What is Proof of Gods existence to you?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Atheism is identified in most dictionaries as a word that can be either a verb or an adjective. Look it up.

I have. That's why I know that the adjectival "atheist" can't be used as you do: there is no dictionary in the world that defines atheist as some view, belief, perspective, etc., such that one can e.g., be a deist or Christian and be "atheist with respect to" Zeus. That's just your nonsense. But just for you, I looked up the adjectival definition as given be the single most comprehensive dictionary of any language in the world: the OED. Guess what? It's this:
"Atheistic, impious."
Also, the great thing about the OED is that it gives examples of every sense of every word (in use or no) in the English language, and here we find that the adjectival use of "atheist" is to be understood by the following examples:
"1667 Milton Paradise Lost vi. 370 The Atheist crew.
1821 J. G. Lockhart Valerius II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath pierced the upper and the nether sky."

But lest I skimp out on you here, I will provide the entire definition as given by the OED and you can explain how it is consistent with yours, or even provide a single source that defines the adjectival "atheists" such that a theist can be an atheist with respect to e.g., Zeus:

"atheist, n. and adj.
Pronunciation:
/ˈeɪθiːɪst/
Forms: Also 15 atheyst, 15–16 athist(e.

Etymology: < French athéiste (16th cent. in Littré), or Italian atheista: see atheism n. and -ist suffix.
A. n.
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
[?1555 Coverdale tr. Hope of Faythful Pref. f. iiiv, Eate we and drink we lustely, tomorow we shal dy. which al ye Epicures protest openly, & the Italian atheoi.]
1571 A. Golding in tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. Ep. Ded. sig. *.iii, The Atheistes which say..there is no God.
1604 S. Rowlands Looke to It 23 Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any cause or measure or rule of things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 W. E. Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
1577 M. Hanmer tr. Bp. Eusebius in Aunc. Eccl. Hist. iv. xiii. 63 The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men.
1656 T. Stanley Hist. Philos. II. viii. 93 An Atheist is taken two waies, for him who is an Enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost i. 495 When the Priest Turns Atheist, as did Ely's Sons.
1827 J. C. Hare & A. W. Hare Guesses at Truth I. 65 Practically every man is an Atheist, who lives without God in the world.

B. adj.

Atheistic, impious.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost vi. 370 The Atheist crew.
1821 J. G. Lockhart Valerius II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath pierced the upper and the nether sky."

 

[Bunyip]

I have. That's why I know that the adjectival "atheist" can't be used as you do: there is no dictionary in the world that defines atheist as some view, belief, perspective, etc., such that one can e.g., be a deist or Christian and be "atheist with respect to" Zeus. That's just your nonsense. But just for you, I looked up the adjectival definition as given be the single most comprehensive dictionary of any language in the world: the OED. Guess what? It's this:
"Atheistic, impious."
Also, the great thing about the OED is that it gives examples of every sense of every word (in use or no) in the English language, and here we find that the adjectival use of "atheist" is to be understood by the following examples:
"1667 Milton Paradise Lost vi. 370 The Atheist crew.
1821 J. G. Lockhart Valerius II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath pierced the upper and the nether sky."

But lest I skimp out on you here, I will provide the entire definition as given by the OED and you can explain how it is consistent with yours, or even provide a single source that defines the adjectival "atheists" such that a theist can be an atheist with respect to e.g., Zeus:

"atheist, n. and adj.
Pronunciation:
/ˈeɪθiːɪst/
Forms: Also 15 atheyst, 15–16 athist(e.

Etymology: < French athéiste (16th cent. in Littré), or Italian atheista: see atheism n. and -ist suffix.
A. n.
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
[?1555 Coverdale tr. Hope of Faythful Pref. f. iiiv, Eate we and drink we lustely, tomorow we shal dy. which al ye Epicures protest openly, & the Italian atheoi.]
1571 A. Golding in tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. Ep. Ded. sig. *.iii, The Atheistes which say..there is no God.
1604 S. Rowlands Looke to It 23 Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any cause or measure or rule of things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 W. E. Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
1577 M. Hanmer tr. Bp. Eusebius in Aunc. Eccl. Hist. iv. xiii. 63 The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men.
1656 T. Stanley Hist. Philos. II. viii. 93 An Atheist is taken two waies, for him who is an Enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost i. 495 When the Priest Turns Atheist, as did Ely's Sons.
1827 J. C. Hare & A. W. Hare Guesses at Truth I. 65 Practically every man is an Atheist, who lives without God in the world.

B. adj.

Atheistic, impious.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost vi. 370 The Atheist crew.
1821 J. G. Lockhart Valerius II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath pierced the upper and the nether sky."

My usage was perfectly acceptable, I don't care if you think otherwise. I am frankly astounded that you imagine your personal incredulity/ignorance to be significant.

What I said was a fairly common notion, here attributed to Stephen F. Roberts:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Or as Dawkins put it;

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

It is a common and widely used point, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and many others have employed it - all the way back to the earliest days of the Church with Justin Martyr who wrote;

"Hence, are we (Christians) called atheists.And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from impurity."

How any rational person could imagine that you can dismiss such a point by reference to your own personal ignorance of that usage is baffling. You really need to stop and think through your responses before you post them. That you are unfamiliar with a given usage is not evidence that it is wrong.

Please read 'The first apology of Justin' it is one of the earliest apologetic works and has been referenced across the millenia by countless others - it contains the very usage you (for no reason other than your ignorance of it) have been attacking me across various threads for employing. It also appears in many of the most popular articles and books written by prominent atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dillahunty - that you have never once come across it indicates that you are not well read on the subject, it certainly does not indicate that it was an invention of mine.

 

[Wat_i.need]

What is Proof of Gods existence to you?

I think no one can proof if god exist or not. However, I'm as a Muslim , i believe in god's existence. why?


The evil and the good . the evil needs to be punished and the good needs to be rewarded? who would ? there must be an existence of a higher position or power or so.


Also, when I'm in a big trouble, or scared, for example, if i was in a plane or a boat and there is a storm, who would save me? superman? nah. at that time only one thing comes to my mind: " god please save me, just one more time, ill be good ". so god, for non-believers and for believers. just one sentence : god please save me.


The messengers, like Mohammed, Jesus, Moses. Why there were sent? There are lots of proves of them that they once were a live and were talking, walking, eating and so on. So if the messengers does exist then god does exist.


From the smallest creatures such us bacteria and acetic to the biggest creature like elephant, whale and dinosaur (which once existed). Every creature are of a one unit structure or building called the cell " building blocks of life" .


"that cells are the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms, that all cells come from preexisting cells, and that all cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells." Wikipedia.


So, how come all the living creature have the same one unit structure? Then there is one powerful god who made that not two or more but one who created it.

I would admit that if there was a god I would in all probability be a misotheist as I feel uncomfortable accepting a higher power. I might end up a Satanist of some sort.

So you mean you would accept a power that as same as yours but not higher because it's uncomfortable? You think creating a human or creating the universe is a job that a limited low- power human like us can do it?


The more of a higher power the more you would accept, obey and worship.

 

[Laika]

The more of a higher power the more you would accept, obey and worship

Only if that higher power is omnibenevolent or is demonstratably just. I'm not of the opinion that a higher power is necessarily corrupt or evil, but given the level of suffering that we as humans have inflicted on each other [I know... free will] and the evils which befall us because our powerlessness before the forces of nature, (e.g. The Eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the death of the inhabitents of Pompeii and Hurculaneum in 79AD comes to mind, maybe the sinking of the Titanic in 1912 as Icebergs don't make themselves?) it is hard to believe. there is a case to be made for the moral insigificance and powerlessness of mankind in the universe, but that clearly implies that god either is not omnipotent or doesn't care. So logically, it wouldn't be an Abrahamic God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

all the way back to the earliest days of the Church with Justin Martyr who wrote

You don't know Greek, so I won't bother going over the relevant passage in Greek. Instead:
"Whereas most Western countries have gradually seperated church and state, the example of other societies, such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia, that this is not so everywhere. In ancient Greece, too, religion was totally embedded in society- no sphere of life lacked a religious aspect...In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable. The term atheos did not originate before the fifth century and even then indicated only a lack of relations with the gods." (emphasis added)
Bremmer, J. (1994). Greek Religion (Greece & Rome No. 24). Oxford University Press.

The fact that you don't know ancient Greek nor are familiar enough with religion in antiquity to realize that all you've done is misunderstood what atheist meant in antiquity (it didn't mean belief or disbelief in god or gods at all, and existed before theism did) still doesn't excuse your misuse that is so basic it relies on the wrong part of speech. That you fail to realize your even one of your own quotes from the new atheist anti-intellectual popular movement doesn't use the part of speech you do and that you have claimed (and failed to even attempt substantiation of said claim) that your use is consistent with usage and with dictionaries (both wrong) is far, far more telling than your ignorance of ancient Greek and of religion in antiquity. But I appreciate the icing on the cake.

 

[Bunyip]

You don't know Greek, so I won't bother going over the relevant passage in Greek. Instead:
"Whereas most Western countries have gradually seperated church and state, the example of other societies, such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia, that this is not so everywhere. In ancient Greece, too, religion was totally embedded in society- no sphere of life lacked a religious aspect...In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable. The term atheos did not originate before the fifth century and even then indicated only a lack of relations with the gods."
Bremmer, J. (1994). Greek Religion (Greece & Rome No. 24). Oxford University Press.

The fact that you don't know ancient Greek nor are familiar enough with religion in antiquity to realize that all you've done is misunderstood what atheist meant in antiquity (it didn't mean belief or disbelief in god or gods at all, and existed before theism did) still doesn't excuse your misuse that is so basic it relies on the wrong part of speech. That you fail to realize your even one of your own quotes from the new atheist anti-intellectual popular movement doesn't use the part of speech you do and that you have claimed (and failed to even attempt substantiation of said claim) that your use is consistent with usage and with dictionaries (both wrong) is far, far more telling than your ignorance of ancient Greek and of religion in antiquity. But I appreciate the icing on the cake.

None of that makes any sense - I applied a common usage, one that is as old as the church itself. I even gave you the citations. It was not a misuse, it was the usage applied by Justin Martyr in one of the earliest apologetic works, dismissing it because I don't know greek is just pathetic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

None of that makes any sense - I applied a common usage

You applied common usage to Justin Martyr, even though you don't know any language that existed during his lifetime? Right.

 

[Bunyip]

You applied common usage to Justin Martyr, even though you don't know any language that existed during his lifetime? Right.

No, Justin Martyr, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dilahunty and several others so far. In none of which cases is my ignorance of ancient Greek significant.

 

[Altfish]

For Atheists:

How do you define God?
This is hard because I'm being asked to define something that I don't believe exists.
However, I suppose that god is defined as the creator of the universe and a 'being' that watches over us all.

What would convince you theists were right?
How about an appearance of god on TV when she could perform an act that would convince me that they are indeed the creator. I wouldn't want a damaging act but something that would benefit mankind, something simple like (say) making the climate in the Sahara Dessert temperate and habitable.

Could you be convinced?
Oh yes. My mind is open to new evidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, Justin Martyr, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dilahunty and several others so far.

Justin Martyr didn't use the words atheism or atheist. The word atheos didn't indicate belief or disbelief in gods. You're relying on a translation and the new atheist anti-intellectual betrayal of atheism to misuse a word despite your own previous statements about the consistency of your usage of with dictionaries and common usage (not a few popular authors who try to duck out of making any intellectually honest argument by defining terms to make themselves correct and then insisting these are somehow necessary meanings of the terms they misuse).

In none of which cases is my ignorance of ancient Greek significant.

Except insofar as you have quoted Justin Martyr as saying something he COULDN'T have meant. Hence "...In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable. The term atheos did not originate before the fifth century and even then indicated only a lack of relations with the gods." (emphasis added)
Bremmer, J. (1994). Greek Religion (Greece & Rome No. 24). Oxford University Press.

And I notice you have continued to define atheism in contradiction to dictionary definitions and usage (as far as usage is concerned, you have the new atheism-i.e., a couple of authors- and I have the largest and best corpora of the English language. Which is more likely to reflect usage? A few authors or a balanced sample from spoke and written use of the English language in corpora that include American English, British English, Web-based English, historical English, and more?

 

[Bunyip]

Justin Martyr didn't use the words atheism or atheist. The word atheos didn't indicate belief or disbelief in gods. You're relying on a translation and the new atheist anti-intellectual betrayal of atheism to misuse a word despite your own previous statements about the consistency of your usage of with dictionaries and common usage (not a few popular authors who try to duck out of making any intellectually honest argument by defining terms to make themselves correct and then insisting these are somehow necessary meanings of the terms they misuse).


Except insofar as you have quoted Justin Martyr as saying something he COULDN'T have meant. Hence "...In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable. The term atheos did not originate before the fifth century and even then indicated only a lack of relations with the gods." (emphasis added)
Bremmer, J. (1994). Greek Religion (Greece & Rome No. 24). Oxford University Press.

And I notice you have continued to define atheism in contradiction to dictionary definitions and usage (as far as usage is concerned, you have the new atheism-i.e., a couple of authors- and I have the largest and best corpora of the English language. Which is more likely to reflect usage? A few authors or a balanced sample from spoke and written use of the English language in corpora that include American English, British English, Web-based English, historical English, and more?

And when Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and all the others I identified applied that usage (not to forget the person I originally attributed it to)?

They were all wrong to use that usage, because they don't know Greek I take it?

They dared to apply atheism as an adjective as I have done? Heaven forfend!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And when Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and all the others I identified applied that usage (not to forget the person I originally attributed it to)?

1) None applied Justin Martyr's usage.
2) We can marshal more examples of usage like yours by using this site. What we find, though, are almost entirely atheists of a particular type (new atheists or influenced by them) who prefer to abandon the intellectual integrity of their forebears by defining themselves to be the "default" position rather than defending/arguing for their position. What we won't find is that this is consistent with "usage" outside of such small circles. And what we certainly don't find is any evidence for your claim that your usage is consistent with dictionary definitions rather than wholly inconsistent (as it is).

They dared to apply atheism as an adjective as I have done? Heaven forfend!

They "dared" to use idiomatic definitions instead of intellectual arguments. How courageous. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Russell, Gould, etc., were all moronic cowards compared to Hitchens and you.

 

[Bunyip]

1) None applied Justin Martyr's usage.
2) We can marshal more examples of usage like yours by using this site. What we find, though, are almost entirely atheists of a particular type (new atheists or influenced by them) who prefer to abandon the intellectual integrity of their forebears by defining themselves to be the "default" position rather than defending/arguing for their position. What we won't find is that this is consistent with "usage" outside of such small circles. And what we certainly don't find is any evidence for your claim that your usage is consistent with dictionary definitions rather than wholly inconsistent (as it is).


They "dared" to use idiomatic definitions instead of intellectual arguments. How courageous. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Russell, Gould, etc., were all moronic cowards compared to Hitchens and you.

They all employed Justin Martyrs usage, but remind me - why is this a problem? The topic here is 'proof of god's existence'. You appear to be ranting.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They all employed Justin Martyrs usage

They all meant that it is inconceivable to disbelieve in gods and that atheism means a lack of relations with gods one believes in? So all atheists believe in gods? Really? Interesting. Which gods do Dawkins, Harris, you, etc., believe in so as to be consistent with Justin Martyrs usage?

but remind me - why is this a problem?

Because dialogue requires a common basis, even if it is rooted in disagreement, and language is the most fundamental of these. No discussion of belief is possible when you seek to refine belief, epistemology, logic, and the nature of language to make your view correct by definition (one you construct or have borrowed).

The topic here is 'proof of god's existence'. You appear to be ranting.

And you've been responding consistently up until now. Could it be that you will pursue tangents up until it is blatantly obvious your attempt to defend your claims are wrong? Yes.

 

[Laika]

Because dialogue requires a common basis, even if it is rooted in disagreement, and language is the most fundamental of these. No discussion of belief is possible when you seek to refine belief, epistemology, logic, and the nature of language to make your view correct by definition (one you construct or have borrowed).

For the record, I couldn't agree more. Atheists are becoming, at best, tiresome on RF for a refusal to engage in the philosophical questions this entails.

 

[Bunyip]

They all meant that it is inconceivable to disbelieve in gods and that atheism means a lack of relations with gods one believes in? So all atheists believe in gods? Really? Interesting. Which gods do Dawkins, Harris, you, etc., believe in so as to be consistent with Justin Martyrs usage?


Because dialogue requires a common basis, even if it is rooted in disagreement, and language is the most fundamental of these. No discussion of belief is possible when you seek to refine belief, epistemology, logic, and the nature of language to make your view correct by definition (one you construct or have borrowed).


And you've been responding consistently up until now. Could it be that you will pursue tangents up until it is blatantly obvious your attempt to defend your claims are wrong? Yes.

What claim is that? That all theists are atheist in relation to all Gods other than their own? As Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and many others have applied the usage? Is that the crime I am charged with? Really?

 

[Bunyip]

For the record, I couldn't agree more. Atheists are becoming, at best, tiresome on RF for a refusal to engage in the philosophical questions this entails.

Such as? As I understand it atheism only speaks to a single philosophical question - the existence of God.

 

[Laika]

Such as?

Pretty much the atheist demands proof from the theist, then dismisses any proof the theist presents because it doesn't fit with their preconceptions. Then the reverse happens but because the atheist defines themselves by "lack of belief" (whilst implictly accepting that naturalism is the default position and self-evidently the nature of reality), they have no burden of proof. Whilst professing scepticism, the possibility of deism as based on reason and observation of nature is not considered.

Because I'm a materialist, I'm coming from the opposite direction that naturalism is not self-evident and I keep ending up on the wrong side of this inspite of being an atheist because I do believe there is a burden of proof even as I struggle to define it.

 

[Bunyip]

Pretty much the atheist demands proof from the theist, then dismisses any proof the theist presents because it doesn't fit with their preconceptions. Then the reverse happens but because the atheist defines themselves by "lack of belief" (whilst implictly accepting that naturalism is the default position and self-evidently the nature of reality), they have no burden of proof. Whilst professing scepticism, the possibility of deism as based on reason and observation of nature is not considered.

Because I'm a materialist, I'm coming from the opposite direction that naturalism is not self-evident and I keep ending up on the wrong side of this inspite of being an atheist because I do believe there is a burden of proof even as I struggle to define it.

But I'm not demanding proof. What made you assume that I was? I even said that I did not demand proof a couple,of times earlier..
Given that I am not demanding proof, what burden of proof does my atheism bear?

 

[Laika]

But I'm not demanding proof. What made you assume that I was? I even said that I did not demand proof a couple,of times earlier.

My apologies then. I'm letting off steam and wanted to vent. seemed a moment to do it. it was not personally directed at you or anyone, but the atmosphere on RF can get a bit toxic when this pattern keeps repeating itself. it shuts debates down very quickly. Its making me feel sorry for the believers, creationists, etc and want to take sides with them even though I don't actually share the majority of their beliefs.