What is an atheist

[Az]

The issue keeps coming up. What is an atheist. Looking at the root of the word it seems to be simply someone that is without a belief in god or gods for whatever reason. From the word theist and the prefix 'a' meaning without. Without a theistic belief.

Many insist that an atheist is someone that actively denies god's existance. A active state of disbelieving. As if they had to somehow remove their belief in God.

So what is an atheist?

[bunkerbuster1]

1. I always took it to mean whatever you wanted it to mean, since

to my knowledge, there is no specific "Catholic" atheist organization as such. Some are very active in their denial, others are far more laissez-faire.

I never considered myself an atheist, unless the mood struck and I just felt like annoying someone who deserved it!

[sybylla]

5. You're right, no atheist organization exists to define atheism

Which probably makes us even more of a puzzle to those who seem to need to belong to a defining organization.

Your post has me wondering what an atheist organization would look like. I wonder if we would all agree on the details or would we be as diverse in our views as Christians and divide out into "sects" of atheism.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Ah'll tells ya what an atheist organization would look lack!

that thar Sove-yutt Union, that's what!

(heh.)

[Az]

8. Heh

I have seen atheist groups. No where near as organized as that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. No, but

There's no purple organisation to define purple, either, and that doesn't stop it being well-defined.

And even if there were an atheist organisation, atheism wouldn't necessarily be what they said it was.

I don't claim the right to tell other people what they believe, but I do claim the right to tell other people which words accurately describe what they believe and which don't.

[Frogtutor]

2. I don't really understand the reason for the distinction between

the first and third choice, and for that matter, between the second and fourth; whether or not the person voting believes in God or gods doesn't change the definition of "Atheist", does it?

I swear I'm not being a smart-ass or anyting; I'm just curious as to why you set the poll up this way...

:)

[Az]

4. It is my suspicion

That those that believe and atheist is someone that denies the existance of god are going to predominantly be theists. Conversely I suspect that atheists will identify themself as simply lacking a belief in god. No need to actively deny his existance.

[BurtWorm]

11. You have to allow for the possibility that someone won't understand

the choices and will make the wrong one. Did an atheist actually select "someone who denies the existence of gods"? Or was that a theist who didn't realize that that choice was for atheists? Also where would an agnostic vote?

[Frogtutor]

13. I see; thanks n/t

[mdhunter]

3. Someone without a god belief

Which is similar to, but slightly different than, the first option.

[arwalden]

7. Possible Typo In The Poll Choices?

Option #1 Says: "Someone that does not believe gods "

That seems to be saying that they acknowledge and believe in the existence of the gods, yet they simply don't believe them.

Surely you meant to say "... IN gods..."

-- Allen

[Az]

9. Thanks

Modded it. Thought modding a poll in action makes me a bit nervous. :scared:

[arwalden]

10. LOL... Third Time The Charm?

"Someone that does not in believe gods"??

Third option "Someone that does not believe gods" (also missing the word "in")

I know... this is all nit-picky stuff... but the poll is trying to discover the nuances of the word "atheist", so words are important here.

[On the Road]

12. I Seem to be the Only Vote for the Second or Fourth Choices

I describe myself as an atheist only when it's relevant in a specific discussion. For example: "I don't believe the church takes Jesus' teaching about voluntary poverty seriously. Even though personally I'm an atheist."

I just don't like defining myself negatively as a matter of course. And in a social context, self-described atheists are often trying to make a specific statement about their social identity as well as about their beliefs.

[Selwynn]

14. Technically atheism means saying: There is no god or gods.

Otherwise, you are agnostic by techincal defintiion. Clearly atheism is a word interpreted in many different ways, which is why its probably a good idea to ask "what do you mean when you say you are an atheist" before talking much further with an atheist.

In the sense of technical definition, Atheism is a belief. It is a belief in the non-existence of god. Agnosticism is a lack of belief, period - a lack of believe in either the existence or non-existences of God.

American Heritage Dictionary:
#Atheism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.**
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

#Agnostic
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

**note that in defintion 1) lack of belief in the existence of God that does not aslo include lack of belief in the non-existence of God is atheism. Lack of belief in the existence of God that includes also lack of belief in the non-existence of God is agnosticism, technically speaking.

EDIT - please note, I'm not trying to use the dictionary as a proof-text to end discussion. If you disagree with the definition or feel it is inadequate, please by all means say so. But if people are going to communicate in english, then its important to at least figure out what the basic starting point for terms is, and the dictionary helps with that somewhat.

[Az]

15. The problem as we are trying to suggest

Is that the dictionaries are written in large part by believers (as they make up the majority of the population). Its a question of perspective. To a believers point of view the atheist is actively denying God. God should be quite obvious to anyone and to deny him takes an act of will.

But this is not our perspective. We simply lack a belief in god or gods. Each of us for our own reasons comes to that realisation.

The problem is even further clarified by looking at other words that involve the prefix 'a'. It means without. Amoral/without morals, asocial/without social skills, atypical/not typical. All these imply without or the lack of their base. Why the sudden shift for the word atheist?

We will define ourselves. We are individuals without a belief in god or gods. We are without theistic beliefs. We are atheists.

[Selwynn]

16. I have some questions:

But this is not our perspective. We simply lack a belief in god or gods. Each of us for our own reasons comes to that realization.


The key here is the word "existence." Should the phrase be "...belief in the existence of god or gods" or should it simply be "...belief in god or gods?"

If you leave the word existence out, then its possible for an atheist atheist to say "I lack belief in" and essentially mean "I simply do not worship, serve, align myself to any God or gods." Do you feel that more appropriately captures the mind of an atheist?

However, you say at the end that "we are without theistic beliefs. We are a-theists (hyphen for emphasis)" But theism is defined as believe in the existence of god or gods. A-theism then would be disbelief in the existence of God or gods. If you add the word existence, suddenly you're in a domain where there are only a few logical choices.

If you say "I do not believe in the existence of God" this is identical to saying "I believe that God does not exist." And if you say that, this rules out the possibility of not believing that God does not exist. A statement about the "existence" of God is a statement of belief whether positive or negative.

We have words "atheist" and "agnostic" which come from different etymologies and difference histories of meaning. If the word "existence" is to be present, then an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God, i.e says "God does not exist" which excludes from him/her a lack of belief that God does not exist. It is an affirmation of belief.

The Agnostic on the other hand, does not believe that God exists and does not believe that God does not exist - he/she has no belief at all - no opinion, because he/she does not believe it is possible to know either way, in any way, ever.

I'd like to ask another question too, given your dissatisfaction with the dictionary definition of atheism, how would you personally contrast "atheism" with "agnosticism?"

Thanks,
Sel

[Az]

18. Go to the roots of the words

Theism and Gnosticism. Theism mean a belief in god or gods. The word gnostic means to know. Note that gnostic does not specify what it is that someone knows. Only that they have special knowledge of the fact. By returning to the roots we can find a much clearer understanding of positions.

Consider:

Theist: Believes in God or gods.

Atheist: Is without a belief in God or gods. (this implies existance)

Gnostic: Knows for a fact their belief is correct.

Agnostic: Is without knowledge that their belief is correct.

We can combine these terms as gnostic and agnostic are adjectives in this case. Thus:

Gnostic Theist: A person that knows God or Gods exist through special knowledge.

Gnostic Atheist: A person that knows no gods exist through special knowledge.

Agnostic Theist: A person that believes in a god or gods but has no special knowledge of their existance.

Agnostic Atheist: A person that has no belief in gods and has no special knowledge concerning their existance.

Breaking the definitions down in this way we have a much clearer representation of the players and a more informed understanding of their positions. Of these the agnostic positions are likely to be more represented within both camps. Though there will be claimants to the gnostic positions on either side. Of these the gnostic atheist is likely merely misunderstanding the implications of their claim. The gnostic theist has a problem in determining whether their knowledge of God is real or a misperception of reality.

The key to understanding the breakdown here has to do with differentiating knowledge and belief. You can have a minimum of knowledge on a subject and still have a very strong belief about it. Belief is a nonrational recognition of our current balance of internal considerations.

That is our minds compare and contrast our emotional acceptance of various positions and create our beliefs from them. That is we cannot directly choose what we believe. I can no more choose to believe in god than you can choose not to believe in god. We can partake in mental exercises where we imagine we believe something else but in the end it will take a real shift in our balance of emotionally accepted concepts to shift our actual belief.

Knowledge is derived from direct experience. I can know the feeling of snow on my skin. I can know the sound of rain on a tin roof. Knowing God is a bit trickier. Within the descriptions of gods there are a number of ways one could come to know them and thus be gnostic concerning them. But in practice they are problematic due to our nature and the flawed ability of our minds to discern reality in certain circumstances. What we think may be God speaking directly to our mind may in fact be our own inner voice unrecognised due to a neurological anamoly. It is difficult to move from a position of doubt to one of absolute knowledge while being honest with our selves.

[Selwynn]

26. Thanks Az - I'm feeling a little sick, so I'll read this close tomorrow

Sel

[qazplm]

27. so others think the same as i do

that you can be an "agnostic believer".

These definitions you keep putting up are YOUR definitions, not others.

I am not an agnostic theist nor am I an Agnostic atheist and your break down does NOT give a more clear or informed understanding of positions.

It absolutely ignores people like me who refuse to have a belief because we dont believe a belief makes any rational sense when you cant have ANY information one way or the other.

You say all you need is a "minimum" of knowledge on a subject to have a belief, well what if you have zero knowledge on a subject, must you still have a belief?

Should I have a belief in the existence of aliens? I have no knowledge of the subject (although unlike God's existence i have the ability to find out). I can't imagine you would tell me, yes, you must have a belief in whether aliens exist. Certainly I COULD have a belief or a disbelief, but I also could simply say heck I dont know what to believe because I dont have any information.

So why should I not be able to say the same about God?

Your definitions do not clear things up so much as narrowly constrict things into basically believers and nonbelievers, which has the net effect of really putting agnostics out of the loop.

I have found very few people who have called themselves athiests who have not said I do NOT believe in God and had a very active belief. None actually. And likewise in reverse for theists.

I HAVE found people, myself being one who have said, i dont know what to believe, i have no evidence, i have no way to fall, i dont think evidence is possible so I am going to chalk it up as one of those unanswerable questions, and move on and maybe i will find out when i die (or not).

Now perhaps there needs to be a "new word" to describe the position I have laid out above, although quite frankly I think agnostic works just fine...but I found that of the four "definitions" you listed:

agnostic, gnostic, theist, atheist

NONE of them described either how I believed or how i thought.

[Az]

29. I understand what you are trying to say

There is no rational reason for you to take one side or the other. But the issue I have been trying to address is not a rational one. It is not the result of a reasoned consideration of what you can know. It would be nice to think that we can divorce ourselves from our emotional irrational mind. But the truth is that is the nature of our mind and reason and rational thought are merely tools we have developed to help us resolve difficult to resolve issues.

In the end it is a question of the state of your mind. And your state of mind can be in one of two states. It either currently has a belief in gods or doesn't.

I expect you will not accept this notion. I have said my peace on the matter. I have no desire to raise your ire so I will leave it at that. I respect your journey and position and this is just a semantic issue in the end. It is not worth the stress that seems to be generating. Suffice to say that when I say atheist (and others) that they mean a person who does not happen to believe in god. Perhaps we will have to communicate a bit more to ascertain exactly what we mean with certain words. But that is not entirely a bad thing.

[qazplm]

36. I keep asking the question

and you keep punting.

So you are saying for ANYTHING, no matter whether I have even an iota of knowledge on that thing/idea/subject or not, I must have either a belief state of mind or a disbelief state of mind?

That has to be what you are saying, because that is the only logical flow from the argument you are attempting to make.

You didnt or wont answer the basic question...what if I have zero knowledge of something.

How then, can I have a belief in something?

Furthermore, when the defintion of agnostic is someone who says, no one can have evidence in support of God's existence or denial of it, how can an agnostic then turn around and basically say:

I dont believe anyone can have evidence of God's existence or nonexistence, the answer is not knowable but you know, the nonrational side of me is going to go out on a limb here...

you seriously constrict the conversation but turning it into a binary discussion instead of the trinary discussion it really is.

[Az]

38. If you have no information and no belief

Then you are without belief in god. I can only ask you to look at the word as I suggest. Theist is someone with a belief in god. Atheist is someone without a belief in god. You seem to be describing yourself as someone without a belief in god as you have no information to form an opinion about god. I can't say it any other way. You have no belief in god. You are without a belief in god. You seem in all ways and intent an atheist. I won't insist that you are as I will not label a person as they do not wish to be labeled. But the definition of atheist when I use it is simply someone that does not have a belief in gods.

Not meaning to be obstinate. I just am trying to communicate an idea that we both seem to be missing each other on.

My thinking is a lack of belief in god is a default condition. A blank slate. Null condition. It does not require an act of consideration or determination. If the concept of god is introduced and not accepted the null state continues to exist.

The individual may develop a strong sense of their null state (relative to others belief) and it may ever turn aggressive as they oppose various claims for god. But that is additional to their lack of belief.

A person that has a belief in god has shifted from the null state into a positive aspect of believing a thing. Only a person that has believed a thing can technically disbelieve a thing. As dis means to remove. Disbelief implies ridding oneself of an existing belief. This certainly does not apply to all atheists. I for one have never believed in gods. I have never had to disbelieve god. I have simply never found a reason strong enough to convince me that such a thing exists.

[qazplm]

48. The problem is

you are making a definition that does not agree with mine and you are making an assumption i dont think is valid.

The first is your definition of atheist.
An Atheist is someone with an ACTIVE disbelief in God. They will straight tell you they dont believe God exists. Theists have an active belief they will straight out tell you they believe God exists.
Agnostics wont tell you either way, because they dont have an active belief.

I dont also agree that a lack of belief in God is necessarily a default condition. In fact, it seems to me that the real case is that an agnostic position, a neither/or position is the default position.

The default position is not even knowing the question, much less the answer. Then you are introduced to a concept. you decide do i believe this concept or dont I believe this concept or do I even know what to believe.

you make a choice, that leaves you with either an active belief, an active disbelief, or an indeterminate belief.

I find it somewhat contradictory for you to argue on the one hand that lack of belief is a null condition, then to turn around and say that disbelief requires that you previously believed something. It seems like you are yourself differentiating between an absence of belief, and a disbelief...implying much as I am explicitly saying that there is more than one type of "absence of belief".

you sound more like an agnostic to me to be honest, but unlike you ;), i wont tell you what your beliefs are.

[Selwynn]

34. Your definition of agnostic seems wrong

Agnostic: Is without knowledge that their belief is correct.


No, agnostic is the affirmation that no knowledge of a particular think is ever possible. It is not possible to be an "agnostic" atheist, because it is a direct contradiction in terms. Saying that an atheist is "without belief in the existence of God" is exactly identical to saying "believes that God does not exist." There is zero difference, other than the fact that some people like to phrase it one way over the other to try and avoid complicated implications. An agnostic says, you can never have enough knowledge to be without belief in the existence of God, and you can never have enough knowledge to be with belief in the existence of God. It says: I neither believe nor lack belief in the existence of God. You can't combine that with atheism.

As far as knowledge goes, most of those statements are untrue. All of your knowledge is based on an assumption: that your senses are not deceiving you at any given moment. We all know senses to deceive us, and we also have no scientific/empirical way to rule certain possibilities out, like the possibility that all of our sense data is in fact artificial.

The practice of knowing anything is in fact problematic, which is why so many of certain atheist critiques of religious experiences as lacking absolute certainty mean so little to me. I basically think, "well what else is new." The sooner people accepted the reality that "absolutely knowledge" or "absolute certainty" about anything is a myth, the better off we will be.

The question is not "can I be certain?" in my knowledge the question is " can I be justified" in my belief? This is the same question whether it is science or religion or any other domain of life.

[immoderate]

69. About dictionaries. Everyone can be right.

Dictionaries report how words are used. I think most believers use atheist to represent an assetion that there is no god. However most atheists I know wouldn't say that because they know they can't prove it. But atheists are a minority.

Az breaks down the word to its "true" meaning (root is a form of radical by the way) analytically. Selwyn comes back with the dictionary entry, which is another valid approach. It brings to mind the saying, "Most arguments are over what words mean."

I think that was Az's point in asking this, though I didn't understand the poll at first, because I suffer from artificial stupidity. I am one of those who object to including atheism in the set of religions. To me, religion is irrelevant. That's not a belief. Astrology is also irrelevant. Monster Cables, same thing. No need to form a belief.

Agree with knowledge not being absolute. My simple test is if something contradicts something that probably is true and is supported by evidence, it can be cast aside as irrelevant. God runs into problems with physical law, as well as reason. Physical law is not sacred, it can be amended. Religion is not knowledge, it fills in where there is no knowledge.

--IMM

[Selwynn]

71. The reason it matters is only for clarity

The "dictionary" is not an absolute authority, as you mention. The etymology of a work is not an absolute authority for its "meaning" as you also mention. There is no absolute authority for the "meaning" of a word.

There are some that help - for example the dictionary will do pretty well as an authoritative source for understanding the common meaning of a word you don't know in many if not most cases. But that doesn't mean it is absolute and final. Etymologies and histories of words are helpful for understanding their historical context and evolution into modern time. But that doesn't necessarily mean that is how the word is conventionally used today or what it mean in the present day, so it too is not absolute and final.

I'll stick with the dictionary definitions of words like "theism" "atheism" "agnosticism" and "religion" because outside of a handful of defensive atheists and theists, this is how common folk understand that terms. I don't think atheism is a "religion." I do think atheism is a committed worldview, just like I think theism is a committed worldview. Agnosticism is the appropriate label for a non-committed worldview.

A lot of people talk about "weak" atheism vs. "strong" atheism. My only problem with that is the definition of "weak" atheism is identical to what I believe to be the most accurate definition of agnosticism, so its just splitting hairs. But, there's more on the weak/strong explanation of atheism here (this is not necessarily for you specifically, I'm just putting the link up for anyone interested)

This is where I come from in my thinking:

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

------------->>> "What is agnosticism then?" (its exactly that!)

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.


My issue is this: the bottom line for me is that I don't believe the case is sufficiently made for the word-parsing of "weak" and "strong" atheism. "Strong" atheism is atheism. "Weak" atheism is appropriately known as agnosticism - it is exactly identical to it. The long response to the question "what is agnosticism, then?'" feels basically insufficient to me and does not make a compelling case against understanding that "weak" atheism and agnosticism are essentially identical positions.

People need to understand what being "without" belief actually means. Being with out belief makes it impossible to not believe in the existence of God. Because that statement is the exact equivalent of saying I believe that God does not exist, which is not a "lack" of belief - it is a belief.

Being "without" belief means neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God - that's what "lacking" belief means. And whether you lack believe because you don't feel you have enough empirical evidence to come to a belief or because you don't believe any knowledge on the subject is ever possible doesn't change the fact that for whatever reason, you neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God. That's agnosticism, not atheism.

As the article says, the one thing we can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in the existence God. That's not a "lack" of belief - that's an assertion, that god does not exist. A "lack" of belief would be the agnostic, who neither believes nor disbelieves in god and has nothing to say on the matter. That's being "without" belief.

[immoderate]

73. So it's nuance of definition.

I wouldn't tell you that there is no god, because I don't know. I would tell you that any god you can hypothesize bumps up against what I do know. So until you can come up with a god that does not introduce logical inconsistencies, I can't support the idea that there is no god. How can you say that I disbelieve in something when it cannot even be expressed?

Ultimately, it is again a matter of definitions. Here "belief" is under scrutiny. Does it require belief on my part to ignore astrology or superstition? It is my firm belief that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. This is undeniable and has been born out in every situation I've encountered! Do my opinions on the existence fairies, demons, leprechauns, and Santa Claus constitute beliefs? Would you say that I "hold the belief" that Santa Claus is fiction?

--IMM

[Beetwasher]

19. Do You Believe In UFO's?

I don't, but if I saw good evidence (admittedly, my standard will differ from others) of UFO's right now, I might.

Same w/ god. I don't actively disbelieve. I've just seen nothing worthwhile or convincing to make me ACTIVELy believe IN it, and in the meanwhile, it's irrelevant to anything I do, and therefore not relevant to my life in any way. I consider myself an atheist.

[SlackJawedYokel]

23. I don't either.

But I believe it would be a statistical miracle if life didn't exist somewhere else in the universe.

but if I saw good evidence (admittedly, my standard will differ from others) of UFO's right now, I might.
Absolutely. Who want's to be irrational?
lol

Same w/ god. I don't actively disbelieve.
I actively deny the existance of gods/the supernatural, because these things are quite obviously human creations.
But I'm more than willing to look at any valid evidence anyone wants to present.
It's just that the entire burden of proof is on anyone making the assertion.

:D
Cletus

[Selwynn]

33. I am agnostic reguarding the existence of UFOs

I neither actively believe they exist nor actively believe that they don't.

If you actively believe that they don't exist, then you've moved past that place to a different kind of claim.

If you neither actively believe nor actively disbelieve in the existence of God, you fall under the definition of agnosticism. If you actively believe god exists you are a theist and if you actively disbelieve god exists you are an atheist. Atheism and theism have one thing in common: they are both active beliefs. I've seen no spining, wordsmithing, or clever apologetics yet that convinces me that the dictionary definition of atheism and agnosticism are particuarly inaccurate.

[Beetwasher]

35. Nope, I'm An A-Theist

Without a belief in god(s). Active has nothing to do with it.

I'm not agnostic because I'm NOT uncertain about it. I'm certain that I am w/ out a belief in god. That could change if some good evidence comes about, however, right now I am certain that I do not believe in gods.

[Selwynn]

67. You're saying the same thing.

There are only two possible ways that you can say "without belief in God."

Either you neither believe nor disbelieve in God which is what "without belief" would mean, or you no not believe in God. Those are your only options, no matter how you try to parse it.

The only way you can be "without belief" in God is to neither believe or disbelieve that god exists. If you do that, you are agnostic.

When atheists say "without belief" that mean that they do not believe in the existence of a God or Gods, which is exactly identical in semantic content to saying, "I believe that God does not exist."

Agnosticism has nothign to do with being uncertain. Nothing at all. It's not about "not knowing." It's about not believing that knowledge is possible. Agnosticism says, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a God or gods, becuase no knowledge is possible. Not because the agnostic is "confused" about it in some way.

"I'm certain that I am w/ out a belief in god" is the same thing as saying "I am certain that I do not believe that god exists."

[Beetwasher]

68. No, It's Not

Maybe the point is too subtle for you to comprehend, but it's not the same thing.

"I don't believe in Aliens" is NOT the same thing as "I believe aliens don't exist". I don't believe in aliens because I have not been given a good reason to believe in them. I am therefore without a belief w/ regard to aliens. But that doesn't mean I believe they DON'T exist.

Everyone is born an atheist. That doesn't mean when you are born you believe god DOESN'T exist, it means you are without belief in god when you are born. I have retained that state, therefore, I am an atheist.

Others have explained to you the difference between atheism and agnosticism, I suggest you reread their definitions (see AZ's post #18). The terms are incorrectly used and it is common for them to be incorrectly used which is why many people, yourself included, confuse the meaning of the terms.

I would consider myself an agnostic atheist, that is I don't believe in god AND I don't think it's possible to ever know for sure whether or not god exists.

It's actually my agnosticism that leads to may atheism. Since I can never really KNOW if god exists or not, I choose to not believe in it since as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant to my life. That doesn't mean I believe it doesn't exist. It means I can never know (agnostic) therefore I choose to not believe (atheist). Agnostic Atheist.

[Selwynn]

70. Yes, actually it is.

"I don't believe in Aliens" is NOT the same thing as "I believe aliens don't exist". I don't believe in aliens because I have not been given a good reason to believe in them. I am therefore without a belief w/ regard to aliens. But that doesn't mean I believe they DON'T exist.


You say it yourself. You say "I don't believe in aliens because...." which still includes the statement "I don't believe in aliens." Whether you don't believe in aliens becuase you think you can prove they don't exist or you don't believe in aliens becuase you haven't seen any evidence to convince you that they exist doesn't change the fact that you don't believe in aliens, and it has the same semantic value as the "I am without believe" word parsing.


Everyone is born an atheist. That doesn't mean when you are born you believe god DOESN'T exist, it means you are without belief in god when you are born. I have retained that state, therefore, I am an atheist.


That's a pretty unsupportable claim. Whether people are both "atheist" or "agnostic" or "theist" or anything else really has little to do with what those terms mean. You are in fact without belief in anything when you are born. You are not born an "atheist" or anything else, which presumes some kind of reasoning process that we don't have when we are born. As we come to the reasoning capacity to ask questions and think about answers, you may choose an atheistic path, or a theistic path or an agnostic path. But you're not born that way.

The key is that you are without belief at all when you are born. When you specificall think about the question of god you can sya the following things and these things only: I believe god exists (theist), I don't believe god exists (atheist), I don't know if god exists, because I personally don't have enough information to make a decision (undecided/uncommitted), I neither believe nor disbelieve that god exists, becuase I reject the assertion that "god" is something that can be "known" (agnostic.)


I would consider myself an agnostic atheist, that is I don't believe in god AND I don't think it's possible to ever know for sure whether or not god exists.


I understand this perfectly. The atheism part of your agnostic atheism is the part that says "I don't believe god exists." The agnosticism part is the part that says, I don't believe there is any path to absolute knowledge on this issue.

I am sort of your direct opposite, I am an agnostic theist. I believe that something worthy of the term "god" exists, which is the "theism" part. But the agnosticism part is the part that says I don't believe ethere is any path to absolute certainty on this issue.


Others have explained to you the difference between atheism and agnosticism, I suggest you reread their definitions (see AZ's post #18). The terms are incorrectly used and it is common for them to be incorrectly used which is why many people, yourself included, confuse the meaning of the terms.


So far I've seen a lot of incorrect usage of terms, and none of it has been by me. I'll stick with the dictionary, rather than reinterpreting terms to suit my fancy, thank you.
Sel

[Az]

72. Know and Believe

Two different words.

I suspect much of this issue stems from the fact that some people think you can choose what you believe. This makes not believing in god an act of will in their minds. This goes to the core of the Christian faith and the concept of original sin.

Original sin damns us all without the intervention of Jesus. Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for all our sins. But to benefit from this we have to accept his offer. But atheists do not believe in Jesus, sins, or gods. Thus they seem damned. But if it is a case of them simply not being able to believe for reasonable reasons then this makes God the villain. For no fault of their own they are damned. Thus they must be cast as willingly defying the existance of god. They must be seen as rejecting God. Thus the Christian based notion of refering to Atheists as those that deny the existance of God.

The trouble here is that we do not choose what we believe. I could no more make myself believe in God right now than a believer could make themself not believe in God. We could imagine what it would be like. But in truth we cannot simply choose to believe or not believe a thing.

Belief arises from experience, learning, and our attachment to these things. Sometimes there may be a close approximation between conflicting notions in our minds. But this leads to stress. It is not a condition the mind readily accepts. Thus it struggles to find some means of upending the balance and forcing the issue one way or the other for its own internal well being. Thus our mind tends to find something to latch onto to pull itself to one side of an argument or another.

What may have merrit internally to the mind may have no weight to those we would present the case to. It could simply be a sign we saw, a friend we talked to, or some other tool we brought in to sway the case.

While we do not choose what we believe we do influence and guide the tools we use to sway our beliefs. Thus if one were to choose to associate with people that share our belief it will be reinforced. Conversely if we associate with people that do not share our belief it will atrophy.

Theism and atheism address the state of belief a person is in. Consider if there were no theists in the world. There would be no need to distinguish atheists as atheists. Because there would be no group of theists to compare and seperate them from. Atheism is only recognised as a state of not being a theist. With no theists there is no need to note one's atheism.

[qazplm]

80. first of all

while they are two different words, they ARE connected, you cannot have belief without knowledge. You CAN have knowledge without belief.

Again, and this is a question you still havent addressed, if I have no knowledge about something how can I have a belief?

I have no knowledge about who will win the presidency of Morroco this year. (I dont even know if they have a president, or an election this year for that matter). I have no knowledge, and therefore, I have no belief as well, in fact, can't have a belief because I dont even have a morsel of information upon which to rationally or irrationally wrap a belief.

I also do not BELIEVE that I have any knowledge about the existence of God and further more I do not BELIEVE that I can have any knowledge. That second part is especially a BELIEF but you seem to ignore that. So therefore, I put together that knowledge, the sum total of it being "I don't know" and come up with a belief which, not surprisingly, also ends up being "I don't know".

Thus making me a "strict agnostic" as the creator of the term agnostic outlines above, and no offense, but seems to me if anyone knows the intended meaning of the word, its the guy who came up with it.

He seemed to agree with me that agnosticism and atheism are very different things and further more agrees that they are in the Belief side of the ledger.

My belief is that I dont have a belief because I have no information for or against which to wrap a pro or con belief around.

So quite frankly you are wrong, theism, atheism and agnosticism address the status of state of belief a person is in. And if you want to consider not having someone in the world, consider if there were no theists or atheists in the world. What if everyone said "I don't know"?

You would seem to think such a world impossible, I dont at all.

Your discussion of the mind is off too, I am certain there is a tug of war between sides, but you seem stuck in a binary way of viewing the sides. Not every issue has only two sides, and the existence of God is no different.

There IS a tug of war over theism and atheism in my head just like everyone else, the difference is, in my head, neither side can come up with the energy to pull the rope (energy = evidence) and so the flag as it were stays right in the middle.

I find the "evidence" provided by theists to be absolutely unpersuasive but also find the arguments of atheists absolutely unpersusasive.

[Az]

81. Sides and rational thought

I suspect the difficulty you are having is that you keep insisting that belief is the result of rational thought. Rational thought can play a part in a belief but it is primarily a matter of emotional response.

Reason and rational thought are tools we have developed (amongst others) to help allieviate the stress that accompanies indecision.

Concerning the tug of war in your head. I would suggest it is not between believing in gods and believing in not believing in gods. It is simply a question of do you believe in gods. It is a yes or no question. There is no need to complicate the matter by making the lack of belief a belief itself.

This may very well be a perfect case to apply Occam's razor to. Answer the question of whether you actively believe in gods and you answer the question of whether you are a theist or an atheist.

[qazplm]

84. hows is that Occams Razor?

That's Az's Razor perhaps but I dont think OCcam has much to do with it.

Rational thought is absolutely required for belief. Whether belief in itself is rational is a different story, but you cannot have the latter without engaging at some point in the former.

Therefore the KIND of rational thoughts you have INFLUENCE the belief that you hold.

I would also suggest that I might understand the tug of war (or in my case lack thereof) just a TEENY bit better than you might.

And finally, there is nothing at all complicated about a lack of belief or disbelief, its rather simple actually.

[Beetwasher]

75. If You Agree With This Statement (and you apparently do) Then

You agree w/ my definition of atheist and agnostic and there's no argument:

"I would consider myself an agnostic atheist, that is I don't believe in god AND I don't think it's possible to ever know for sure whether or not god exists."

You wrote: "I understand this perfectly. The atheism part of your agnostic atheism is the part that says "I don't believe god exists." The agnosticism part is the part that says, I don't believe there is any path to absolute knowledge on this issue."

You sort of get it, but your twisting my words. The atheism part of my agnostic atheism is the part that says "I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD", but my agnosticism comes first. First comes "There's no way to know whether or not god exists, therefore, I'm agnostic". Then comes "Since there's no way to know whether or not god exists, I don't believe in it". There's a difference. My atheism is supported FIRST by the fact that god's existence is unknowable, therefore, I can have NO BELIEF ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE, I merely just choose NO BELIEF. That doesn't mean I believe he doesn't exist! A belief in god is more than just believing that it exists, it's accepting a whole host of other baggage.

There is no "active" DISBELIEF in my atheism. I just don't believe. I would never say "I believe god does not exist", because that's not the case. I would say "I don't believe in god".

Agnosticism deals w/ knowledge. Atheism deals w/ belief. It's that simple. And yes, you HAVE misused the terms as do most people. The reinterpretation of these words is being done by believers.

[SlackJawedYokel]

24. How can anyone believe in something that doesn't

exist?
That's like saying I "believe" that somewhere out there Smurfs really exist because I can't "prove" they don't.
Even though there is irrefutable evidence that the Smurfs are the fictional creation of specific humans.

technically speaking.
Man, I really dig the hair-splitting.
:D

And I quite agree, it is important to understand the terms being used.

Cletus

[qazplm]

28. yes

I absolutely agree with that last definition of the word agnostic:

the belief that there can be no proof either that God does not exist or God exists.

That is a clear defintion and i believe a very excepted one.

so let's go further, does it make any sense for an agnostic to have a belief that no proof exists of Gods existence or nonexistence and then for that same agnostic to also have a belief if God's existence or nonexistence?

in effect saying, I dont believe there is any proof of God's existence, or any proof of God's nonexistence, but you know what, nonetheless, I believe/dont believe in God?

Clearly that doesnt make any sense. So what you are left with is a group without an active belief OR disbelief in God.

Therefore, you are left with a defintion of theism as an active belief in God and atheism as an active disbelief in God.

The last does not require any "removal" of God from belief, it simply requires an affirmative "God does not exist" mindset.

[Selwynn]

32. I agree.

Therefore, you are left with a defintion of theism as an active belief in God and atheism as an active disbelief in God.


It's pretty much that simple.

[immoderate]

74. You may not be able to *prove* either way, but the evidence

is all on one side.

--IMM

[rogerashton]

40. Agnosticism is also a belief --

a belief in the impossibility of knowing the answer to a particular question.

When I considered myself an agnostic that was my exact position. When I concluded that my reasoning for that belief was confused, I stopped calling myself an agnostic.

[Selwynn]

66. There is nothing that is not a "belief."

[moobu2]

17. I'm an atheist who doesn't care what anyone believes

and
I don't want to convince anyone not to believe in God or an after life, if that's what they want, but I will speak up when a Christian try's to preach to me, sometimes very forcefully. (it's always Christians who try to convert you).

I was indoctrinated into Christianity very early on and I probably will never completely ride myself of the psychological damage being raised as a Christian has done BUT I work hard at it every day anyway.

Beside, even if there were a heaven and Christianity was the way to it, I wouldn't want it for myself. If most of the Christians I know went there, it would be HELL for me to be stuck with them for eternity.

[H2O Man]

20. An atheist

is someone who thinks of a narrow definition of "God" that they do not subscribe to.

[SlackJawedYokel]

22. Just curious, but why narrow?

What sorts of other definitions are there?

Cletus

[H2O Man]

25. Good question.

Many people define "God" in terms that are hardly distinct from an older, less kind Santa Claus who created everything, demands worship, and loves everyone ever so much .... though he burns some in hell forever. Not surprisingly, many people do not believe in this definition of "God."

What other definitions might there be? Well, the prophet Bob Marley sang that "the Almighty Jah is a living Man." And Gandhi was fond of saying that, "Truth is God." Both seem worthy of consideration. Do athests not believe that humans exist? Or that there is truth?

Einstein said that he believed in God in the sense of the sum total of the laws of the universe. Of course, some of the DU atheists do not believe in Einstein, again proving that my definition of atheists is far more accurate than their definition of "God."

Most atheists love their children; I would suggest that love is indeed "God." Most atheists love nature and a clean environment; again, these are God. Most atheists can tell the difference between a living tree and a dead piece of wood; the difference is God. Most atheists marvel at the atom and the universe; all three are God.

Most atheists believe in gravity. Yet the law of gravity is equally true in the cases of non-believers.

[SlackJawedYokel]

30. Hmm... ok... but

Many people define "God" in terms that are hardly distinct from an older, less kind Santa Claus who created everything, demands worship, and loves everyone ever so much .... though he burns some in hell forever. Not surprisingly, many people do not believe in this definition of "God."
But are any of those people atheists?

What other definitions might there be? Well, the prophet Bob Marley sang that "the Almighty Jah is a living Man." And Gandhi was fond of saying that, "Truth is God." Both seem worthy of consideration.
And I can say that life begins at 40.
Does this mean that everyone younger than 40 is in utero?
Sounds like Bob and Mahatma were using metaphors and not attempting to define god.
The claim that "man is god" isn't defining god but "redefining" man via metaphor.
The same with truth.

Do athests not believe that humans exist? Or that there is truth?
No, more likely is that atheists can comprehend humans and truth because they can experience/test both quite easily.
And that they understand the use of metaphor.

The supernatural god concept, on the other hand, doesn't lend itself to that experience/test.

I find it more compelling that believers all seem to have their own definitions of god(hence the various and sundry religions and cults), and invariably they *do* believe it to be something akin to Santa Claus... which, IMO, is why the Santa Claus myth is so readily adopted by other cultures.
The fascinating thing is detailing the distinctions.
Having been raised Roman Catholic I received decidedly mixed messages about just what the biblical god entailed and was amazed to discover that part of this was undoubtedly due to the fact that there are 3 or 4 distinct god-persona's in the bible and that the Greeks had as much to do with defining the biblical god as did Semitic Jews and Christians.

Einstein said that he believed in God in the sense of the sum total of the laws of the universe.
Ah, just a rephrasing of the Greeks.
Again, what Einstein said was more a redefinition of the Universe by use of metaphor than a definition of god(s).
Einstein was part of the cause of the paradigm shift under modern physics and was trying to help express that.

Of course, some of the DU atheists do not believe in Einstein, again proving that my definition of atheists is far more accurate than their definition of "God."
LOL
Some atheists on DU don't "believe" in Einstein?
Tell me you can quote someone saying this truthfully.

Most atheists love their children; I would suggest that love is indeed "God."
You know, I don't usually say this because I detest the phrase... but dude, you're just playing fallacious word games.
"I love my dog, god is love, my dog is god" is basic Fallacious Logic 101.

Most atheists love nature and a clean environment; again, these are God.
See above example of logical fallacy.

Most atheists can tell the difference between a living tree and a dead piece of wood; the difference is God. Most atheists marvel at the atom and the universe; all three are God.
No, all three are examples of *nature* and absolutely no evidence of god(s).
Like I've said already, using a metaphor to help redefine or clarify one term isn't the same as defining another term.
Nature does not equal god(s).
Nature equals nature.
Love does not equal god(s).
Love equals love.

Within the common usage of the word, "god(s)" refers to a supernatural entity or entities who created and rule the Universe(or aspects of the Universe in a Pantheon) and who tend to be prayed to and/or worshiped.

Most atheists believe in gravity.
You mean there are those who don't?
Wow.
Can you introduce me?

Yet the law of gravity is equally true in the cases of non-believers.
Oh my.
It's the *theory* of gravity and that only tries to explain how it works.

Thanks for the response.
Cletus

[H2O Man]

31. I think you

did a good job of giving an example of exactly what I meant. First, I don't think that you know what either Marley or Gandhi were saying; if you do, you are hiding it .... perhaps playing an atheist word game. (grin) But I think it comes closer to a virgin demanding that he/she knows exactly what sex is, or isn't.

The idea of love being God is not a word game .... it may be something that you do not understand, but millions upon millions of people will experience God -- today -- in the form of love. Your example of your dog may be a good place for you to start.

Gravity is not a theory. That is merely how you think of it. But if you were to jump off a bridge today, you will fall. No theory.

If you like to think of what Einstein said as simply repeating the Greeks, though again that is evidence of narrow thinking, it's fine. That has absolutely nothing to do with if his definition, which he meant literally, was true or not.

Likewise, both Marley and Gandhi were speaking 100% literally. An atheist may need to try to manipulate that truth, but again, it doesn't matter. If Bob Marley had a book in his hand, and an atheist insisted it were a bike, the book remains a book, while the bike exists only in the atheist's mind.

To experience God, one must give up fear. That is very hard for people. Good luck.

[SlackJawedYokel]

37. You're making me laugh now.

I think you did a good job of giving an example of exactly what I meant.
If you say so.
Me?
I think I clarified the holes in your argument.

First, I don't think that you know what either Marley or Gandhi were saying; if you do, you are hiding it
Oh, I see... so I can't win that game, eh?
Or I can't know my own mind?
What exactly are you claiming for me here?

.... perhaps playing an atheist word game. (grin)
Gosh, we now have "atheist words"?
Could you provide me a copy of that dictionary?

But I think it comes closer to a virgin demanding that he/she knows exactly what sex is, or isn't.
You mean someone who is a "virgin" because their hymen is intact and who has engaged in every form of sexual activity but vaginal penetration?
Or a "virgin" who is simply inexperienced?
Because the only virgins I know who "don't know exactly what sex is or isn't" are children.
And I wouldn't expect them to have such knowledge.

The idea of love being God is not a word game
Well, actually it is within the context of how you presented it.
Metaphors are wonderful things when used properly.

it may be something that you do not understand, but millions upon millions of people will experience God -- today -- in the form of love.
No, more accurately, they will experience love and you will conflate that to experiencing god.

Your example of your dog may be a good place for you to start.
While I misspoke in my example, it shoulda been, "my dog loves me, god is love, therefore my dog is god", I actually passed Logic 1, so thanks, but I'll pass.

Gravity is not a theory.
Absolutely correct.
Gravity is a fact. It is an observed phenomena.
The *theory* of gravity is a stab at explaining how it works.

That is merely how you think of it.
Clearly, you are confused about what I think since I said no such thing, nor did I intimate it.

But if you were to jump off a bridge today, you will fall. No theory.
And this refutes or responds to what I said how, exactly?

I'm not sure if you're understanding me or if you're not even reading what I write.

If you like to think of what Einstein said as simply repeating the Greeks, though again that is evidence of narrow thinking, it's fine.
Umm... how is acknowledging that using a metaphor for an already established concept "narrow thinking", exactly?
Is it that you refer to all such things you disagree with as "narrow thinking" or will you eventually explain why you believe this?

That has absolutely nothing to do with if his definition, which he meant literally, was true or not.
What makes you so certain he meant it literally?
Please, cite a source that I might read this as well.

What is truth when one uses a metaphor?
Is the metaphor truthful or not?
Is the content of the metaphor truthful or not?
Are you positing Einstein as an authority on defining god(s)?
Seems like it.

Likewise, both Marley and Gandhi were speaking 100% literally.
Again, please cite a source that confirms this is so.
Thanks.

An atheist may need to try to manipulate that truth, but again, it doesn't matter.
Discerning the truth is not manipulating the truth.
Skepticism isn't manipulating the truth.
Nor is understanding the use of metaphor.
So, I guess I'm not sure what manipulation is occurring that you are accusing "an atheist" of using.
Please clarify.

If Bob Marley had a book in his hand, and an atheist insisted it were a bike, the book remains a book, while the bike exists only in the atheist's mind.
So you believe that atheists are delusional people who see what is clearly not there?
This is interesting as it runs completely contrary to everything I know of atheism, my own experiences, and the experiences of every atheist I know personally.

None of them are clinically delusional, which is what you are describing, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't disparage me or fellow atheists that way.
Thanks.

To experience God, one must give up fear.
Which god is that?
The love god, the truth god or the dog god?
I can honestly say I've never been afraid of any of those things.
Does this mean I've "experienced god"?

That is very hard for people.
I'd say it is impossible except perhaps for some form of clinical insanity.
Fear is a survival trait tied directly to the most basic of emotional responses.
IMO, you'd have an easier time getting rid of your appendix.

Good luck.
You too.

Cletus

[H2O Man]

45. Easy enough .....

With Marley, the quote is "the Mighty Jah is a Living Man." Your belief is that he was making a symbolic comment on the nature of man. Yet a simply understanding of language and sentence structure betrays your belief as wanting. Were the comment in regard to the nature of man, it would be the exact opposite: "a mighty Man is the Living Jah."

Likewise, your shallow thoughts on Gandhi are backward. He is not saying "God is Truth," as you insist. Clearly, the significance is lost on you. But in time, I am confident you will come to understand.

The funny thing about acorns is that every so often, one encounters one that is positive it is a mighty oak tree. Tiny acorns often are convinced that they are the exact center of a drama that extends beyond their tiny shell. They may even bluff knowing the meaning of words that they use incorrectly. That's not, you may be relieved to know, any mental illness. It's simply ignorance and immaturity. The good news is that acorns, with patience, can grow. They may be insecure about being small brush standing in the shadow of a larger oak. But big oaks tend to be patient with both tiny acorns and small brush.

[SlackJawedYokel]

51. I should know better

than to expect civil, coherent discourse with some folks.
Live and learn.

With Marley, the quote is "the Mighty Jah is a Living Man." Your belief is that he was making a symbolic comment on the nature of man.
And the source is?
If you're referring to "Get Up Stand Up", the quote is "Mighty God is a living man."

And no belief is necessary, since I understand the use of metaphor.
Especially in lyric poetry.
This statement is about as compelling as Anton LeVay claiming he is Satan.

Yet a simply understanding of language and sentence structure betrays your belief as wanting.
Feel free to demonstrate this.
Or provide evidence for the "Mighty Jah"(the Rastafarian name for the biblical god Yahweh/Jehovah, btw, which leads right back to the beginning).

The statement "man is god" is not compelling evidence for god but rather a redefining of man and hardly specific to Bob Marley.
I'm sorry you appear to have difficulty getting this and I can't find any other way to explain the use of metaphor.

Were the comment in regard to the nature of man, it would be the exact opposite: "a mighty Man is the Living Jah."
LOL
This is just too funny... deconstructing Bob Marley lyrics in an attempt to justify your need to characterize atheists as using "narrow" definitions of god(s).
Especially given that you are going out of your way to avoid the most common usage definition of god(s).
I can't say I've done this sort of thing since I was in a college dorm.

Likewise, your shallow thoughts on Gandhi are backward.
You know, I find it sad that you insist on characterizing me as shallow when it comes to these things simply because I don't buy into your world-view.
I don't mind the name-calling if it were backed up by some compelling demonstration of *how* and *why* my thoughts are "shallow".
I daresay that after 41 years on the planet, I've put quite a bit of thought into quite a few things.

He is not saying "God is Truth," as you insist.
Sigh.
Clearly there is no point in continuing this discussion as you refuse to understand the use of metaphor.

The entire quote from Gandhi: "Search for Truth is search for God. Truth is God. God is because Truth is."
Clearly Gandhi is referencing the more common definitions of god(s) and was in fact conflating Truth with God.

You know, I find people who truncate quotes out of context to be not worth my time.
Thanks.

Clearly, the significance is lost on you.
Actually, it isn't, no matter how hard you wish it.

I quite agree with both Bob and Gandhi in their sentiments.
I'm all for empowering people to believe in themselves and to search for truth and work for justice.

What I don't buy is the need to clothe these very human endeavors in silly mysticism and appeal to the supernatural.
Common spiritual/religious beliefs seem defeatist and dis-empowering in that these people simply refuse to understand that their strength comes from within rather than from some external source.

Why encourage anyone to use a crutch when they don't need it?

But in time, I am confident you will come to understand.
Oh the hubris.
At some point you might want to address your own issues of sweeping generalizations.
You seem to have painted me with quite a broad "atheist" brush in your attempt to justify your position.

I find it more than just a little telling.

The funny thing about acorns is that every so often, one encounters one that is positive it is a mighty oak tree.
Like the Little Choo Choo who could?

Tiny acorns often are convinced that they are the exact center of a drama that extends beyond their tiny shell.
I know. I'm enjoying your performance in more ways than you know.
It amuses me when people unknowingly describe themselves while attempting to denigrate others.

They may even bluff knowing the meaning of words that they use incorrectly. That's not, you may be relieved to know, any mental illness.
Actually, seeing things that aren't there *is* a mental illness, by any definition.
Except metaphorically, of course.

It's simply ignorance and immaturity.
Oh man, now I and all atheists are "ignorant and immature".

How sad that you can't manage an actual discussion without feeling the need to prop up your ego with insults.

The good news is that acorns, with patience, can grow. They may be insecure about being small brush standing in the shadow of a larger oak. But big oaks tend to be patient with both tiny acorns and small brush.
Gosh, how *do* you fit your head through the door?

Was there really anything to your point except to disparage atheists?

Cletus

[H2O Man]

54. You are great!

You have the line wrong, of course. It is "the Mighty Jah."

You are simply wrong on your statement on what constitutes a mental illness. Certainly, visual hallucinations can be a symptom of a mental illness. But it can be many, many other things.

You should calm down. Relax. My goal is not to insult you. In fact, I'm trying to be gentle, though you may see it otherwise ..... which, I should add, doesn't make you mentally ill. Or bad. Or my enemy. So if you do indeed wish to enjoy our little discussion, I'd suggest you should take your guard down. Don't be so defensive.

Religion should in every sense remove crutches; to the exact extent that it encourages crutches in any form, it is a misuse or even abuse of religion. So we agree about at very least that!

Regarding atheists: no, I'm not on the religious forum to get in tiny digs at atheists. Not at all. You've been so defensive that you miss my point entirely. Atheists and religious folk tend to have the same values in most areas. They tend to respect and enjoy the same things. There is likely far more common ground between thinking religious folk and thinking atheists than differences; and surely more common ground between them and things such as the extreme religious right-wing. I'll give you an example: you are likely familiar with the case of the father who brought the Pledge case to federal court; I'm friends with his cousin, and passed on a number of suggestions to him on how to further his case. Make sense?

[Az]

55. Fat lot of good that did

JOKING!

Of course we are going to have more in common than different. We all live in the same world. Each of our explanations and notions about the world around us have to apply to what we can see before us. They all seek to answer the things that are not plainly obvious. And since we are all observing the same basic thing (hopefully unless that brain in a vat theory is right) then our conclusions may differ but the basic values and insites will be similar.

[SlackJawedYokel]

59. Are you a comedian in real life?

Because, man, you're killing me here.

You have the line wrong, of course. It is "the Mighty Jah."
Feel free to cite what you are quoting.
I'm just telling you what I found.

You are simply wrong on your statement on what constitutes a mental illness.
Evidence that I am wrong?
Nowhere to be seen.

Certainly, visual hallucinations can be a symptom of a mental illness. But it can be many, many other things.
Like what?
Regale me.

You should calm down. Relax.
Does that condescending tone work in real life?
Because it doesn't here.
Just so you know, I'm shaking with laughter, not anger.

My goal is not to insult you.
Wow... then perhaps you should revisit your word choice and tone.

In fact, I'm trying to be gentle, though you may see it otherwise ..... which, I should add, doesn't make you mentally ill. Or bad.
LOL
No, it makes *you* seem completely unaware of what you write or how you come across.
I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis of your mental health, let alone online.
But I can only go by what you write.
And what you wrote, whether intended or not, was insulting.
But then you'll just accuse me of being thin-skinned rather than admit to this, right?

Or my enemy.
This is how you characterize and treat your friends?
Damn... thanks for the warning.
If I want condescending I'll pay for it like I do for all my masochistic needs.
lol

So if you do indeed wish to enjoy our little discussion, I'd suggest you should take your guard down. Don't be so defensive.
So I'm just imagining that you were referring to atheists as "narrow" and ignorant, et al?
Oh man... *my* fault.
/sarcasm.

Religion should in every sense remove crutches; to the exact extent that it encourages crutches in any form, it is a misuse or even abuse of religion. So we agree about at very least that!
Excellent... broken clocks tell the correct time twice a day, too.
So what.

Regarding atheists: no, I'm not on the religious forum to get in tiny digs at atheists. Not at all.
Do you *really* want me to catalog your digs?
Or will you at least acknowledge what you wrote?
That much I could respect.

You've been so defensive that you miss my point entirely.
Gosh, maybe I should just lie there and enjoy it, it what you're saying?

So instead of spending so much effort being condescending and insulting maybe you should spend it explaining your point with greater clarity?
Just a suggestion.

Atheists and religious folk tend to have the same values in most areas.
So what.

They tend to respect and enjoy the same things.
Again, so what.

I asked you why *you* insisted that atheists used a "narrow definition of god" and not much else.
The only thing I've been able to ascertain from your responses is that you have difficulty recognizing the use a metaphor.

There is likely far more common ground between thinking religious folk and thinking atheists than differences; and surely more common ground between them and things such as the extreme religious right-wing.
Again, so what.
How much "common ground" is there between someone who characterizes atheists as "seeing things that aren't there"(since the term "mental illness" seems to cause you such distress) and "ignorant"?
I'm hard-pressed to believe we atheists are *all* masochistic like that.
lol

I'll give you an example: you are likely familiar with the case of the father who brought the Pledge case to federal court; I'm friends with his cousin, and passed on a number of suggestions to him on how to further his case. Make sense?
Wow... can someone raise their hand if they think this has anything at all to do with what was being discussed?
Thanks.

I'm not sure why you think I should care or this makes a difference one way or the other to what you posted earlier.

Feel free, at any point mind you, to actually explain something relevant to what I asked.

Thanks
Cletus

[H2O Man]

60. Having worked

as a psychiatric social worker for decades, I am very well aware that people "seeing" things that are not real is common, and is rarely a sign of mental illness. The number of people with visual hallucinations as a symptom of their illness is so small that it's not likely one will ever encounter such a person in their lifetime. However, each of us will, from time to time, have errors in visual perception .... which have nothing to do with mental illness.

Do you really want me to explain that to you? Rather than obsessively writing long responses that are almost entirely nonsense, stop and think for a minute, and you'll be able to figure it out. I have confidence in you being able to think of three very obvious answers.

Once you do that, we'll be at a point where you can proceed to the next step.

Peace, "Cletus"!

[SlackJawedYokel]

61. So you're not a comedian...

Have you thought of going into that field?
You seem overly qualified.

Having worked as a psychiatric social worker for decades,
Hmmm, if this is any example of your "bedside manner" you might want to consider a career change.

I am very well aware that people "seeing" things that are not real is common, and is rarely a sign of mental illness.
What you do on your own time is your business.
Really.
Because you're not honestly going to tell me that the side effects of addiction are what you are talking about, and that this doesn't somehow qualify as mental illness, right?
I mean you *have* at least *seen* the DSM IV, right?

Of course, you aren't going to *tell* me anything like that... you've not *told* me anything meaningful at all, really.

Nothing at all corroborating your claim that Gandhi, Marley and Einstein were speaking *literally*.
Nothing at all about those atheists you claim "don't believe in gravity".
Nothing at all about atheists who don't "believe" in Einstein.
Nothing explaining just how you can claim that I don't know my own mind so I'm "hiding it".
No explanation about how you "know" what I "think" about gravity.
No clarification about this "manipulation of the truth" you claim we atheists use.
Not one single thing substantiating your belief that atheists are delusional people who see something that clearly isn't there(book, bike, whatever).
Not one single citation on how one "gives up fear" exactly and why this is a good thing.
No response to my putting the Gandhi quote back into context.
Heck, you haven't even provided the proper Marley quote.
Only claimed that I'd gotten it wrong.

Nothing at all really, except disparage me because I ask you questions and point out the holes in your assertion.
It may salve your bruised ego to see me as an "immature, ignorant little acorn", but in the truth plain for anyone to see.

The number of people with visual hallucinations as a symptom of their illness is so small that it's not likely one will ever encounter such a person in their lifetime.
And yet you claim "If Bob Marley had a book in his hand, and an atheist insisted it were a bike, the book remains a book, while the bike exists only in the atheist's mind".
I realize that atheists don't make up a substantial portion of the population but *surely* we aren't the sum total of that small number of people with visual hallucinations as you claim.

And just so you know, I personally know 3 people who were diagnosed as having visual hallucinations.
And none of them were atheists.

However, each of us will, from time to time, have errors in visual perception .... which have nothing to do with mental illness.
I'm having a jolly good time watching you flounder about.
Just so you know that someone is actually appreciating your performance.

Do you really want me to explain that to you?
No, what I'd really rather is you explain just why you feel the need to accuse atheists of this.
That'll suffice, really.

Rather than obsessively writing long responses that are almost entirely nonsense, stop and think for a minute, and you'll be able to figure it out.
Gosh... can you write *one* post without insulting me?
I'm almost willing to double-dog dare you.
lol

What you call "almost entirely nonsense" I call parsing.
By addressing each sentence you write I can attempt to clarify your muddled, seemingly incoherent thought processes.
Seeing as how parsing your posts is a bit like attempting to build a house with spaghetti, I'm wondering why I bother.
But at this point the entertainment value is high enough to continue.

I have confidence in you being able to think of three very obvious answers.
I'm not at all confident that you'd be able to comprehend my response.
Especially given the direction this thread has taken.

You do realize that the gist of what I originally asked is that you want to be able to define god(s) in any fashion that suits you, right?

Once you do that, we'll be at a point where you can proceed to the next step.
Oh please, Mr. Turtle, don't slow down on *my* account.

Please, don't think that because I choose not to follow you down your path that I don't understand your path, where it leads or why it is a dead end.

Peace, "Cletus"!
If only I believed you were capable of real sincerity even after you've spent the past 4 posts insulting me, I'd respond it kind.
But honestly, you've done nothing to encourage me to believe that, so I won't.

Cletus

[H2O Man]

62. Grumpy, grumpy, grumpy.

No one is "diagnosed as having visual hallucinations." But I understand what you are trying to say. Three? Really? I think there is at very best zero chance of that being true. But, because you are a huge fan of the quest for proof of all things, if you can provide the documentation, I'll be curious to see it. I think that your problem is that you do not understand what "visual hallucinations" and for that matter, "diagnosed" are. That appears to have led to your confusion on this issue.

Your guess on substance "abuse" is surely an interesting one. While there are several models of thought on substance abuse, including areas such as experimentation and ritual use with hallucinogens, I think there is a general agreement apart from the "addiction" questions that their use results in a brief reactive psychosis. Thus, it falls into a group of experiences that at very least mimic a mental illness.

But there are three others that should be as obvious to you as the nose on your face. Keep in mind that our senses are experienced internally, but are based largely upon external stimulus. I think you'll get all three now.

Finally, thank you for your concern .... but I'm retired. Do what I want when I want. Beats the heck out of working. In answer to your thinking I may not have the personality needed for the job, you err again. The only people who reacted really "badly" towards me were those with raging personality disorders, who insisted that I "prove this" or "prove that." Obsessive folks who might even come in with a shopping list of demands that they though defined my short-comings, but which really reflected the inner turmoil that they were experiencing. These demands are symptoms (which is what a hallucination is) that help diagnose what the person's malady is.

Most people in the field believe that personality disorders are so entrenched that they are hardly treatable. I'm not sure. There seem to be coping mechanisms; people with personality disorders that result in their making shopping lists of demands, for example, grew up in unhealthy homes. We must be patient with their efforts to have their needs met. I always keep in mind that God loves them, and expects us to, too.

[Az]

39. The problem with changing the def so drastically

Is it effectively changes the entirety of the issue. Are you suggesting that God is an entity, an individual that also happens to be love? Or are you suggesting that God is the essence of connection people feel when they feel love? Two entirely different questions. And one so changes the nature of God that using the name is perhaps misleading.

If you are going to use a drastically altered definition of god that what most seem to expect then all bets are off. When a person tells you they do not believe in god they are refering to the typical notion of god. Creator of the universe. Individual personality/entity. Change the nature of god to something else and you have changed the entire game.

[rogerashton]

41. How about a confusatarian?

It may be necessary to change the definitions. If the customary definitiions just cause confusion, then let's change them and maybe get unconfused.

So I guess I would be a confusatarian -- one who thinks the most common definitions of "god," "theist" and "atheist" that no-one who tries to use them can avoid being confused by them.

Seems to me to be a lot of evidence for that on all sides in this discussion!

[Az]

42. It would be better to get past the labels

But unfortunately the majority of our conversations are spent using the shorthand of labels. So making sure we understand what each other are talking about becomes worth while. However dismantling the labels and talking about the ideas instead is likely to lead somewhere far faster. Particularly when individuals become bogged down in different definitions.

[rogerashton]

43. So, as a panentheist, am I an atheist, an agnostic, or a theist?

No.

[Az]

44. I suspect that still falls within the theist category

You still believe there is a god. You just see god as inclusive of everything there is. Just because you are part of god does not mean you don't believe in it.

[rogerashton]

49. There is a little more to it than that.

I said panentheist, and you responded to pantheist -- but (following the ideas of Charles Hartshorne) a panentheist may (must?) deny that God is omnipotent or impassable, definitional characteristics of the Abrahamic God. For a pantheist, God is the soul of the universe but might not be its creator nor be eternal -- as a panentheist I am frankly not sure -- but again, those are definitional attributes of the Abrahamic God. So if I say I believe in God I am heard as expressing belief in two propositions that are, in my opinion, quite wrong, and two further I am doubtful of. In most ways I am closer to the atheists.

[H2O Man]

46. There was no bet.

And you provide a wonderful example of someone saying that "God" simply must be defined in a narrow manner that you are comfortable discussing. My definition is not "drastically altered." It is, in fact, the definition that all of the great Masters from the beginning of human history have used. If I were talking to a small child, I would expect to have to simplify the definition. I am hoping that we can discuss issues as adults.

[Az]

47. Have I given you any reason

To suggest I was a child? The point of this conversation has been from the start to clarify issues. To suggest I am trying to hold off all ideas that may be by use of a semantic argument belittles the effort here.

And I will stick to the notion drastically altered. New concepts and alterations to the term may contain wisdom. But it is equally false to insist on holding to a term that has understood implications.

If someone proclaims that what they meant by god all along was a small rock they found on the beach it stretchs the term beyond its meaning. For the consideration of this particular word the term God is understood to mean an individual or entity that created the universe or has power to exercise it's will on the universe. It is understood to refer to an entity. A person. An individual (or trinity as some would have us believe).

This in no way dismisses the claims of those that look to the seeming interconnectedness of all things and proclaim some aspect of it to be supreme or the bonding structure between us all. But unless you are claiming its a guy named Earnie or some such you are not postulating a god in the traditional sense.

[H2O Man]

50. My guess

is that the idea that "God" is the sum-total of the laws of the universe; that love is "God," and that children define the Kingdom of Heaven are a bit more in line with what the great teachers in human history have said for centuries upon centuries. To say that it is somehow different than what this discussion allows, or the silly statement about a rock, may actually be that which should tastefully be dropped from any serious conversation. Again, they fit smack-dab into the category of atheists trying to limit a discussion.

[H2O Man]

53. PS:

I should make clear that I am not intending to call you (Az) a child .... I respect you for being a clear-thinking person. But to try to set rules on how anyone can define "God" is weak. Especially when those restrictions would keep out the teachings of Jesus, Gandhi, and for sake of accuracy, Peter Tosh wrote the line that Bob Marley is better known for singing.

I think atheism is a good thing. I think that about the same % of atheists are able to articulate the thought behind insightful atheism as the % of religious folks who have a serious understanding of God. By no small coincidence, these two groups tend to hold very similar values.

[Beetwasher]

56. You're Definition Of Atheist Is Too Narrow

Or maybe you're painting w/ a broad brush.

What makes you think that ALL atheists have a narrow definition of god?

I can only speak for myself, but I recognize your definition of god as well, and I still don't "believe".

If god is essentially all of existence, then what's to belive in? Or rather, what use is it to belive? It won't make one bit of difference as to how I live my life. If god is love, god is also hate, and they are both consciousness produced.

[H2O Man]

57. That's good ....

Because it's not to be "believed in." It's to be experienced. So the question isn't "what use is it to believe?" .... it is "what use is it to experience?"

How can I be positive, with no chance whatsoever of being wrong, that ALL atheists have too narrow a definition of "God"? Because we are all human, and we are not capable -- atheist or theist -- of understanding much at all.

So we can only know a tiny bit. We can only believe in a fraction. Yet our ability to experience is not nearly so limited. As Gandhi taught, a tiny drop of water takes part in the greatness of its parent, the ocean. It is only when it tries to separate from the parent that it dries up. And that is the human experience.

Atheists are God, too. However, just like every other group, some are thoughtful and decent, and others are silly or worse.

Regarding your belief in love as a product of consciousness, or your atheism .... those are products of your consciousness. Nothing wrong with that.

[Beetwasher]

63. Agreed

All I can know are products of my consciousness and all I can do is experience my tiny slice of what is. I guess we have different names for the what is essentially the same thing. What you call I god, I call existence. I guess I would prefer to call it existence though because of all the "baggage" that comes with the word god.

By your explanation it would seem it's not just atheists who have a narrow definition, it's everyone, so that would mean that a theist is one who has a narrow definition of god (or an incomplete understanding) and yet still chooses to believe or subscribe? Or something like that? :shrug:

[H2O Man]

65. I think so.

There's the (true) story of Thoreau being processed for jail. He is being asked to fill out a form, and where it asks for his religion, he writes "atheist." The jailer looks at it, and says, "Atheist? Never heard of that one. But I guess we all believe in the same God." That made incarceration more tolerable for Thoreau.

Many of my friends and associates are atheists. They almost all have children, and so they have no problem identifying with the idea that their love for their children is a powerful force that defies definition. One can say that it is a conscious feeling, or that it is a biological aspect for mammals to raise young to keep their DNA in the cycle, etc etc. And these are all valid points to discuss ..... but it's far better to experience parenthood, because there are things that are rightfully beyond description.

Again, I respect atheism as much as I do religion. There are wonderful examples of insightful and intelligent people who hold the same basic values in each school of thought. Likewise, there are ignorant and vile people who belong to one or the other, also ..... but because a few drops of water are dirty, Gandhi taught, that does not make the ocean dirty.

[rogerashton]

76. There are those who claim to have experienced much more --

mystics of various kinds who claim to have direct (subjective) experience of the absolute whole, God, the infinite --

While I have not had such experiences I see no reason to exclude their testimony completely. If God exists there may well be people who have experienced Her existence.

[Az]

77. Gnostics

Direct experience. Direct knowledge of a matter. Of course the problem for those who are not claiming to be gnostics is to decipher whether the gnostics really did have the experiences they claim or if they are merely misinterpretting something a bit more mundane.

[H2O Man]

78. Or if they

correctly interpret what some misinterpret as "mundane" as Divine. I say that as a gnostic.

[rogerashton]

79. No, mystics and gnostics are two very different things.

Gnostics claim to know, but not necessarily by experience. Gnostics may (and historic Gnostics did) claim esoteric knowledge handed down by ordinary human teaching or from "hidden" (but quite physical) books.

Mystics report their experience, but often do not claim any esoteric knowledge. A very common mystical claim is that their experience is open to anybody, in principle -- though a great deal of history suggests otherwise. (See Karen Armstrong's writing, e.g.) Another common mystical representation -- and this one I find persuasive -- is that the mystical experience is difficult to express in words because it is like explaining sex to a virgin, or (Rumi, here) proving to an embryo that there really is a world beyond the womb. What cannot be expressed in words cannot be known as doctrines, since doctrines are expressed in words.

Of course, everyone knows her own experiences. This is an instance of what philosophers call incorrigible knowledge.

[Beetwasher]

83. That's Good For Them, But Meaningless For Everyone Else

Scientists have recreated these mystical feelings in the lab using EM fields...That's reason enough for me to exclude their testimony...Who knows if someone is experiencing god or just living under some power lines...:shrug:

[SlackJawedYokel]

21. Actively denies the existance of not only gods

but the supernatural as well.

Cletus

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Other: someone who doesn't have a pathological need to 'believe'

as opposed to someone who will define anything they like as 'God', (but won't have silly definitions like rocks foisted on them), just as long as it allows them to feel they have discerned a deep meaning to life, and that other people must be blinkered if they think their definitions are in fact useless.

[H2O Man]

58. You have erred with you attempt to use

the word "pathological."

[trotsky]

64. Hehe

Are there really more atheists than theists in this forum? Or did people just not pay attention to the words in parenthesis?