Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Short answer: no.
Of course. God might not be the sole intelligent creator of the universe, but a being born of the universe.And yet, that aspect seams to remain the only constant in your definition of God. Never once have you thought to remove that idea and try thinking of it from another point of view?
To who's benefit?Perhaps there should be.
Only if your definitions are made for that purpose. I'm not aware of any self-professed atheist who, though actually believing in (say) the God of Christianity, deliberately redefines 'God' so that he is, technically, an atheist. Atheists use the standard definition as used by self-professed theists, and reject it regardless.Then I can argue that they don't know what God is and still wouldn't believe in God, even if my Cat did fit your Definition of God. In this case Atheism is nothing more then simple Obstinate Dismissal of an Idea, rather then a Logical Conclusion. Hardly a Reasonable stance.
As is the case with you. Some people, however, do understand the concept of God.Then, Atheism is the only possible state because God can never be understood by your concept of god.
Agreed.Then here's another question. It's is reasonable to conclude that there also exists implicit/explicit Theism?
For, those to have who thought long and hard of them meaning of God and have so chosen to believe in him, this would be explicit Theism, no?
How long is a piece of string? When I deconverted from Wicca, it was purely because I realised that I no longer believed in the gods I still worshipped - it was quite a mind bender. I like to think of the process as being like moving a magnifying glass from far away to close to your eye - the image gets more and more warped, and then less warped, and suddenly you realise the image has been flipped without you ever being aware.Yet you contend that you must Understand a concept before you can affirm it, meaning that someone must put some thought into the matter before they can be a theist. If this is true, how WELL must you understand such a concept before that claim can be affirmed or Denied?
Considering it is certainly one way to help understand it, but it's not guarenteed. When I first encountered the Monty Hall problem, I couldn't for the life of me understand what the real answer is what it is - but once explained to me, I considered it again, and the penny dropped.And, this also just occurred to me. Does Considering an idea so intently give the idea Validity or does it just give your Understanding of it Validity?
I thought about Q, but I thought the Go'auld were a better analogy.From a Layman's Point of view, eh? Are you contenting that there is a Set of Criteria that Rules such an Entity out of the definition of God?
What exactly would that Criteria that Excludes this Entity from being a God?
Also, notice that I did not Bring up Q, in the ST Universe. This is Purposeful.
Is an impotent deity still a deity? Is a dead god still a god? As Arthur C Clarke so astutely put it, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The same might well be true for deities - what can be accomplished through divine will might be replicable by technology.Indeed, though I was trying to stick to Serious Works of Fiction butu if we must.
While certainly they were considered Deities, their Actual "Power" was curiously lacking.
To expand on the notion, why not Bring up the Ancients (though I reckon that same reason I left out Q.)
Certainly, both Q and the Ancients had the Power to be Considered Deities.
Though, Would "Power" be listed in your Criteria for Godhood? And if so, how much?
The lack of evidence satisfies me for nowThey are not a "Born Believing Christian" persay but considering the fact that in such a household, the "Fact" that God exists is instilled into a Mind long before the ability to reason the concept even develops, it might as well be considered a "in-born trait."
Then you must also think about in the womb. Just how much information is really conveyed to the Developing fetus, from the parents. Brings up an interesting theory of Genetic Knowledge. Who's to really say that I wasn't born believing in God since my Mother did?
That's an idea that needs to be perused for it's own merits.
An 'ignostic' is someone who doesn't believe in God for the specific reason that they don't know what 'God' means - 'gnostos' means 'knowledge', but 'agnostic' was already taken, hence, 'ignostic', that is, a portmanteau of 'ignorant' and 'gnostos'.I never said I was Ignostic (though, I think you mean "Agnostic." ignostic doesn't come up as a real word in my spellchecker.)
And, thus, you're an atheist, specifically, a weak ignostic atheist.Maybe I have a Split personality disorder; one Theist, the other Atheist.
Or maybe I believe that God is a Paradox; It Must exist because it doesn't.
Maybe I'm the Paragon of Agnosticism, where I hold that the Unknown to be the only known truth.
But, it's easier to say that no definition of God has Satisfied my Obsessive Intellectual Curiosity but "God" is as good enough name as any.
How you are raised is not the only thing that influences your beliefs. For the most obvious thing, you learn an awful lot after the "being raised" part is more or less complete. Why would it be impossible for someone raised as an atheist to convert to [insert religion] in adulthood?Oh no? Why not? Long answer please.
if you are genuinely interested in or have questions about science or physics, I have a long-running thread where you can ask (see my signature for the link).
I am indeed. I obviously can't prove this to you over the Internet, but I'm a physicist regardlessI find physics fascinating.. as I do religion.. for me the two are compatible.
One helps me understand the world around me... the other helps me understand the psyche.. it seems to me.. the two are inseparable.
I have lots of questions about physics.. due to an infinite curiosity.
Are you actually a physicist ?
Hmm. There are many fields that exert a force on everything else; a single electron, for instance, creates an EM field that tugs on every other particle in existence, proportional to their own electric charge. However, I think you're referring to something more... esotericDo you believe there's an underlying field that connects everything... ?.
Including our field of consciousness.
There is ample evidence to suggest this..
That a Primary Field exists..
Short answer: no.
Of course. God might not be the sole intelligent creator of the universe, but a being born of the universe.
To who's benefit?
Only if your definitions are made for that purpose. I'm not aware of any self-professed atheist who, though actually believing in (say) the God of Christianity, deliberately redefines 'God' so that he is, technically, an atheist. Atheists use the standard definition as used by self-professed theists, and reject it regardless.
As is the case with you. Some people, however, do understand the concept of God.
How long is a piece of string? When I deconverted from Wicca, it was purely because I realised that I no longer believed in the gods I still worshipped - it was quite a mind bender. I like to think of the process as being like moving a magnifying glass from far away to close to your eye - the image gets more and more warped, and then less warped, and suddenly you realise the image has been flipped without you ever being aware.
So when does consideration become understanding become belief? Buggered if I know
Considering it is certainly one way to help understand it, but it's not guarenteed. When I first encountered the Monty Hall problem, I couldn't for the life of me understand what the real answer is what it is - but once explained to me, I considered it again, and the penny dropped.
(If you've never encountered the problem before, don't skip to the answer right away - it's a delicious brain teaser).
I thought about Q, but I thought the Go'auld were a better analogy.
Is an impotent deity still a deity?
Is a dead god still a god?
As Arthur C Clarke so astutely put it, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The same might well be true for deities - what can be accomplished through divine will might be replicable by technology.
The lack of evidence satisfies me for now
An 'ignostic' is someone who doesn't believe in God for the specific reason that they don't know what 'God' means - 'gnostos' means 'knowledge', but 'agnostic' was already taken, hence, 'ignostic', that is, a portmanteau of 'ignorant' and 'gnostos'.
And, thus, you're an atheist, specifically, a weak ignostic atheist.
How you are raised is not the only thing that influences your beliefs. For the most obvious thing, you learn an awful lot after the "being raised" part is more or less complete. Why would it be impossible for someone raised as an atheist to convert to [insert religion] in adulthood?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?