If we say "not *your* God"?

[dewaddict84]

GAH! My wife is stealing mah bandwidth!

I believe all he was trying to say was that he is an atheist as not defined in the dictionary. Even Christians can't agree on a single definition of the word Christian, so they had to split into Eastern-Orthodox, Luthern, Baptist, as well as the Catholic and Jewish split. So the real question is why not invent a new term, if it doesn't already exist, to cover atheism that doesn't believe in the extremely unbelievable gods, but could possible believe in others? If the religious are allowed to splinter and create new terms, go for it. Then there wouldn't be this wall of words battle here, and people would realize that you can't just lump all 'atheists' together under one definition. I personally believe no gods exists, but Greg's form of atheism, or shall we call it Selective Atheism, is also acceptable. After all, people can believe whatever they want. Some Christians believe that their god is a personal one who interacts with them on a personal level, while others believe he is "for all." Some atheists have the belief that no gods exist in any form, others dis-believe all forms of god that they've been presented with (but could maybe believe some other god they haven't heard of yet).

Allright, well, I cleaned up her post a little.

Lumping atheists. Indeed I'd concur that each atheists has their own views, much like the religious. But unlike the religious, we really don't have any sort of organization or dogma. (Yeah, sure, clubs and Mr. dawkins exists, but whatever).

As for "selective atheism".... meh. I guess I didn't know that this is what Greg was going for. If so, yeah, just spawn your own definition, but give it a new name.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Humans can make all of that: we can make fire, we can make canoes, we can make dudes through procreation. They're all products of the natural universe. I’m unsure why you delineate among them.

Now, you see, you're asking what the difference is between some dude, and a GIANT FIREBALL!

Yes I did ask, and you didn’t sufficiently answer.

Is it going too far to say you think that god is a metaphor?

Yes.

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.

Yes, but my point is that I consider the man who worships the sun as a god, and the scientist who understands what the sun “really” is, are both subjects of the same sun. I guess from my Christian perspective, I’d have to consider the sun worshipper a pagan, but I’d have no more or less respect for that pagan than I do for a modern scientist.

A people who perceive the sun to be merely nuclear fusion, and a people who perceive the sun to be merely the giver of life, are both exactly right.

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).

I’d agree so far as religion wants to explain the unknown “meaning of life”, but even then that’s just the beginning; just a starting point and ongoing idea which sometimes informs subsequent ideas which have nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

I was trying to demonstrate that some people think learning about the world works towards disproving god. Some do, don't argue that.

I agree some do, and I understand why. But some, like me, think the opposite; that learning about the world tends to prove God (at least so far). If in the future science learns something which tends to disprove God (although I can’t conceive what it could be) I just say I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

 

[dewaddict84]

[difference between a massive fireball and a pagan god of the sun] Yes I did ask, and you didn’t sufficiently answer.

I'm not sure I can really explain the difference any more then one is not constantly on fire. But since you think that the canoe dude is a metaphor FOR the sun, I don't think I have to. Do you agree that before we knew better, people really thought that there was a literal, physical, real-world, human-like GUY up there moving the sun, or throwing lightning, or splitting oceans? They existed. And indeed some of them still do exist. They believed that if the sun-canoe-dude wasn't appeased that the sun wouldn't rise in the morning. Or whatever. No one believes that anymore. Or shouldn't. Because the sun WILL rise tomorrow. I'm willing to bet on it.

Ok, another way. All of the rituals and interface that they had with the dude turn out to be pointless. Well, you could say nothing is entirely pointless, but it doesn't make the sun rise in the morning.

subjects of the same sun.

I think I need this explain a bit. Otherwise I fear I'm missing your point.

who perceive the sun to be merely nuclear fusion, and a people who perceive the sun to be merely the giver of life are both exactly right.

Yes. But those who believe that they make the sun rise. That they can heal with prayer. That they speak with god. Those people are wrong.

I agree some do, and I understand why. But some, like me, think the opposite; that learning about the world tends to prove God (at least so far). If in the future science learns something which tends to disprove God (although I can’t conceive what it could be) I just say I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Huzzah. Good for you. I wish everyone here had views more akin to yours. Yeah, I really don't see proof against god showing up anytime soon. Of course, I also don't think god is going to come down in a shaft of light with trumpets.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you agree that before we knew better, people really thought that there was a literal, physical, real-world, human-like GUY up there moving the sun, or throwing lightning, or splitting oceans? They existed. And indeed some of them still do exist. They believed that if the sun-canoe-dude wasn't appeased that the sun wouldn't rise in the morning. Or whatever. No one believes that anymore. Or shouldn't. Because the sun WILL rise tomorrow. I'm willing to bet on it.

I honestly don’t know exactly what any people really thought; we usually have only their literature. But if they did believe as you say, I don’t know if we know better. That's just an argument from absence of evidence – possibly we just haven’t seen the guy.

Ok, another way. All of the rituals and interface that they had with the dude turn out to be pointless. Well, you could say nothing is entirely pointless, but it doesn't make the sun rise in the morning.

This is from G.K. Chesteron:

“All this mythological business belongs to the poetical part of men. It seems strangely forgotten nowadays that a myth is a work of imagination and therefore a work of art. It needs a poet to make it. It needs a poet to criticize it. … We do not submit a sonnet to a mathematician or a song to a calculating boy; but we do indulge the equally fantastic idea that folklore can be treated as a science. Unless these things are appreciated artistically they are not appreciated at all. When the Professor is told by the Polynesian that once there was nothing except a great feathered serpent, unless the learned man feels a thrill and a half temptation to wish it were true, he is no judge of such things at all. …we must have a certain simplicity to re-picture the childhood of the world. When Hiawatha was told by his nurse that a warrior threw his grandmother up to the moon, he laughed like any English child told by his nurse that a cow jumped over the moon. The child sees the joke as well as most men, and better than some scientific men.”

“Moreover, even where the fables are inferior as art, they cannot be properly judged by science; still less properly judged as science. Some myths are very crude and queer like the early drawings of children; but the child is trying to draw. It is none the less an error to treat his drawing as if it were a diagram, or intended to be a diagram. The student cannot make a scientific statement about the savage, because the savage is not making a scientific statement about the world.”

Yes. But those who believe that they make the sun rise. That they can heal with prayer. That they speak with god. Those people are wrong.

I don’t think either of us could take a single step towards proving that true or false.

 

[dewaddict84]

True, I don't really know what percentage of people thought what. But a portion of people today, here in this forum have faith that god will talk to them some day. Or that he talks to them right now. Or Jesus will usher in the rapture. Or other such nonsense. They do not laugh at it as a children's story because this is religion. It will requires unwaivering, unquestioning, and absolute faith and belief (so some of them say). And it doesn't have to be the obvious falsehoods like fiery chariots or Zeus throwing lightning. It can be the small details as well.

My father got in trouble as a child when he commented about the shape of the continents. At the time, the idea that tectonic plates move around opposed scripture. Nuns, go figure. And then there's the current turmoil over evolution.

As for taking the steps to proving or disproving this sort of stuff, well that means we need to test it. And, well, that's outside the borders of this forum. But I'll guarantee you that no matter what test we set up on this planet, the sun WILL rise tomorrow.

Yeah. We have different views on fundamental existence. When I say metaphorical, I mean a merely artistic mental view. I think it is explicitly not real. It does not have an impact any further then the mind in which it is held.

And the world exists without us. If Stanislav Petrov hadn't saved the world back in 1983, the roaches would still scurry around the earth and the planets would still spin. The old gods would be forgotten and their likes would be a long time in coming anew.

I believe when you say metaphorical, you mean.... outside the realm of the observable, but there's the possibility it's actually true in some form. Whose that guy who thought that the world was a reflection of our consciousness? Some dead Greek guy... I would say that the opposite is true, that our consciousness is a reflection of the world. And an imperfect one at that.

None of this really helps us define atheist, but I still hold to the idea that the more we know about the world, the less people will need religion, and/or the more people will need less religion. Certainly a portion of people will always need it to some extent. But there's a vast different between the fundamentalist and the deist.

 

[soul_biscuit]

I honestly don’t know exactly what any people really thought; we usually have only their literature. But if they did believe as you say, I don’t know if we know better. That's just an argument from absence of evidence – possibly we just haven’t seen the guy.



This is from G.K. Chesteron:

“All this mythological business belongs to the poetical part of men. It seems strangely forgotten nowadays that a myth is a work of imagination and therefore a work of art. It needs a poet to make it. It needs a poet to criticize it. … We do not submit a sonnet to a mathematician or a song to a calculating boy; but we do indulge the equally fantastic idea that folklore can be treated as a science. Unless these things are appreciated artistically they are not appreciated at all. When the Professor is told by the Polynesian that once there was nothing except a great feathered serpent, unless the learned man feels a thrill and a half temptation to wish it were true, he is no judge of such things at all. …we must have a certain simplicity to re-picture the childhood of the world. When Hiawatha was told by his nurse that a warrior threw his grandmother up to the moon, he laughed like any English child told by his nurse that a cow jumped over the moon. The child sees the joke as well as most men, and better than some scientific men.”

“Moreover, even where the fables are inferior as art, they cannot be properly judged by science; still less properly judged as science. Some myths are very crude and queer like the early drawings of children; but the child is trying to draw. It is none the less an error to treat his drawing as if it were a diagram, or intended to be a diagram. The student cannot make a scientific statement about the savage, because the savage is not making a scientific statement about the world.”



I don’t think either of us could take a single step towards proving that true or false.

I take your point. Myth colors our view of the world now as much as it ever did, whether we're willing to admit it or not.

Still, I think we know better now than we did then. No one four hundred years ago knew that nuclear fusion was responsible for the energy output of the sun. Now we do, and we're able to put that knowledge to practical use. That's not to discount the value of myth, but merely to show that science, as opposed to many other human pursuits, demonstrably grows, progresses, and becomes objectively more complete and accurate over time.

Though I don't see any reason to imagine that you would dispute that.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

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?

To be honest, I always find it slightly childish. There's a member here who goes so far as to write "OYG!" both neatly sidestepping the language filter and reasserting his adamance that God is indeed someone else's and no he shan't acknowledge Him to the point where he will grammatically announce it for all the world to see... or some such.

It always seems a little self-congratulatory - like one of those internet memes that the inner sanctum love and adore and everyone else finds a little pointless.

In terms of the reasoning behind the words: I believe there is only one God. There are however limitless gods, given we can create our own. When atheists say they don't believe in "your god", it makes no sense to me as my God isn't a god. When atheists say they don't believe in "your God", I take from it that they don't believe in God. No more, no less.

Hey, I hope your exams went well

 

[Grega]

I return!!

@dewaddict84
...but Greg's form of atheism, or shall we call it Selective Atheism, is also acceptable. After all, people can believe whatever they want...
Whoah!!! Easy tiger! I have belief in zero gods defined or otherwise, but unlike agnostics I work on the principle that given the complete lack of valid evidence they most probably don't exist...this is not to say that I positively assert that no god exists however! (I might perhaps say God[sub]x[/sub] doesn't exist if a persons formulation of God[sub]x[/sub] defies what I take to be axiomatically true: that contradictions cannot be true for any entity in any meaningful sense. Though in these cases I'll be sensible enough to back up my claim and demonstrate that this particular god cannot exist.)

@ Greenmunchkin
...In terms of the reasoning behind the words: I believe there is only one God. There are however limitless gods, given we can create our own. When atheists say they don't believe in "your god", it makes no sense to me as my God isn't a god. When atheists say they don't believe in "your God", I take from it that they don't believe in God. No more, no less.

Hey, I hope your exams went well
There are numerous formulations of God (ie; some of the properties associated it/them)...some are more sophisticated than others (though not necessarily any more believeable though)...when I say "your god" it means the formulation of god that you hold to be true as opposed to someone elses.

As for my exams...they went badly...very badly!!!

 

[truthiness]

I return!!
As for my exams...they went badly...very badly!!!

Heh, perhaps praying instead of studying would help. :X

 

[Grega]

Heh, perhaps praying instead of studying would help. :X

Unless of course I prayed to the wrong god out of all the bazillions that could possibly conjured by imaginations of man; and annoyed it such that I did even worse than I have already done!

Btw...welcome truthiness

 

[ephraimanesti]

Unless of course I prayed to the wrong god out of all the bazillions that could possibly conjured by imaginations of man; and annoyed it such that I did even worse than I have already done!

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Actually, it you did pray to the "wrong god" with "all your heart, and with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength"(Mark 12:30), the Right God would pick up on the vibes and steer you in the right direction and educate you regarding who is Who and what is What. "Seek and ye shall find"(Luke 11:9).

True story--happened to me!

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[CruciFixed]

I don't wish to answer the OP apparently others have taken care of the question at hand. I just wanted to comment:
I think prayer and study can go hand in hand. Not to say God is a wishing well that grants Christians As on our tests just that its always good to remember our Father through everything, easy hard or moderate. I mean who better to talk to about a hard test than our Heavenly Father?

 

[truthiness]

I mean who better to talk to about a hard test than our Heavenly Father?

"Two hands working, does more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
Take this how you want, some people will say this is an example of the lack of any caring deity, others will say "God helps people that help themselves." Heh, that's pretty convenient.

Personally, I would ask my instructor or classmates for help long before speaking with your god. Your god has never known a "hard test", after all he is omnipotent. That would be like asking a Canadian about how to treat heat stroke. But, then again, I could be wrong. But I don't think so...

 

[Jason Dollar]

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.

The definition of A-theism is essentially, "no god," so yes, an atheist should hold that there is NO creator at all. Not just deny specific deities.

 

[truthiness]

The definition of A-theism is essentially, "no god," so yes, an atheist should hold that there is NO creator at all. Not just deny specific deities.

Though the dictionary may define the two terms in black and white, all of us who live in real life deal in the vast greyish shades that have no definitions. If you were to deny specific deities yet still question others I believe the closest definition would be Agnostic-Atheist.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

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?

When atheists say "We don't believe in your God" it does suggest that God somehow 'belongs' to us. He doesn't. There is no 'Muslim' God, nor is there a 'Christian' God or a 'Hebrew' God - there's only one God. He exists independant of our personal interpretations.

So saying "We don't believe in God" is essentially the same as saying "We don't believe in your God."