your own position, but apparently even that is too much to ask.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to the Hebrew O.T. a number of them were "lesser gods". The monotheistic religions we have today in fact started as polytheistic in the Pentateuch.

I realize that. What I was trying to get at is that I'd bet @ArtieE wouldn't describe modern-day Christians or Muslims as polytheists, but he's given us a definition that implies they are.

I've asked many people who insist that "god" has a clear meaning to tell me what that meaning is; so far, every single one has failed to give me a definition that reflects how they themselves use the word.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

" But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? "

I'm not aware of anyone who actually takes such a contradictory position. Most atheists that I know take the position that thus far they have not been presented with sufficient evidence to believe that a God or gods exist. However, if such evidence were to ever be found then they would adjust their beliefs accordingly. Anyone who has concluded that the universe is NOT godless has also concluded that god(s) are likely. Anyone who has concluded that god(s) aren't likely has also concluded that we probably live in a godless universe.

 

[Thumper]

You said you are an ignostic.

"The term "ignosticism" is a play on the words "ignorance" and "gnosticism." A direct meaning of ignosticism would mean something like, "ignorance of god(s)," meaning the ignostic doesn't know anything about gods, or doesn't know what the term "god" means. Typically the ignostic takes a position of refraining from making arguments for or against the existence of god(s) until a coherent definition of "god" is provided. Many ignostics are also theological noncognitivists, although the two positions are not mutually inclusive."

Do you have a definition of "god" that is so coherent that you can declare yourself an explicit atheist towards this god?

You're trying to make atheism something it is not. The atheistic position is that there is no evidence for belief. Show me some evidence to consider.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Ok, what if the theist says they believe god exists? That's not really a claim, it's a statement of ones belief. I bet the theist would still be asked to defend that belief in god. Now, if the atheist says that there is no reason to believe in god, this implies they believe the universe is godless. It's not a claim, just like the theists isn't. But if the theist has to support such a belief, so does the atheist.

I never question a theist's beliefs. It's when they try to suggest that their beliefs are in some way verifiable facts that I tend to question them.

 

[Thumper]

I realize that. What I was trying to get at is that I'd bet @ArtieE wouldn't describe modern-day Christians or Muslims as polytheists, but he's given us a definition that implies they are.

I've asked many people who insist that "god" has a clear meaning to tell me what that meaning is; so far, every single one has failed to give me a definition that reflects how they themselves use the word.

I have often reached the same impasse with theists of every ilk.

 

[ArtieE]

You're trying to make atheism something it is not. The atheistic position is that there is no evidence for belief. Show me some evidence to consider.

Weak atheists have no beliefs. Strong atheists believe gods don't exist. There are many different reasons why strong atheists believe gods don't exist. Absence of evidence is just one of them.

 

[Thumper]

Weak atheists have no beliefs. Strong atheists believe gods don't exist. There are many different reasons why strong atheists believe gods don't exist. Absence of evidence is just one of them.

I am always fascinated by theists claiming to know more about atheism than atheists do. People have all kinds of shades of grey in their thinking, your neat little categorizations notwithstanding. Not mater how many times Christians claim atheism is a belief, it is not, it is the absence of belief.

Humanism is an atheistic belief. Buddhism is an atheistic belief system. Atheism is a category which include everybody who is not a theist. Move on.

 

[ArtieE]

I am always fascinated by theists claiming to know more about atheism than atheists do. People have all kinds of shades of grey in their thinking, your neat little categorizations notwithstanding. Not mater how many times Christians claim atheism is a belief, it is not, it is the absence of belief.

Weak atheism is the absence of belief. Strong atheism is the presence of belief that gods don't exist.

Atheism is a category which include everybody who is not a theist. Move on.

Atheism is a category which also includes people who believe gods don't exist. Now we can move on.

 

[Augustus]

I am always fascinated by theists claiming to know more about atheism than atheists do. People have all kinds of shades of grey in their thinking, your neat little categorizations notwithstanding. Not mater how many times Christians claim atheism is a belief, it is not, it is the absence of belief.

What about the millions of atheists who think it is a belief? Do they get excommunicated?

 

[Thumper]

Weak atheism is the absence of belief. Strong atheism is the presence of belief that gods don't exist.Atheism is a category which also includes people who believe gods don't exist. Now we can move on.

So is a Buddhist a strong or weak atheist? How about a Humanist?

Give me an example of a "strong atheist". Even Richard Dawkins allows for the possibility of gods yet undefined. I have never in all my 40 years of being an atheist, ever met an atheist who has a positive believe that gods do not exist.

My point is those categories are created by people who don't really understand anything about atheism.

The difference is a very basic difference in the way non-theists think. It's the difference between deductive and inductive thinking.

 

[Augustus]

I have never in all my 40 years of being an atheist, ever met an atheist who has a positive believe that gods do not exist.

I've never met one who doesn't. Most accept that there is at least a tiny possibility that they could be wrong though.