[moved from C&E] Religions call people Atheists.

[razeontherock]

Why don't you try answering his question?

I did answer the question I responded to. Or do you really think it did not take power for the ground under your feet to get there?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Well then here ya go:

the ground beneath our feet took power to get there. That Power is the God of the Bible, and obviously still exists.

I did answer the question I responded to. Or do you really think it did not take power for the ground under your feet to get there?

The problem with that definition is that that would define the Natural Process of accretion during the formation of the Solar system would be defined as "God." As this, indeed, was a Powerful Process so, yeah, that would be ONE definition of God (or maybe a single part of a much larger Definition.)

 

[wensdee]

I did answer the question I responded to. Or do you really think it did not take power for the ground under your feet to get there?

I will answer and make about as much sense as your answer did to his question:
About 3 PM on Friday the 22nd of April which was the day it all happened.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Aye but my main point is that the definition of "God" must be agreed upon by all parties involved who are discussing God. Otherwise, we all can be Labled Theist and Atheist in each of our ways rights.

Exactly. While most people agree on the definition of 'god',

If I did, this wouldn't be such a difficult conversion.

Then how do you know that defining one's cat as god renders theism moot?

Then a question: If there is a such thing as "weak" Atheism and "strong" Atheism, then Is there a such thing as "Weak/Strong" Theism? Or is "Theist" a Coverall term.

It's a convention borne out of history. Ultimately, there are two claims: "God exists" and "God does not exist". You can (or, indeed, must) affirm or reject each, so there's four combinations:
1) Affirm both - logically inconsistent.
2) Affirm the former, reject the latter - you're therefore a theist.
3) Affirm the latter, reject the former - you're a strong atheist.
4) Reject the former and the latter - you're a weak atheist.
So 'atheist' is a catchall for those who reject the former ("God exists"), regardless of their stance on the latter ("God does not exist").

I disagree. Why one believes what they believe is more important then what they believe. Otherwise, it's not true belief but rather hearsay, rumors, or Gossip. Children who grow up in Religious backgrounds who are simply told what to believe don't really believe in the context of their own understanding.

Then they do not believe, and so do not affirm "God exists".

Without firsthand experience, we are are all Atheist in that regard and ever will be. Thus, distinguishing between Theist and Atheist becomes meaningless.

How so?

Assuming, of course, on ONE definition of God.

'God' is generally defined broadly enough to encompass most standard concepts; for instance, both the Graceo-Roman deities and the Christian deity are considered to be deities for the purposes of classifying theism, even though Christians only believe in the latter.

So you understand the concept of a Deity. Then, what if God doesn't fall under the definition of a Deity?

The terms are synonymous.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well then here ya go:

the ground beneath our feet took power to get there. That Power is the God of the Bible, and obviously still exists.

Gravity?

 

[Naraoia]

Gravity?

You physicists are so myopic.

 

[AllOrNothing]

Aye but my main point is that the definition of "God" must be agreed upon by all parties involved who are discussing God. Otherwise, we all can be Labled Theist and Atheist in each of our ways rights. ?

To put it otherwise..

“We think in generalities, but we live in detail.” - Alfred North Whitehead

Agreed.. such words are meaningless without a clear cut defintion of what each of us means by it..

I’m always left wondering…

Is God the Sun.. thunder and lightening.. ?

Is God the Great Spirit in the Sky...?

Is God an old man with a long white beard.. making loads of rules..?

Is God a mysterious supernatural force.. who talks to us and influences human actions.. ?

Is God the Supreme Spirit.. existing in human hearts and minds.. the Spirit of Loving kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Truth.. and Freedom……. is that what the God of the Bible is.. ?

Is God the same as the Tao…. Brahman……... or even the Buddhist True Self.. ?

Is God the Self.. little old me… the creator appearing within its own creation..?

Is God.. the god-man.. of Jesus… and Neitsche…. ?

It seems to be well worth considering..

Is God an archetype that we may encounter in our dreams..?

Is God nature... the universe... ?

Is the entire Universe some Great Mind.. ?

Or is God even greater.. existing outside of space-time.. ?

The Primary Field.. where universes come and go.. like flowers blooming and wilting through the seasons.. with each new universe serving as a platform for the evolution of consciousness?

Which raiases the question.. is God consciousness…?

Some people believe this.

Is God Energy..?

Or,, Is the word – God - a symbol..(like E=mc2).. that represents an idea.. a concept of Wholeness..?

The Whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

Is god a He.. or a She.. or an It.. or an I AM.. ?

Is God an Atheist (some of the given definitions would seem to suggest this).. ?

Or is God all things to all men…?

With out clear cut definitions all this will remain a mystery.

But.. Labels… do we really need them.. ?

“Everything emanates from the same source. Everything is a voice or speech resounding over the world, through the entire universe, through microcosmos and macrocosmos.

It vibrates through the shining of the stars. It shines in the orbits of the planets. It is whispered through the gentle breeze and is murmured in the depths of the forest. It is whistled through the sirens of the factories and is heard in the noise of the machines. It is sung over the cradle and spoken at the grave.

It is vague feeling or notion, wisdom and belief. It is knowledge, recognition and hope. It is death, resurrection and life. It is colour, vibration and light. It is everything that can in any way be sensed, thought and experienced. “

Martinus

 

[Doveaman]

I totally agree with the op and other atheists.

We believe what we believe based on upon who influenced us as children.

Does this mean it is impossible for a person who was raised an atheist to become a converted Christian as an adult?

 

[Doveaman]

To believe in a God, one must first have on understanding of God, who or What God is.

I've seen some things that I didn't have a clue who or what they were. Was I dreaming or were they real?

Aye but my main point is that the definition of "God" must be agreed upon by all parties involved who are discussing God. Otherwise, we all can be Labled Theist and Atheist in each of our ways rights.

Or maybe only those few who know and understand the true definition of God are Theist. All the rest are just religious Atheists.

"Because small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it...I am the gate; whoever enters through Me will be saved." - Matt 7:14, John 10:9.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Exactly. While most people agree on the definition of 'god',

I disagree. If God was so easily defined then it shouldn't be so difficult for the general Populous to Agree on Which God is the "True God" or whether or not God in actuality Exists.

Then how do you know that defining one's cat as god renders theism moot?

'Cause, going back to the question of what is God, does the belief that something is God include it into the definition of God? If so, How can one say that God does not exist when anyone can define anything as God and be technically a Theist, since Theism only means the belief in a God but the definition loses it's meaning completely when one defines something that Clearly Exists as God, even to Atheists.

So a Question. Do you believe my Cat exists?

It's a convention borne out of history. Ultimately, there are two claims: "God exists" and "God does not exist". You can (or, indeed, must) affirm or reject each, so there's four combinations:
1) Affirm both - logically inconsistent.
2) Affirm the former, reject the latter - you're therefore a theist.
3) Affirm the latter, reject the former - you're a strong atheist.
4) Reject the former and the latter - you're a weak atheist.
So 'atheist' is a catchall for those who reject the former ("God exists"), regardless of their stance on the latter ("God does not exist").

Negatory! I can not "reject" the Idea of that God Exists until I know What it is I'm rejecting nor can I "affirm" the idea of God without Knowing what I'm affirming..

Example: Remember the Episode of Star Trek:TNG where they came to the Eden-Like Planet with the Mysterious Force protecting it. (As said it the Episode) It doesn't Exist yet, Clearly it was there (paraphrasing.) In the context of the Universe, would you define it as God (or even a god?)

Then they do not believe, and so do not affirm "God exists".

Oh but countless Christians on this very forum have attested that they Grew-up in such homes, never really understanding their own faith but still Claimed to believe in it. So, are you saying they are Atheists being Diluted into thinking something that they honestly didn't believe? Or are they Theists in a crisis of Faith before they even had faith? What of those who have "Awakened" to their understanding and now claim to believe? Would you say that they understand the concept of god better now or before?

How so?

Because, only once we understand (or rather, believe we understand) what God is can we have belief. Knowledge is the Cornerstone of Reality and Reality doesn't exist unless we are aware of it.

Though, perhaps this is for another discussion...

'God' is generally defined broadly enough to encompass most standard concepts; for instance, both the Graceo-Roman deities and the Christian deity are considered to be deities for the purposes of classifying theism, even though Christians only believe in the latter.

Again, the problem here is that a "Broad" definition is a relative point. You can Stretch your definition as far as you deem necessary to fit your model for Atheism, which only requires you to reject the idea of God, regardless of what God is. So long as your Definition for God is large enough, you can comfortably reject all concepts of God by rejecting any single concept of God.

We shouldn't be trying to "Broaden" our Definition of God. Whether God exists or doesn't, we should be more concerned with what exactly is God, and not try to "Encompass most standard concepts" cause most standard concepts disagree with one another.

"Casting our Nets Wide" (as the saying goes) doesn't work in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.

The terms are synonymous.

Negatory. A God can be a Deity and a Deity can be a God but they are not one is the same the same way a Man can be a Deity without being a God and my cat can be God without being a Deity.


To AllOrNothing:
I loved that Post. That's exactly what I was getting at.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I've seen some things that I didn't have a clue who or what they were. Was I dreaming or were they real?

Couldn't tell you. Only you can answer that cause you saw them.

But I can tell you that I too have witnessed the unexplained. The fact that they "couldn't" have happened or were Impossible and I was at a lost to even described them doesn't change the fact I saw them.

But were they Acts of God? Couldn't tell you. I'd have to understand them first before I could answer that.

Or maybe only those few who know and understand the true definition of God are Theist. All the rest are just religious Atheists.

Maybe so. Though, I contend that the True Definition of God is a Universal one that only the most contrary would reject, either out of Pride or Vanity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I disagree. If God was so easily defined then it shouldn't be so difficult for the general Populous to Agree on Which God is the "True God" or whether or not God in actuality Exists.

Defining God as "The intelligent creator of the universe" doesn't tell us whether he exists, or whether he has other traits that make him the God of deism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Hinduism, etc. When people do public debates about God, there isn't a preamble defining what 'God' means, even when it's three atheists versus a rabbi, a priest, and an imam - everyone knows what 'God' refers to.

'Cause, going back to the question of what is God, does the belief that something is God include it into the definition of God? If so, How can one say that God does not exist when anyone can define anything as God and be technically a Theist, since Theism only means the belief in a God but the definition loses it's meaning completely when one defines something that Clearly Exists as God, even to Atheists.

Because while you may define your cat as God, I don't have to accept that definition. So under your vocabulary, everyone who believes in your cat is a theist, but under my vocabulary, the theist/atheist populations are divided differently.

So a Question. Do you believe my Cat exists?

Ostensibly, no.

Negatory! I can not "reject" the Idea of that God Exists until I know What it is I'm rejecting nor can I "affirm" the idea of God without Knowing what I'm affirming..

I disagree. Rejecting something doesn't require concious cognition of what it is you are rejecting - to 'reject' something is to simply 'not affirm' it. You have to understand to affirm, but rejection not only doesn't need understanding, it can arise because you don't understand.

I asked you earlier if you knew of the implicit/explicit divide in atheism. I don't remember your response, so I'll recap:

Explicit atheists are those atheists who understand the claim "God exists" and have considered it, and subsequently rejected the claim. Implicit atheists, by contrast, are those atheists who never understood the claim, or more commonly, never encountered it - consider someone who grew up in a wholly atheistic community, never being introduced to the concept of 'God'.

How can an implicit atheist exist? Easy: you don't need to understand a claim to reject it, and your lack of understanding actually requires you to reject it. You can't affirm a claim you don't understand, thus, you must always reject claims you don't understand.

So, if you don't understand the claim "God exists", for whatever reason, you must necessarily reject it.

Example: Remember the Episode of Star Trek:TNG where they came to the Eden-Like Planet with the Mysterious Force protecting it. (As said it the Episode) It doesn't Exist yet, Clearly it was there (paraphrasing.) In the context of the Universe, would you define it as God (or even a god?)

No, though from the layman's point of view it certainly fit what they might expect a real god to look like.
Consider Stargate: SG1 - the Go'auld masquaraded as gods, the Jaffa (and even some Go'auld themselves) believed them to be gods, etc. Were they gods?

Oh but countless Christians on this very forum have attested that they Grew-up in such homes, never really understanding their own faith but still Claimed to believe in it. So, are you saying they are Atheists being Diluted into thinking something that they honestly didn't believe? Or are they Theists in a crisis of Faith before they even had faith? What of those who have "Awakened" to their understanding and now claim to believe? Would you say that they understand the concept of god better now or before?

Someone born to a Christian household isn't automatically a believing Christian - they have to understand what it is they're being asked to believe. When this occurs is a matter of debate, and I would never presume to dictate what someone else believes, but ultimately, at any given point, they either believe or they don't. It can often be hard for a person to tell, of course, especially during crises of faith.

Because, only once we understand (or rather, believe we understand) what God is can we have belief. Knowledge is the Cornerstone of Reality and Reality doesn't exist unless we are aware of it.

Though, perhaps this is for another discussion...

Reality doesn't exist unless we are aware of it? You're not going to throw something quantum at me, are you?

Negatory. A God can be a Deity and a Deity can be a God but they are not one is the same the same way a Man can be a Deity without being a God and my cat can be God without being a Deity.

How can a god not be a deity? How can a deity not be a god? How can man be a deity and not a god? How can your cat be a god without being a deity? What is your definition of 'god' and 'deity'?

For an ignostic, you seem to have your own definition of 'god'

 

[AllOrNothing]

How can an implicit atheist exist? Easy: you don't need to understand a claim to reject it, and your lack of understanding actually requires you to reject it. You can't affirm a claim you don't understand, thus, you must always reject claims you don't understand.

"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand it"

Richard Feynman


But is that a rational basis to reject it.. ?


‘Scientists are in the strange position of being confronted daily by the indisputable fact of their own consciousness, yet with no way of explaining it.”

Christian de Quincey

 

[Doveaman]

But were they Acts of God? Couldn't tell you. I'd have to understand them first before I could answer that.

My point was that we don't have to know who or what something is in order for it to be real. Reality is not determined by us knowing about it.

Maybe so. Though, I contend that the True Definition of God is a Universal one that only the most contrary would reject, either out of Pride or Vanity.

This happens to be the case.

"In his pride the wicked does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God." - Ps 10:4.

Pride and vanity has indeed blinded mankind to the presence of God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand it"

Richard Feynman

Feynman was a great man, but he was prone to being unscientifically poetic

But is that a rational basis to reject it.. ?

Not in the slightest - we do understand it. It's just counter-intuitive.

 

[AllOrNothing]

Not in the slightest - we do understand it. It's just counter-intuitive.

Well.. in all honesty.. I don’t understand it..

When virtual particles flit in and out of existence

What determines what kind of particle it will be.. ?

And where do they come form.. ?



How does gravity exert a "force".. across the entire universe..?


How does “spooky action at a distance" work.. ?


“No theory of reality compatible with quantum theory can require spatially separate events to be independent.”

J.S. Bell



“The universe on a very basic level could be a vast web of particles which remain in contact with one another over distance, and in no time.”

R. Nadeau and M. Kafatos


What determines all these mathematical laws..?



Do you ever wonder.. if anything greater than yourself exists.. ?


“We have actually touched the Borderland where Matter and Force seem to merge into one another, the shadowy realm between the Known and Unknown ... I venture to think that the greatest scientific problems of the future will find their solution in this Borderland, and even beyond; here, it seems to me, lie Ultimate Realities, subtle, far-reaching, wonderful.”

Sir William Crookes, 1879


It's a mystery to me.. should I reject what I don't understand.. ?

Is there no other option open to me.. ?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well.. in all honesty.. I don’t understand it..

Well, OK, not everyone understands it

When virtual particles flit in and out of existence

What determines what kind of particle it will be.. ?

And where do they come form.. ?

Where indeed. The point is they don't come 'from' anywhere - they only exist for a fraction of a second. Before, they simply don't exist. The question of 'where are there' makes no sense - they simply don't exist.

How does gravity exert a "force".. across the entire universe..?

Each object pulls spacetime towards it, and, like a fat person sitting on a rug during a picnic, everything is thus pulled towards them. This pulling isn't instantaneous - it travels at, presumably, the speed of light. But, it works the same way charged particles work: a slight tugging in the direction of the particle, gradually getting weaker as you go further away.

How does “spooky action at a distance" work.. ?

It doesn't.

“No theory of reality compatible with quantum theory can require spatially separate events to be independent.”

J.S. Bell



“The universe on a very basic level could be a vast web of particles which remain in contact with one another over distance, and in no time.”

R. Nadeau and M. Kafatos


What determines all these mathematical laws..?

Nobody knows. The multiverse hypothesis appeals to me, but at the moment it's just pure conjecture. Ultimately, nobody knows.

Do you ever wonder.. if anything greater than yourself exists.. ?

Indeed, and I'm well aware that they do:

This object alone is greater than me in most, if not all, ways.

“We have actually touched the Borderland where Matter and Force seem to merge into one another, the shadowy realm between the Known and Unknown ... I venture to think that the greatest scientific problems of the future will find their solution in this Borderland, and even beyond; here, it seems to me, lie Ultimate Realities, subtle, far-reaching, wonderful.”

Sir William Crookes, 1879


It's a mystery to me.. should I reject what I don't understand.. ?

Is there no other option open to me.. ?

My statement was using very precise language - that of cognisant comprehension, not a simple lack of details.

For example, if you didn't know what the words 'quantum mechanics' referred to, how could you say you believed in it or not? You evidently do understand what the phrase means - it refers to that complex scientific thing, right? It involves particles and atoms and uncertainty principles and spooky action at a distance. You do, in fact, understand what the phrase means.

Moreover, when I said "You must reject what you don't understand", I wasn't being imperitive, I wasn't compelling you to do it. I was saying that you automatically reject what you don't understand as a matter of logic and definition, in much the same was as an unmarried man must be a bachelor.

I hope that clears things up. And, FYI, 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).

 

[Naraoia]

Does this mean it is impossible for a person who was raised an atheist to become a converted Christian as an adult?

Short answer: no.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Defining God as "The intelligent creator of the universe" doesn't tell us whether he exists,

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?

When people do public debates about God, there isn't a preamble defining what 'God' means, even when it's three atheists versus a rabbi, a priest, and an imam - everyone knows what 'God' refers to.

Perhaps there should be.

Because while you may define your cat as God, I don't have to accept that definition. So under your vocabulary, everyone who believes in your cat is a theist, but under my vocabulary, the theist/atheist populations are divided differently.

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.

Ostensibly, no.

Indeed.

I disagree. Rejecting something doesn't require concious cognition of what it is you are rejecting - to 'reject' something is to simply 'not affirm' it. You have to understand to affirm, but rejection not only doesn't need understanding, it can arise because you don't understand.

Then, Atheism is the only possible state because God can never be understood by your concept of god.

I asked you earlier if you knew of the implicit/explicit divide in atheism. I don't remember your response, so I'll recap:

Explicit atheists are those atheists who understand the claim "God exists" and have considered it, and subsequently rejected the claim. Implicit atheists, by contrast, are those atheists who never understood the claim, or more commonly, never encountered it - consider someone who grew up in a wholly atheistic community, never being introduced to the concept of 'God'.

How can an implicit atheist exist? Easy: you don't need to understand a claim to reject it, and your lack of understanding actually requires you to reject it. You can't affirm a claim you don't understand, thus, you must always reject claims you don't understand.

So, if you don't understand the claim "God exists", for whatever reason, you must necessarily reject it.

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?

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?

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?

No, though from the layman's point of view it certainly fit what they might expect a real god to look like.

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.

[/quote]Consider Stargate: SG1 - the Go'auld masquaraded as gods, the Jaffa (and even some Go'auld themselves) believed them to be gods, etc. Were they gods?[/quote]

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?

Someone born to a Christian household isn't automatically a believing Christian - they have to understand what it is they're being asked to believe. When this occurs is a matter of debate, and I would never presume to dictate what someone else believes, but ultimately, at any given point, they either believe or they don't. It can often be hard for a person to tell, of course, especially during crises of faith.

They 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.

Reality doesn't exist unless we are aware of it? You're not going to throw something quantum at me, are you?

Actually, I was but thought against it..... Thread's derailed enough and I don't have all night.

How can a god not be a deity? How can a deity not be a god? How can man be a deity and not a god? How can your cat be a god without being a deity? What is your definition of 'god' and 'deity'?

I'll answer that when you give your Criteria for "God."

For an ignostic, you seem to have your own definition of 'god'

I never said I was Ignostic (though, I think you mean "Agnostic." ignostic doesn't come up as a real word in my spellchecker.)

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.

 

[DrkSdBls]

My point was that we don't have to know who or what something is in order for it to be real. Reality is not determined by us knowing about it.

Well, that's debatable. It is entirely possible that our whole world is but a Sleeping man's dream.

Then again, of course, we can accept this world's reality but who's to say it's the Only Reality? There's a Hypothesis that what we perceive as reality is nothing more then an Illusion that hiding the real Reality behind it. And who's to say that our 5 (6) senses are giving us a Complete Picture of the world around us? Our Reality leaves a lot to the imagination!

This happens to be the case.

"In his pride the wicked does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God." - Ps 10:4.

Pride and vanity has indeed blinded mankind to the presence of God.

And yet, you completely dismiss the notion that you too, fall into this case?