If we say "not *your* God"?

[Grega]

When atheists such as me say we don't believe 'your' God exists do you take that to mean that we reject whole-heartedly the notion that *any* creator entity (who's characteristics need be in no way related to 'G'od) has/does exist?

This question inspired by a thead I cannot respond to

*edit* in spite of the original derivation of the word, in general, atheists define themselves as those who "don't believe in God", the extent of this disbelief falling just short of the intellectually dishonest claim "there exists no God". Only 'strong' atheists assert the latter.

 

[70x7]

This is how athesim is defined in the dictionary:
"a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity"

Pulled this one from About.com
"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist."

So basically YES. Atheism is taken as the believe in the absence of a diety. I would incure that if you just do not believe in say the christian God or any god for that matter, then you are not a very good atheist.

 

[Grega]

This is how athesim is defined in the dictionary:
"a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity"

Pulled this one from About.com
"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist."

So basically YES. Atheism is taken as the believe in the absence of a diety. I would incure that if you just do not believe in say the christian God or any god for that matter, then you are not a very good atheist.

Thats a misconception...to say one is an atheist is to say they are not a theist
Where theism is defined as
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist

to be an atheist is to negate that view ie:
not the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation
This is different from:
The belief that no gods exist


Similarly if we define "redballist" to mean belief that red balls are best, to say one is an aredballist would be to say they are of the position "not red balls are best" from which you can infer only that an aredballist doesn't agree that red balls are best.

 

[arunma]

When atheists such as me say we don't believe 'your' God exists do you take that to mean that we reject whole-heartedly the notion that *any* creator entity (who's characteristics need be in no way related to 'G'od) has/does exist?

This question inspired by a thead I cannot respond to

My answer to this question is: I don't care. But I don't want you to infer apathy from this. The reason I say this is because in order to be saved from hell, one must trust in Jesus Christ and love him wholeheartedly. Belief in the God of Israel happens to be a prerequisite for this, but is not the means of salvation. Theists who believe in the true God (for example Jews or Muslims) but reject Jesus will not be saved. So if you reject the true God and his Son Jesus Christ, then it is of little consequence what you believe. I am more concerned that you receive Christ and be saved.

 

[Chesterton]

Here we go again - trying to figure out Grega's riddles using Grega's private, personal definitions of things. You're like a casino - no one can beat your games because you keep the odds on your side - the odds being your own custom-made definitions of words and ideas.

 

[Grega]

Here we go again - trying to figure out Grega's riddles using Grega's private, personal definitions of things. You're like a casino - no one can beat your games because you keep the odds on your side - the odds being your own custom-made definitions of words and ideas.

No riddles, no games just asking how many people have this false notion that
¬(Belief that 'G'od exists) = Belief no god exists.

btw...as for your snipe shot above, I try to take the literal interpretation of all the attributes you give to god as opposed to guessing the fuzzy-wuzzy approximations to some other notion you have by using such words. Also, your problems arise because you don't use your terms correctly. 'to conceive' being one of these :)

 

[Grega]

My answer to this question is: I don't care. But I don't want you to infer apathy from this. The reason I say this is because in order to be saved from hell, one must trust in Jesus Christ and love him wholeheartedly. Belief in the God of Israel happens to be a prerequisite for this, but is not the means of salvation. Theists who believe in the true God (for example Jews or Muslims) but reject Jesus will not be saved. So if you reject the true God and his Son Jesus Christ, then it is of little consequence what you believe. I am more concerned that you receive Christ and be saved.

Fair enough!

 

[Chesterton]

No riddles, no games just asking how many people have this false notion that
¬(Belief that 'G'od exists) = Belief no god exists.

First, what does this invented word - 'G'od - mean? (Capital G with apostrophes?) I've never seen it before you proffered it here.

btw...as for your snipe shot above, I try to take the literal interpretation of all the attributes you give to god as opposed to guessing the fuzzy-wuzzy approximations to some other notion you have by using such words. Your problems arise because you don't use your terms correctly. 'to conceive' being one of these ;]

Okay, forgive me for the small snipe shot, but I think it's true. Reality is fuzzy-wuzzy. So the more literal you try to be, the more you subtract or add something which may or may not belong in our understanding. Our problems arise because you don't use terms correctly, and by correctly I mean according to the collective previously decided upon definitions.

 

[Grega]

First, what does this invented word - 'G'od - mean? (Capital G with apostrophes?) I've never seen it before you proffered it here.



Okay, forgive me for the small snipe shot, but I think it's true. Reality is fuzzy-wuzzy. So the more literal you try to be, the more you subtract or add something which may or may not belong in our understanding. Our problems arise because you don't use terms correctly, and by correctly I mean according to the collective previously decided upon definitions.

First, what does this invented word - 'G'od - mean? (Capital G with apostrophes?) I've never seen it before you proffered it here.
The Christian capitalised 'G' God (not 'god') who likes to be refered to as 'L'ord (not lord), 'H'im (not him), 'H'oly 'G'host, etc...Some times I say 'your' god to mean the same thing. Essentially I'm referring to a specific formulation of a god; yours!

Okay, forgive me for the small snipe shot, but I think it's true. Reality is fuzzy-wuzzy. So the more literal you try to be, the more you subtract or add something which may or may not belong in our understanding. Our problems arise because you don't use terms correctly, and by correctly I mean according to the collective previously decided upon definitions.
But words like 'perfect', 'omniscient', 'conceive', etc.. should not be fuzzy-wuzzy. Especially if you would insert the latter into a "proof" for your god Chesterton. ;)
I can't know the degree to which you would use some word or term to 'best approximate' some other notion; and so you can assume from now on that if I take some attribute mentioned about 'your' god I refer to it's literal meaning.

 

[Chesterton]

The Christian capitalised 'G' God (not 'god') who likes to be refered to as 'L'ord (not lord), 'H'im (not him), 'H'oly 'G'host, etc...Some times I say 'your' god to mean the same thing. Essentially I'm referring to a specific formulation of a god; yours!

If you want to be respectful and exact, you can type [God]; if you want to be snide and inexact, you can type [god]. Otherwise I can refer to you as Grega, or ‘G’rega or grega(s). After all, I have no proof that “ ‘g[G]rega(s)” ‘ exist or exists or has existed or will exist at some unspecified time in the future or...come to think of it, I can make you whatever I want to make you.

But words like 'perfect', 'omniscient', 'conceive', etc.. should not be fuzzy-wuzzy. Especially if you would insert the latter into a "proof" for god Chesterton. ;)
I can't know the degree to which you would use some word or term to 'best approximate' some other notion; and so you can assume from now on that if I take some attribute mentioned about 'your' god I refer to it's literal meaning.

Speaking for myself, I have no “proof” of God to offer, so maybe I’ll just stay out of this thread. I’ll monitor it in case you find someone who does, because I’d be interested in seeing that.

 

[Grega]

If you want to be respectful and exact, you can type [God]; if you want to be snide and inexact, you can type [god]. Otherwise I can refer to you as Grega, or ‘G’rega or grega(s). After all, I have no proof that “ ‘g[G]rega(s)” ‘ exist or exists or has existed or will exist at some unspecified time in the future or...come to think of it, I can make you whatever I want to make you.




Speaking for myself, I have no “proof” of God to offer, so maybe I’ll just stay out of this thread. I’ll monitor it in case you find someone who does, because I’d be interested in seeing that.

If you want to be respectful and exact, you can type [God]; if you want to be snide and inexact, you can type [god]. Otherwise I can refer to you as Grega, or ‘G’rega or grega(s). After all, I have no proof that “ ‘g[G]rega(s)” ‘ exist or exists or has existed or will exist at some unspecified time in the future or...come to think of it, I can make you whatever I want to make you.
With regards to personal preference I am not too fond of your suggestion. I accentuate the capital G so as to distance myself from "any old god/God" where God could just be taken to be some god from the set of ALL gods that could be supposed by someone to exist.
I suppose better is God...yeah I'll use that from now on.

Speaking for myself, I have no “proof” of God to offer, so maybe I’ll just stay out of this thread. I’ll monitor it in case you find someone who does, because I’d be interested in seeing that.
You did in that other thread ;)

 

[ephraimanesti]

When atheists such as me say we don't believe 'your' God exists do you take that to mean that we reject whole-heartedly the notion that *any* creator entity (who's characteristics need be in no way related to 'G'od) has/does exist?

In other words you are hedging your bets "just in case."

ephraim

 

[NewToLife]

When atheists such as me say we don't believe 'your' God exists do you take that to mean that we reject whole-heartedly the notion that *any* creator entity (who's characteristics need be in no way related to 'G'od) has/does exist?

This question inspired by a thead I cannot respond to

If your question corresponds to a question about creator gods then the fact you ascribe the word atheist to yourself implies that you reject all creator gods, your expression of disbelief in God in such a scenario seems superfluous to the question.

If by creator entity you mean something other than a creator god then frankly I think your question is an example of how to mangle language. Given the context afterall it is hard to read the phrase as anything but a creator god yet the fact you used it at all leads me to believe there is some semantic trap lurking in wait for anyone who attempts an answer.

 

[NewToLife]

Thats a misconception...to say one is an atheist is to say they are not a theist

Actually you are simply wrong here, in fact the word atheism pre-dates the word theism and is derived indirectly from the greek atheous via French. The idea that atheist is derived the same way as a word such as amoral by simply prefixing 'a' to negate an existing term is a mistake, an understandable one but a mistake nevertheless.

 

[Grega]

If your question corresponds to a question about creator gods then the fact you ascribe the word atheist to yourself implies that you reject all creator gods, your expression of disbelief in God in such a scenario seems superfluous to the question.

If by creator entity you mean something other than a creator god then frankly I think your question is an example of how to mangle language. Given the context afterall it is hard to read the phrase as anything but a creator god yet the fact you used it at all leads me to believe there is some semantic trap lurking in wait for anyone who attempts an answer.

If your question corresponds to a question about creator gods then the fact you ascribe the word atheist to yourself implies that you reject all creator gods, your expression of disbelief in God in such a scenario seems superfluous to the question.
When you say 'reject' do you mean to say we have the view "nope, never, absolutely 100% sure that God doesn't exist"?
I only have such views when the formulations of people's Gods that are sufficiently defined to me can be demonstrated as incoherrent.
I say it doesn't imply that I reject ALL gods. I simply don't accept (albeit tending strongly towards rejection) the theist notion of some particular god (whatever it may be).
I suppose you might argue that if you kept presenting me with particular gods ad-infinitum I would eventually reject all of them. This would be false of course because you could only ever present to me a finite number of gods that you, as something not living in the dimensions where such gods might reside, have somehow defined.
If there is a god I see no reason why it should behave or be any way similar to what you think it should.

If by creator entity you mean something other than a creator god then frankly I think your question is an example of how to mangle language. Given the context afterall it is hard to read the phrase as anything but a creator god yet the fact you used it at all leads me to believe there is some semantic trap lurking in wait for anyone who attempts an answer.
I say create entity because if the universe was 'created' as opposed to an infinite number of big bangs/crunches or one particular universe spawned from a multiverse; then I have no reason to assert aything about this entity that did the creating. For all I know it could be a magic pot
No semantic traps

 

[Grega]

Actually you are simply wrong here, in fact the word atheism pre-dates the word theism and is derived indirectly from the greek atheous via French. The idea that atheist is derived the same way as a word such as amoral by simply prefixing 'a' to negate an existing term is a mistake, an understandable one but a mistake nevertheless.

Two points.
Firstly, this should be demonstrable! sources please
secondly, moot point. The word has become accepted in our times such that the 'a' does work as a prefix

 

[Grega]

In other words you are hedging your bets "just in case."

ephraim

In other words you are hedging your bets "just in case."
Nope...I'm quite sure 'your' god doesn't exist

 

[Chesterton]

Nope...I'm quite sure 'your' god doesn't exist

If you're "quite sure", what else about Christianity are you "exploring"?

 

[Grega]

If you're "quite sure", what else about Christianity are you "exploring"?

Again, you misunderstand me (fault mine). notice I empahasised 'your'? it means that I think ephraims formulation of God is garbage.

I recognise 3 sets of gods:
1) The set of All possible gods whatever they maybe
2) The set of all defined gods (certainly not a subset of (1))
3) The set of people's formualations of those in (2)
It is difficult without tone of voice to communicate exactly wha I mean

 

[NewToLife]

Two points.
Firstly, this should be demonstrable! sources please
secondly, moot point. The word has become accepted in our times such that the 'a' does work as a prefix

Any decent etymology text or site will suffice as your source. For instance;

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

As for moot points you are again simply incorrect, normal usage outside of the attempts of atheist activists to redefine the term still aligns with the original etymology rather than Anthony Flew's attempted redefinition. An atheist is a person who denies God he is not simply someone who lacks theism. Etymology is not altered by accepted usage in any case, only meaning can be and the claim that atheist is from a-theist is an etymological claim which should be obvious if you think it through.