If we say "not *your* God"?

[Grega]

"Noted" for sure! Sounds like a serious identity crises to me!

No wonder atheists have trouble with definitions of God--they appear to not be able even to define themselves clearly.

ephraim

wrong...you define us as you would prefer, to defend your weak position

 

[Grega]

Sorry dude,

Atheists have one defining characteristic: They believe there is no god.

It's a belief. It's an -ism, you're an -ist, deal with it.

Now, by and far the English language is defined by the masses, so "agnostic" currently has a usage other then it's technical definition. I'd say that SO MANY people think that it's some kind of fence-sitting belief that the word actually does have that meaning. It's technical definition being the belief that we can't know for sure of the existence of god.

Wikipedia not only has all the answers, it is actually defining the answers.

what is more important, that you don't agree with how we define the label we attach to our world-view, or the world-view itself?

 

[NewToLife]

To not believe in any god is the default position, so yes, plant pots, ashtrays, and babies would be best described by some word that captured this detail if one wanted to be pedantic.

That you imagine you ( or atheists as a whole ) dictate language usage to the rest of us is absurd.

Coincidently the 'large group that won't budge from their archaic definition of the word atheism seem to be...well who'd have thought! theists!

This is untrue and demonstrably so everytime an agnostic rejects the label atheism.

No...I was shown to be wrong (be sure to make a big deal of that in your next response ), and that in its derivation 'a' did not prefix it to negate theism as I'd first thought. Still doesn't detract from the point that the majority if us 'atheists' don't agree with this currently accepted definition.
You're quibbling over a label, we're quibbling over our world view. Which is more profound?

If we accept your definition then this is not true, firstly most atheists would be babies and say nothing at all, secondly you would include a group of people who consider themselves agnostic rather than atheist and finally even amongst those who we both agree are in fact atheists there is not the agreement you claim. Even a quick trip to probably the bastion of your position Secularweb and a search ( ok I'll give a link to one article there go find the rest on your own http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html ) will confirm this to anyone who doubts it. Atheists even as I define them are not in agreement, let alone atheists as you define them. Aside of all this meaning is not defined solely by those who fall into the group the label is attached to, that simply is not how language works.

Agnostic" as the position: "I don't know" is far too weak "Atheistic" (as you would define it) is slightly too strong, for it is intellectually dishonest to claim there are no gods. We (apart from strong atheists) grant there is some possibility (considered small on our part) that a god may exist but operate as though there was not.

What you can prove and what you believe do not necessarily line up exactly, atheism is about what you believe not what you can prove. The fact that you cannot prove your belief appears to be the driver for the sham of pretending not to hold a belief at all.

Furthermore about babies, (Your own little strawman eh?...ooh look at its cute little straw arms!) it isn't really correct to talk about their religious views until they are old enough to decide them for themselves. But if you wanted to be pedantic then as I said above "atheist" (as we define it to be the negation of theism, so to prevent equivocation on your part) is the way to go!

Are you seriously claiming babies do not match your definition, if you aren't your attempts to claim strawman are laughable, if you are then please demonstrate that babies do not lack belief in this area. As for the idea that babies are atheists, the idea is so far from common usage as to be perverse. I'd also note that your attempted get out that we should not speak of babies views, which ios to say beliefs, is a tad inconsistent given that you define atheism as a lack of belief, surely its either a belief or it isnt, make your mind up.

Ah special pleading on your part now eh? That word has a lot more currency with its homosexual meaning than its old definition

I was referring to the word atheist, I obviously failed to understand your meaning. Aside of that the word gay bears no comparison with atheism in that regard in that the word gay has indeed altered in the mainstream yet the word atheist has not.

No, it would be you that makes such a claim. Given that the concensus amongst us atheists is that we have a pretty specific position, you have the option of attacking the label we use, or our positon itself. You choose the former.

Actually I choose to expose the dishonest attempt to slip atheism through the door dressed up as agnosticism. Nice try though. A wolf can be dressed up as a sheep but it's still a wolf.

But I have been shown to be wrong!...what else should I do other than acknowledge it and move on???
That aside 'common' usage is that which theists (of which there is currently the greater number) would use as a smoke bomb to distract us.
But in spite of this, I know what I am, as do my peers.

Blah blah, 'you theists are the one whose evil conspiracy prevents people from accepting our innocent redefinition'. Laughable, if you actually believe it even more so.

 

[NewToLife]

As a mathematician (in training) it would seem I'm pretty bugg.ered then with this definition. If I assert I don't believe proposition X (yet) I am asserting X is false???

Actually if you assert you do not believe X to be true then you assert that you believe X not to be true. Thats how the language works. You seem to be trying to swap out your belief in the second part for an assertion that you can prove your belief. The error is subtle but quite fatal to understanding. Aside of that you seem to be trying to introduce a specialist usage into general usage as though it overrides that general usage, this is not conducive to clarity of communication but then it's not supposed to be is it?

In all of these you are setting up strawmen for the smackdown they deserve. (go get em tiger...RAGGHHHH! )
As atheists we don't claim to have 'no' beliefs we claim we see no reason to believe those claims made by theists

As an atheist you declare by use of the label that you disbelieve in Gods, if that isnt what you mean you should refrain from saying it. The word means what it means whether or not you like it. As for all the sophistry you attempt to try and pretend that you have no belief in this area, well, sophistry is not impressive to anyone who can see it for what it is. Are you seriously asking others to believe that the statement 'does not believe in Gods' is not an accurate picture of the atheist position? I dont believe it and no the nice man can't have £10,000 to process the lottery win thats waiting for me in a third world bank account.

make 'what' statements please?

Those implicit in your choice to name yourself an atheist....

True, it need not necessarily imply that it is a personal god, I just find that all to often this is the inference drawn. 'God' is a bit like 'art', it is a fuzzy term that changes its meaning from person to person.

Apparently for you it's like the word atheist then, which begs the question why you are happy to use atheist but unhappy to use the word God. You really are extremely inconsistent in that your usage of the word atheist is probably even more likely to mislead or cause confusion yet you cling to it quite tenaciously.

By the same token, your enthusiasm to caricature a persons position to serve your own ends hinders any profitable discourse. Are you a Kent Hovind fan by any chance?

Haha, could it get any weaker, I have expressed no creationist position at all yet you desperately play the Hovind card to try and win some sympathy. At least my Lear comment is relevent given your propensity to mess with the language....

 

[NewToLife]

Sorry dude,

Atheists have one defining characteristic: They believe there is no god.

It's a belief. It's an -ism, you're an -ist, deal with it.

Now, by and far the English language is defined by the masses, so "agnostic" currently has a usage other then it's technical definition. I'd say that SO MANY people think that it's some kind of fence-sitting belief that the word actually does have that meaning. It's technical definition being the belief that we can't know for sure of the existence of god.

Wikipedia not only has all the answers, it is actually defining the answers.

And here we have it, an agnostic who rejects the label atheist for himself and is quite clear what the word atheist means. I guess we can dispence with the idea that it's only theists who reject your definition now eh Grega....

 

[Grega]

That you imagine you ( or atheists as a whole ) dictate language usage to the rest of us is absurd.



This is untrue and demonstrably so everytime an agnostic rejects the label atheism.



If we accept your definition then this is not true, firstly most atheists would be babies and say nothing at all, secondly you would include a group of people who consider themselves agnostic rather than atheist and finally even amongst those who we both agree are in fact atheists there is not the agreement you claim. Even a quick trip to probably the bastion of your position Secularweb and a search ( ok I'll give a link to one article there go find the rest on your own http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html ) will confirm this to anyone who doubts it. Atheists even as I define them are not in agreement, let alone atheists as you define them. Aside of all this meaning is not defined solely by those who fall into the group the label is attached to, that simply is not how language works.



What you can prove and what you believe do not necessarily line up exactly, atheism is about what you believe not what you can prove. The fact that you cannot prove your belief appears to be the driver for the sham of pretending not to hold a belief at all.



Are you seriously claiming babies do not match your definition, if you aren't your attempts to claim strawman are laughable, if you are then please demonstrate that babies do not lack belief in this area. As for the idea that babies are atheists, the idea is so far from common usage as to be perverse. I'd also note that your attempted get out that we should not speak of babies views, which ios to say beliefs, is a tad inconsistent given that you define atheism as a lack of belief, surely its either a belief or it isnt, make your mind up.



I was referring to the word atheist, I obviously failed to understand your meaning. Aside of that the word gay bears no comparison with atheism in that regard in that the word gay has indeed altered in the mainstream yet the word atheist has not.



Actually I choose to expose the dishonest attempt to slip atheism through the door dressed up as agnosticism. Nice try though. A wolf can be dressed up as a sheep but it's still a wolf.



Blah blah, 'you theists are the one whose evil conspiracy prevents people from accepting our innocent redefinition'. Laughable, if you actually believe it even more so.

That you imagine you ( or atheists as a whole ) dictate language usage to the rest of us is absurd.
blah blah

This is untrue and demonstrably so everytime an agnostic rejects the label atheism.
Logic error
You cannot conclude that my above claim has been countered since I did not say the large group of theists is the only group.

If we accept your definition then this is not true, firstly most atheists would be babies and say nothing at all, secondly you would include a group of people who consider themselves agnostic rather than atheist and finally even amongst those who we both agree are in fact atheists there is not the agreement you claim. Even a quick trip to probably the bastion of your position Secularweb and a search ( ok I'll give a link to one article there go find the rest on your own http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html ) will confirm this to anyone who doubts it. Atheists even as I define them are not in agreement, let alone atheists as you define them. Aside of all this meaning is not defined solely by those who fall into the group the label is attached to, that simply is not how language works.
Notice in the first paragraph of that link the following:
you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false
That which I have bolded supports my assertion that we do not need to claim "there exists no God"

With respect to babies and such, it is silly to suggest they have any position at all on religion (not surprising though you bring it up, lemme guess babies born to Christian parents are Christian babies eh?)...my point was one of pedantry.
I can't be bothered with it any further.

What you can prove and what you believe do not necessarily line up exactly, atheism is about what you believe not what you can prove. The fact that you cannot prove your belief appears to be the driver for the sham of pretending not to hold a belief at all.
I believe in no defined Gods, I operate as though they didn't exist. but I am sensible enough not to make the absolute claim they don't for I cannot demonstrate that I would never be wrong.

Are you seriously claiming babies do not match your definition, if you aren't your attempts to claim strawman are laughable, if you are then please demonstrate that babies do not lack belief in this area. As for the idea that babies are atheists, the idea is so far from common usage as to be perverse. I'd also note that your attempted get out that we should not speak of babies views, which ios to say beliefs, is a tad inconsistent given that you define atheism as a lack of belief, surely its either a belief or it isnt, make your mind up.
To speak about the belief set of babies is silly (you bring it up...not me), again it is only in the extreme of pedantry I pander to your strawmen and state that consistent with how I'd define atheism, then babies are atheists is the more accurate out of theist, agnostic, atheist.

I was referring to the word atheist, I obviously failed to understand your meaning. Aside of that the word gay bears no comparison with atheism in that regard in that the word gay has indeed altered in the mainstream yet the word atheist has not.
Silly!
The change of popular opinion has simply not happened yet. You seem to conclude it can't because of the current understanding. The non too subtle point that a shift in public opinion is not binary seems to have passed you by.

Actually I choose to expose the dishonest attempt to slip atheism through the door dressed up as agnosticism. Nice try though. A wolf can be dressed up as a sheep but it's still a wolf.
I find it funny that your position can be reduced to the following:
I hear you say that your position is X, but we define your label to mean your position is Y. Therefore your position isn't X, it is Y

Blah blah, 'you theists are the one whose evil conspiracy prevents people from accepting our innocent redefinition'. Laughable, if you actually believe it even more so
You have a weak position. You have to invent ways to undermine ours

 

[NewToLife]

Notice in the first paragraph of that link the following:
you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false
That which I have bolded supports my assertion that we do not need to claim "there exists no God"

Ok. we're done, no one has said you assert there is no God, merely that you assert that you believe there is no God and that this is not the same as the mere lack of theism you claim. The quote undermines your own claim yet here you are trying to claim it supports you...... There is clearly no actual point in speaking to you given that you shift definitions around to suit your arguement on an ongoing basis amking you basically impossible to understand in any meaningful way.

 

[Grega]

Actually if you assert you do not believe X to be true then you assert that you believe X not to be true. Thats how the language works. You seem to be trying to swap out your belief in the second part for an assertion that you can prove your belief. The error is subtle but quite fatal to understanding. Aside of that you seem to be trying to introduce a specialist usage into general usage as though it overrides that general usage, this is not conducive to clarity of communication but then it's not supposed to be is it?



As an atheist you declare by use of the label that you disbelieve in Gods, if that isnt what you mean you should refrain from saying it. The word means what it means whether or not you like it. As for all the sophistry you attempt to try and pretend that you have no belief in this area, well, sophistry is not impressive to anyone who can see it for what it is. Are you seriously asking others to believe that the statement 'does not believe in Gods' is not an accurate picture of the atheist position? I dont believe it and no the nice man can't have £10,000 to process the lottery win thats waiting for me in a third world bank account.



Those implicit in your choice to name yourself an atheist....



Apparently for you it's like the word atheist then, which begs the question why you are happy to use atheist but unhappy to use the word God. You really are extremely inconsistent in that your usage of the word atheist is probably even more likely to mislead or cause confusion yet you cling to it quite tenaciously.



Haha, could it get any weaker, I have expressed no creationist position at all yet you desperately play the Hovind card to try and win some sympathy. At least my Lear comment is relevent given your propensity to mess with the language....

Actually if you assert you do not believe X to be true then you assert that you believe X not to be true. Thats how the language works. You seem to be trying to swap out your belief in the second part for an assertion that you can prove your belief. The error is subtle but quite fatal to understanding. Aside of that you seem to be trying to introduce a specialist usage into general usage as though it overrides that general usage, this is not conducive to clarity of communication but then it's not supposed to be is it?
Silly!
This can be reduced to the suggestion that we recognise all things as being one of two immediately decidable states: true or false.
Rendering "I don't know" or "I don't know for sure" meaningless

As an atheist you declare by use of the label that you disbelieve in Gods, if that isnt what you mean you should refrain from saying it. The word means what it means whether or not you like it. As for all the sophistry you attempt to try and pretend that you have no belief in this area, well, sophistry is not impressive to anyone who can see it for what it is. Are you seriously asking others to believe that the statement 'does not believe in Gods' is not an accurate picture of the atheist position? I dont believe it and no the nice man can't have £10,000 to process the lottery win thats waiting for me in a third world bank account.
I do indeed disbelieve in God, but your reasoning above demonstrates that you think to not believe X is true implies belief that X is false. This is incorrect.

Those implicit in your choice to name yourself an atheist
eh? (again)

Apparently for you it's like the word atheist then, which begs the question why you are happy to use atheist but unhappy to use the word God. You really are extremely inconsistent in that your usage of the word atheist is probably even more likely to mislead or cause confusion yet you cling to it quite tenaciously.
Atheist is the most accurate reflection of my postion that I am allowed to choose on these boards.
God is a subjective term for theists, very poorly defined, and in some cases logically inconsistent

Haha, could it get any weaker, I have expressed no creationist position at all yet you desperately play the Hovind card to try and win some sympathy. At least my Lear comment is relevent given your propensity to mess with the language
Haha, could it get any weaker, I have expressed no creative writing interest at all yet you desperately play the Edward Lear card to try and win some credibility with your nonsense. At least my Hovind comment is relevent given your propensity to mess up logic and caracature a persons position.

 

[Grega]

Ok. we're done, no one has said you assert there is no God, merely that you assert that you believe there is no God and that this is not the same as the mere lack of theism you claim. The quote undermines your own claim yet here you are trying to claim it supports you...... There is clearly no actual point in speaking to you given that you shift definitions around to suit your arguement on an ongoing basis amking you basically impossible to understand in any meaningful way.

Ok. we're done, no one has said you assert there is no God, merely that you assert that you believe there is no God and that this is not the same as the mere lack of theism you claim. The quote undermines your own claim yet here you are trying to claim it supports you...... There is clearly no actual point in speaking to you given that you shift definitions around to suit your arguement on an ongoing basis amking you basically impossible to understand in any meaningful way.
Silly!
I admitted I was wrong about this.

But yeah cheerio, byeeee!!!

 

[NewToLife]

Ok. we're done, no one has said you assert there is no God, merely that you assert that you believe there is no God and that this is not the same as the mere lack of theism you claim. The quote undermines your own claim yet here you are trying to claim it supports you...... There is clearly no actual point in speaking to you given that you shift definitions around to suit your arguement on an ongoing basis amking you basically impossible to understand in any meaningful way.
Silly!
I admitted I was wrong about this.

But yeah cheerio, byeeee!!!

Ok, I am now intrigued, so before I leave for good I will ask two questions to try and grasp what exactly your position here is;

Do you accept that theism is belief that a god or gods exist and that atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist?

If so do you recognise that these are essentially similar in that they are both a claim to belief and not an assertion of fact?

I wont be replying but would be interested in seeing the answer to these questions.

 

[Grega]

Ok, I am now intrigued, so before I leave for good I will ask two questions to try and grasp what exactly your position here is;

Do you accept that theism is belief that a god or gods exist and that atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist?

If so do you recognise that these are essentially similar in that they are both a claim to belief and not an assertion of fact?

I wont be replying but would be interested in seeing the answer to these questions.

Ok, I am now intrigued, so before I leave for good I will ask two questions to try and grasp what exactly your position here is;

Do you accept that theism is belief that a god or gods exist and that atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist?

If so do you recognise that these are essentially similar in that they are both a claim to belief and not an assertion of fact?

I wont be replying but would be interested in seeing the answer to these questions.
The (currently) accepted definition of the word is not the negation of theism as I'd first thought, but it is not (and your link alone demonstrates this) the position "no god or gods" exist

For your second question atheism is I suppose, a belief that the existence of a god or gods is unlikely given the current justification for such a proposition. It isn't a belief they don't exist.

 

[NewToLife]

For your second question atheism is I suppose, a belief that the existence of a god or gods is unlikely given the current justification for such a proposition. It isn't a belief they don't exist.

As someone noted earlier I'll let you argue it out with the dictionary;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

 

[Grega]

As someone noted earlier I'll let you argue it out with the dictionary;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

or how about
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

"Here is how the OED defines "atheism":
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. (=/= asserting false, Grega)

deny
To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce. "

You will pick out those you like, I will do likewise

 

[NewToLife]

or how about
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

"Here is how the OED defines "atheism":
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. (=/= asserting false, Grega)

deny
To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce. "

You will pick out those you like, I will do likewise

ROFL, you hand-picked the definition and even then felt compelled to add a comment to try and get people to read it as you want them to! It's laughable given that I have never actually stated you asserted the proposition concerned was false anyway! Merely that you assert that you believe it to be so! You have spent several posts demolishing what was never actually said and much to my amusement have even added commentary patting yourself on the back for your efforts ( why you imagine its impressive to miss the target is beyond me ). Arguing against what was never said is not actually a substitute for addressing the actual points made.

The saddest thing is that you actually appear to think the meaning of the words is a up for debate and if you can only win the arguement ( or even a tangential point? ) the meanings become what you want them to be. Such behaviour makes honest debate pretty much impossible. I mean for goodness sakes, you have already been forced to totally abandon your first attempt to mislead with a false definition yet your reaction is to immediately start to try and hget a new definition to fly in place of the first. The agenda could not really be any plainer.

 

[dewaddict84]

Soooooooo..... What's the point of all this again? Are you guys really nitpicking some definition nuance that most people won't get, won't care about, or will actively reject?

All that said, I find labels kinda confining. If you want to get technical, I'm an apathetic *gnostic who is pretty sure there's no god. I truthfully don't care about god. The ignorance of my fellow man, that's why I'm here.

(*gnostic because I believe that if god descended from the heavens and said hello, then that'd be pretty good proof. But I don't really think that's going to happen.)

 

[Apodictic]

Soooooooo..... What's the point of all this again? Are you guys really nitpicking some definition nuance that most people won't get, won't care about, or will actively reject?

All that said, I find labels kinda confining.

I agree with you. Labels are terrible ways of determining what someone is or believes. It is much easier to just ask them, get their views or essence straight from them, then if you feel so compelled to do so, label them under some category you feel they fit into, although this final step is rather pointless.

 

[NewToLife]

Soooooooo..... What's the point of all this again? Are you guys really nitpicking some definition nuance that most people won't get, won't care about, or will actively reject?

All that said, I find labels kinda confining. If you want to get technical, I'm an apathetic *gnostic who is pretty sure there's no god. I truthfully don't care about god. The ignorance of my fellow man, that's why I'm here.

(*gnostic because I believe that if god descended from the heavens and said hello, then that'd be pretty good proof. But I don't really think that's going to happen.)

The main point is simply to block a move that various atheists ( note there are those who actually oppose this move also ) have repeatedly been trying since 1979, when Flew first tried this line in debate ( with Craig I think? ). That is they wish to define away, by equivocation rather than actual abandonment, their own belief in order to try and gain advantage in debate. Usually the advantage sought is that of shifting any burden of proof away from their own position in the attempt to define atheism as a default state rather than a belief the atheist holds. If they were to achieve that they would then move to saying that atheism is the natural default and that all reasonable people should be atheist without very strong reasons to be otherwise. Effectively that would move the debate from a point where both sides have a position to actually defend and that can be examined to a situation in which the atheist only has to attack the theistic arguements but not defend his own. All this leaves theists no option but to defend against the attempted equivocation because it has the potential to distort all atheist-theist debate.

Most theists ( including me ) would happily not be having the discussion but if we do not do so we may as well just not turn up to debate at all, the advantage this fallacious line would give atheists if not challenged is simply too great, yet as your post shows it looks like pointless pedantry to anyone who is unaware that the move is not actually a pointless trivia but an attempt at a decisive move in the wider debate.

 

[dewaddict84]

NewToLife

Huh. That's a pretty good explanation. And here I thought it was nit-picking.

I'd have to agree with the atheist side of the larger debate, in that non-belief or ignorance (or whatever you want to call it) is the default state. ie, babies and the Chinese have no faith in god. I'm not sure you could make the argument that since it's the default, it must be better. Babies are also born without a sense of civilization, but nobody is calling for more feral children.

You could say that a colony of feral children left on an island for a couple generations would revere the sun and probably make their own religion to explain the unknown. Indeed they'd probably associate all sorts of things to their religion, like the sun, their creation, the island, water, lightning, rain, etc etc. They'd similarly seek out shelter, learn to crack open coconuts, and carve out canoes. Things to serve their needs and desires, and explaining the unknown is a desire. And when they launched their coconut-fueled rockets into space they would learn the sun is not some dude on a canoe, it's actually a giant fireball. Some would hold out and say that the canoe was a metaphor and the dude is still there. But the more and more they learn, the less and less that they would need religion to explain things. Then they'd see a trend, and some would have the belief that there wasn't any dude to begin with. And THAT, I would call a good thing.

But hey, there's a lot of stuff we still can't explain yet. If some of you still need a religion so you can feel you've got the answers to the universe, go for it. But please let us study the world some more and try to explain it.

 

[Chesterton]

You could say that a colony of feral children left on an island for a couple generations would revere the sun and probably make their own religion to explain the unknown.

And that I’d call a good thing.

Indeed they'd probably associate all sorts of things to their religion, like the sun, their creation, the island, water, lightning, rain, etc etc.

As I do.

They'd similarly seek out shelter, learn to crack open coconuts, and carve out canoes. Things to serve their needs and desires, and explaining the unknown is a desire. And when they launched their coconut-fueled rockets into space they would learn the sun is not some dude on a canoe, it's actually a giant fireball.

What’s the difference between a giant fireball and a dude on a canoe?

Some would hold out and say that the canoe was a metaphor and the dude is still there.

And whoever said the hold outs were wrong would do so based on a belief that that wasn’t true, i.e., they couldn’t disprove the metaphorical assertion, and they couldn’t disprove the dude they simply couldn’t see with their eyes.

But the more and more they learn, the less and less that they would need religion to explain things. Then they'd see a trend, and some would have the belief that there wasn't any dude to begin with. And THAT, I would call a good thing.

That might be true if the purpose of religion was to explain the natural world. It’s not, and even where religion may claim to explain some things, explanation itself is not the reason we have religion.

But hey, there's a lot of stuff we still can't explain yet. If some of you still need a religion so you can feel you've got the answers to the universe, go for it. But please let us study the world some more and try to explain it.

That’s a pretty unfairly loaded statement. Throughout history many of the best explainers and answer-getters have been religious men.

 

[dewaddict84]

What’s the difference between a giant fireball and a dude on a canoe?

One is a person very similar to you and me performing actions very similar to what you and I could do. He sits in a object that you or I could use albiet it's bright, warm, and hanging in the sky. Children would dream of riding in his canoe, and maybe chatting with him about everything he sees on his voyage every day. Some will even claim he came down and told them all sorts of stuff. But they're lying or delusional. Because it's not some dude. It's a massive fireball that cares nothing for them. Don't personificate the sun, it hates that.

Now, you see, you're asking what the difference is between some dude, and a GIANT FIREBALL! Is it going too far to say you think that god is a metaphor?

And whoever said the hold outs were wrong would do so based on a belief that that wasn’t true, i.e., they couldn’t disprove the metaphorical assertion, and they couldn’t disprove the dude they simply couldn’t see with their eyes.

Absolutely! I'm not saying that the metaphor is wrong. Indeed, how does one disprove something metaphorical? What I'm saying is that the sun is not actually god. The stories of the canoe dude are not LITERAL. If you don't burn meats to him every year he's not going to get miffed and shun the island and descend the land in eternal darkness.

That might be true if the purpose of religion was to explain the natural world. It’s not, and even where religion may claim to explain some things, explanation itself is not the reason we have religion.

Well, I'd argue that point. I wouldn't say anything about the "natural" world, but that it's purpose is to explain unknowns. That includes what happens to us when we die, where it all started, what our dreams mean, and why the sky is blue (wait, we've got that one covered).

That’s a pretty unfairly loaded statement. Throughout history many of the best explainers and answer-getters have been religious men.

Yeah it is loaded. I was trying to demonstrate that some people think learning about the world works towards disproving god. Some do, don't argue that. And it's that subsection of religious folk which is why I'm here. So.... yeah, I guess that wasn't aimed at you.
And yes, there are many religious scientists. The time where most of the advancement came from the clergy was the dark ages. And during the renaissance, scientists were either religious or excommunicated. In modern day, I'd say a varying degree of religiousness exists in the scientists, but really, how many of them are clergy?

I am completely disregarding philosophy though. I don't think anyone could put more man-hours towards that then religion.