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

[DrkSdBls]

Short answer: no.

Oh no? Why not? Long answer please.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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?

Of course. God might not be the sole intelligent creator of the universe, but a being born of the universe.

Perhaps there should be.

To who's benefit?

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.

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

As is the case with you. Some people, however, do understand the concept of God.

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?

Agreed.

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?

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

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?

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).

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.

I thought about Q, but I thought the Go'auld were a better analogy.

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?

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.

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.

The lack of evidence satisfies me for now

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

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'.

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.

And, thus, you're an atheist, specifically, a weak ignostic atheist.

 

[Naraoia]

Oh no? Why not? Long answer please.

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?

 

[AllOrNothing]

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 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 ?


Do 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..

I will post some questions on your thread..



"Nick Herbert, a physicist who heads the C-Life Institute, suggests that we have merely discovered an elemental oneness of the world. This oneness cannot be diminished by spatial separation. An invisible wholeness unites the objects that are given birth in the universe, and it is this wholeness that we have stumbled into through modern experimental methods. Herbert alludes to the words of the poet Charles Williams: "Separation without separateness, reality without rift."

"The interrelation of human consciousness and the observed world is obvious in Bell's Theorem. Human consciousness and the physical world cannot be regarded as distinct, separate entities. What we call physical reality, the external world, is shaped - to some extent - by human thought. The lesson is clear; we cannot separate our own existence from that of the world outside. We are intimately associated, not only with the earth we inhabit, but with the farthest reaches of the cosmos."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I 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 ?

I am indeed. I obviously can't prove this to you over the Internet, but I'm a physicist regardless

Do 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..

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... esoteric

 

[AllOrNothing]

Short answer: no.

I became an atheist at about the age of seven.. after my first contact with Sunday schooll.. I cried to my mum and dad... "I don't want to go there again... it was HORRIBLE"

Neither of my parents were religious.. apart my father's interest in witch craft.. and astrology.

I changed my position while reading Jung... after pondering what he said about religious symbolism and mythology.

It no lionger made sense to me to believe or not believe in what was obviously symbolism..

Instead.. a new tactic emerged..

I started to ask.. What does this mean?

Today.. I count the Bible as being one of the best books I have ever read.. and I beleive in what Jesus and the prophets were saying.. because their words reflect what I feel myself.

And most of my old atheist beliefs are contained in the Bible anyway.. so it's a win win situation..

In fact.... it's a MIRACLE!!!

I was blind and now I see.

Jung On Occultism

"Light on the nature of alchemy began to come to me only after I had read the text of the Golden Flower, the book of Chinese alchemy. I was stirred by the desire to become more closely acquainted with the alchemical texts.

Occasionally I would look at the pictures, and each time I would think, "Good Lord, what nonsense! This stuff is impossible to understand." But it persistently intrigued me, and I made up my mind to go into it more thoroughly.

I soon found it provocative and exciting. To be sure, the texts still seemed to me blatant nonsense, but here and there would be passages that seemed significant to me, and occasionally I even found a few sentences which I thought I could understand.

Finally I realised that the alchemists were talking in symbols. "Why this is fantastic," I thought. "I simply must learn to decipher all this." By now I was completely fascinated, and buried myself in the texts as often as I had the time."

Carl Jung.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Of course. God might not be the sole intelligent creator of the universe, but a being born of the universe.

Then, even being a Entity born of the Universe, what would you say would define such an Entity as "God?" Or does the trait of it existing outside of this Universe have to be true to be defined as "God"?

To who's benefit?

Well, it would of saved us several pages, now wouldn't it?

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.

But you seam to be under the Impression that I'm an Atheist trying to redefine God to be a Theist...... Now, why would I do that?

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

Oh yeah, I had noticed that you lost your Icon..... Such a Shame. Wicca is such a Beautiful Lifestyle. I'm something of a Fan.

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).

Interesting puzzle but just like a Coin flip, you only have a %49.9 chance of calling it right.

I thought about Q, but I thought the Go'auld were a better analogy.

For God's or for the ill-defined meaning of Gods?

Is an impotent deity still a deity?

Is a Collapsed Star still a Star?

Is a dead god still a god?

Is a Dead Human still Human?

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.

Perhaps true but doesn't mean they are one in the same.

I can Light a Fire with my Mind.
You can light a Fire with a Match.

Which is better or More powerful the the other?

The lack of evidence satisfies me for now

Ah but the Lack of Evidence is what Drives me. I can never be satisfied with Nothing. Either Yes or No. I can't stand not knowing. I'm Obsessive Compulsive.

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'.

Ah. They need to Update the Dictionary then.

And, thus, you're an atheist, specifically, a weak ignostic atheist.

Well, you can call me anything you like. You can even call me God. Both are equally true.

 

[DrkSdBls]

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?

Nevermind. My bad. I completely misread that.

 

[AllOrNothing]

What a dull day it’s been… (sigh)

Let’s play… Spot the Atheist.. ?

Adolf Hitler… Mussolini … that’s much too easy.._

Count Dracula… well…. maybe..

The sight of a Cross.. certainly makes him recoil.

How about the pillars of the scientific community..

Like Charley Darwin.. was Darwin an Atheist.. or Theist…?

Now’s the time to test your knowledge

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God ... follows from the ... impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.'


Or Albert Einstein.. we know he didn’t believe in a personal god.. BUT……. does that automatically make him an Atheist.. ?

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."



Then there’s the Biblical prophet Amos.. (6:14)…

"For into a poisonous plant you people have turned justice, and the fruitage of righteousness into wormwood, you who are rejoicing in a thing that is not…"

Granted.. he does sound a lot like Richard Dawkins.. but is Amos an Atheist.. or a Theist….. that’s the question..?

You have 30 seconds to make up your mind… the clock is ticking.


How about Jesus.. our great leader.. who taught God and man could become as one..

Was he Atheist or Theist……... it’s not so easy.

“Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?" The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god."

Jesus answered them : "Is it not written in your Law, `I said: "You are gods"'? If he called `gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and despatched into the world, `You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?" - IJohn 10:31


“Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.”

Friedrich Nietzsche.. getting in bed with Jesus.. whatever next.

The question is…

Are they both Atheists.. or are they both Theists..?

Whatever.. they make such a nice couple...



Then there’s Alan Watts.. Zen teacher… but was he a Zen Atheist or a Zen Theist.. or was he a just a humble follower of Jesus and Nietzsche.. ?

"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is.”



That - God - is the ultimate reality… was also taught by Hermes Trismegistus..

Who kindly explains what God is.. so.. no need for belief..

“The source and limit and the constitution of all things is God."

Does this all encompassing definition make him an Atheist… or Theist though… ?



Kierkegaard says God is not a thing…

But.. what does that make him……?

An Atheist.. or a Theist ..?

“But the eternal is not a thing which can be had regardless of the way in which it is acquired; no, the eternal is not really a thing, but is the way in which it is acquired.”



Then there’s great English poets.. like William Blake.. who read the Bible.. day and night…….. and finally concluded...

“God becomes as we are so that we may become as He is.”


No mention of supernatural beings.. so far..

Not to wish to disappoint anybody..

What about believers.. and disbelievers.. in the Greek mythological gods…apparently.. they were supernatural beings.. to the literal reader..

Yet.. I’ve never met a Christian who believes deities like Apollo ..Zeus.. or Eros exist……

Does that make these unbelieving Christians…. Atheists?

Since hey obviously lack a belief in gods.

Shame on them !!!


Ok… test over… so… who has all the right answers..?

First prize is an all exclusive trip to a Buddhist paradise.. in the afterlife.

And you loose points for tooooo much head scratching..

May the Force be with you............