Happy Atheist Forum

I find that the definition of God is central to the debate over His existence (what are we arguing about?) but it seems to be ignored almost completely. For instance, if we define God as all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then we should all be atheists as no such being can possibly exist (omnipotence as most people understand it is a contradiction, and there is the problem of evil to consider). However, if we define God in different manner (such as the feminist critique or mystical interpretation) then we may get into a proper discussion

Quote from: "Dagda"I find that the definition of God is central to the debate over His existence (what are we arguing about?) but it seems to be ignored almost completely. For instance, if we define God as all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then we should all be atheists as no such being can possibly exist (omnipotence as most people understand it is a contradiction, and there is the problem of evil to consider). However, if we define God in different manner (such as the feminist critique or mystical interpretation) then we may get into a proper discussion

Only if first we can all agree that God is not a human fabrication.

"god" is very generally used to describe something  that created all that exists.  But, no matter how genreally or logically you construct the definition of a god you end up with one of two things 1) you still can't prove it is real 2) you make the idea of god so insignificant that the word nature or universe can just as easily describe what you are talking about thus taking away the need to use 'god' as a description

Those are deffinitions of god strait from the Bible. If you can agree that they are contradictry and illogical the you agree the Bible may be wrong or flawed. If the Bible is wrong or flawed on the very nature of god then how can you be sure if any of it is right? If you can't be sure any of it is right then why follow it at all and call yourself a Christian let alone a Roman Catholic (one of the most dogmatic denominations)?

I think we're all missing the larger point that Dagda is making here, which is to try to define what we mean when we say, "god". Get it? You can't just dismiss Dagda's post. It's the whole point.

Well there's no point in an atheist defining god, since we don't have one and didn't raise the debate. That leaves it to Dagda to define it, which really just reduces it to a question of whether Dagda's concept of god exists - which is rather pointless as well, as it leaves out the infinite other conceptions of "god" that could be thought up. So, no matter how many times you win the argument, there's another one to bring out. "Does this one exist? How about this one?"

Quote from: "elliebean"Well there's no point in an atheist defining god, since we don't have one and didn't raise the debate. That leaves it to Dagda to define it, which really just reduces it to a question of whether Dagda's concept of god exists - which is rather pointless as well, as it leaves out the infinite other conceptions of "god" that could be thought up. So, no matter how many times you win the argument, there's another one to bring out. "Does this one exist? How about this one?"

I understand what you're saying here, and don't entirely disagree, but one thing I find I've been able to do (with only a little success, I'll admit) is have the philosophical conversations with different types of believers (from pagans to roman catholics and in between) and narrow down what their concept of what god is and isn't.

That helps ultimately, in preventing me as a non-believer, from just dismissing, out of hand, the ideas and concepts of the believer. So, there no harm in at least narrowing down a description of god in an opening conversation. In fact, even though an atheist should eventually not agree that ANY definition works, it's important to know where the believer is placing his or her concept of god. Contextually, it is very important to do that up front.

The tendency is for non-believers to dismiss things out of hand. I'm guilty of it, especially when I'm just not in the mood to debate or converse. I saw some really ugly examples of it just a few minutes ago in the thread that Whitney ended up locking (the "school project"). I was about to post my agreement with Dagda in that thread, but didn't get there in time, as it had already been locked.

Anyway, I hope I made some sense here. I'm trying to multi-task and fear I might have not expressed this very well.

 

You expressed yourself very well. And I agree completely that it's important [for the theist] to clearly state a definition at the outset. Too often, in my experience, this is not done and the atheist is left chasing around different conceptions of god as the theist repeatedly (and probably inadvertently) changes his definition to suit the needs of his argument as they go along.

As far as the school project goes, I saw it not as ugliness, but as some humorous venting by some exaspirated people directed at a more than likely disingenuous thread in which there was probably never really an intent to engage in any intellectual discourse. For what it's worth, I offered a (for me) more serious rebuttal before joining in the fun.

To Dagda: I meant no personal disrespect in my response to you in that thread. My intent was to express basically what I stated above, pictorially. Sometimes I have a mean-ish sense of humor and can't resist. It did give me a much-needed chuckle, but I apologize if I came across as attacking you in any way.

Quote from: "McQ"I think we're all missing the larger point that Dagda is making here, which is to try to define what we mean when we say, "god". Get it? You can't just dismiss Dagda's post. It's the whole point.

Okay. I define God as a human fabrication, an invisible anthropomorphized being that helped to explain naturally occuring phenomena to primitive humans. For this being to have any substantial impact on these humans it required a representative, a priest or a shaman, whatever, to describe what this supernatural being wanted the people to do in order to survive and be able to thrive.

This concept of a great all-knowing all-powerful being caught on and took hold and it's still here today, perpetuated by a priest class that has everything to gain by people buying what they're selling, and their business is doing very well indeed.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "McQ"I think we're all missing the larger point that Dagda is making here, which is to try to define what we mean when we say, "god". Get it? You can't just dismiss Dagda's post. It's the whole point.

This concept of a great all-knowing all-powerful being caught on and took hold and it's still here today, perpetuated by a priest class that has everything to gain by people buying what they're selling, and their business is doing very well indeed.

Like a really bad virus. I hope the human race can find a cure.

Quote from: "elliebean"Well there's no point in an atheist defining god, since we don't have one and didn't raise the debate. That leaves it to Dagda to define it, which really just reduces it to a question of whether Dagda's concept of god exists - which is rather pointless as well, as it leaves out the infinite other conceptions of "god" that could be thought up. So, no matter how many times you win the argument, there's another one to bring out. "Does this one exist? How about this one?"

I disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

Quote from: "karadan"Like a really bad virus. I hope the human race can find a cure.

Hitler said the same thing about Jews. Be careful when you define things as a virus or as rats; this tends to slowly take away the humanity of the subject and from here it becomes all the easier to condone violence against the now sub-human beast. Most genocide begins with this kind of language. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that members of this forum are actively aiming at a genocide, I am just saying beware of using that kind of language when talking about any fellow human being.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Okay. I define God as a human fabrication, an invisible anthropomorphized being that helped to explain naturally occuring phenomena to primitive humans. For this being to have any substantial impact on these humans it required a representative, a priest or a shaman, whatever, to describe what this supernatural being wanted the people to do in order to survive and be able to thrive.

This concept of a great all-knowing all-powerful being caught on and took hold and it's still here today, perpetuated by a priest class that has everything to gain by people buying what they're selling, and their business is doing very well indeed.

A few problems with your definition: first it is a rather simplistic theory of the foundation of religion-like the fall of Rome, there was no single cause. Secondly, does this mean that you believe God exists? I mean you clearly think God is a human construct, and as your definition of God is as a human construct, if you are correct then so is your definition of God, and as such your God exists (in a rather abstract sense, but still you get the point).

Man, Godwin's law is on overdrive in this thread.  

Quote from: "Dagda"I disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

You don't have to know what something is to not believe in it.  There are probably lots of strange mythical beliefs that I have never heard of that I don't believe in.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Man, Godwin's law is on overdrive in this thread.  

Hopefully this is as close as we'll get.

QuoteI disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

I see what you are saying and to some degree I even agree. But your statement is something along the lines of  you don’t know until you know. Or the old expression you don’t know till you try it.
I personally don’t have to try and smoke crack to know its bad for me. I doubt one needs to really study its chemical makeup and ingredients to understand why its bad for you.
For an atheist the same can be said about gods. I know I have no belief in bible god, so why would I feel an inkling of faith to some other god, or gods, or goddesses?
Now I have no idea what Jainism is. I don’t know if there is even a god involved, so no… why would I claim its stupid? I don’t understand that logic. Which is different from my crack statement. Because I know I don’t want all the negative aspects of being a crack head. Just as I don’t want (what I feel are) all the negative aspects of god worshipping. And no im not saying people of faith act like crack heads.
I suppose the argument of seeing all this as a “blank statement” or “from scratch” could be taken. But that’s not the case and its honestly not realistic. Perhaps if I were a young child with little to no experience of the world that argument could work. But (unfortunately) im not young, and ill take a wager that everyone on this forum is of at least high school age. So everyone here has enough experience to at least dismiss this Jainism or follow their curiosity and then judge with just a smidge of understanding.

Lol by chance would your name happen to be Janice? Janisim-the way of Janice!!

Today, most people accept that the gods of the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Romans, the Greeks and the Norse gods did not exits and they were only mythical figures.  The question that begs to be answered is the following: Why would the god of the three dominant monotheistic religions (christianity, islam and judaism) suddenly rise to be the "real god"? If we readily accept that the ancient gods were the products of superstition, doesn't it follows automatically that the cycle of superstition is being  perpetuated? In my view at least, it seems to be the case. There's  no logical basis for the belief in the existance of the more "ancient"  gods than there is in the belief of a singular omnipotant god.  Furthermore, if one consider the sheer size and complexity af the universe and compare it to the creation stories (or myths; I wouldn't even call it a theory), in my view it's clear that everything in existance was the result of a chance occurence. So, stop worrying about god, enjoy your life and look forward to the eternal deep sleep.  :)  

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "i_am_i"I define God as a human fabrication, an invisible anthropomorphized being that helped to explain naturally occuring phenomena to primitive humans. For this being to have any substantial impact on these humans it required a representative, a priest or a shaman, whatever, to describe what this supernatural being wanted the people to do in order to survive and be able to thrive.

This concept of a great all-knowing all-powerful being caught on and took hold and it's still here today, perpetuated by a priest class that has everything to gain by people buying what they're selling, and their business is doing very well indeed.

A few problems with your definition: first it is a rather simplistic theory of the foundation of religion-like the fall of Rome, there was no single cause. Secondly, does this mean that you believe God exists? I mean you clearly think God is a human construct, and as your definition of God is as a human construct, if you are correct then so is your definition of God, and as such your God exists (in a rather abstract sense, but still you get the point).

God exists in the same sense that Bugs Bunny exists, if that's what you mean. And what's wrong with my theory, if that's what it is, of the foundation of religion? It had to start somewhere didn't it?

Quote from: "Dries"Today, most people accept that the gods of the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Romans, the Greeks and the Norse gods did not exits and they were only mythical figures.  The question that begs to be answered is the following: Why would the god of the three dominant monotheistic religions (christianity, islam and judaism) suddenly rise to be the "real god"? If we readily accept that the ancient gods were the products of superstition, doesn't it follows automatically that the cycle of superstition is being  perpetuated? In my view at least, it seems to be the case. There's  no logical basis for the belief in the existance of the more "ancient"  gods than there is in the belief of a singular omnipotant god.  Furthermore, if one consider the sheer size and complexity af the universe and compare it to the creation stories (or myths; I wouldn't even call it a theory), in my view it's clear that everything in existance was the result of a chance occurence. So, stop worrying about god, enjoy your life and look forward to the eternal deep sleep.  :)  

What does this have to do with your definition of God?
This is indeed an interesting argument in its own right, and I fear I cannot do it justice in a thread not dedicated to the thesis, but if I can be brief: I think the pagan deities cannot be tied up in an easy explanation. I think there were indeed some religious deities which came about through various chance occurrences (natural phenomenon, creative lunatics etc), but this cannot, in my theistic mind, explain all of these deities. Some other (if not most) will be misrepresentation of the divine, but this is still not completely satisfactory. To explain them completely I turn to a rather interesting theory: anything which is believed in takes upon a form of existence and allows it to act upon the world in a limited fashion (the collective power of the human mind creating an anthropomorphic supernatural entity which can act upon the material world in a limited fashion). In this manner I am not an atheist in regards to these other gods, but I do believe that there needs to be some kind of supreme head boss God which is independent of the human consciousness, at least in some way.




G-roll, I think you have given a bad analogy. For instance I could claim that smoking cigarettes is bad for me without ever studying the medical journals in-depth. However, I would have a rough idea of what a cigarette was, and at least some of the properties of the fore mentioned fag. Indeed, at no point would I attempt to bring into question the existence of the cigarette, and if pressed for a definition I would be able to explain the properties in such a way that someone completely in ignorance of cigarettes would be able to recognise one after our discussion. However, if you wished to argue with someone who thought cigarettes were a harmless habit, it would not help your case if you claimed that you don’t need to know what a cigarette is or what it does to know you are right. I think the harmless habit man/woman would probably win the argument by default.

Quote from: "Dagda"What does this have to do with your definition of God?

OK, here's my definition of god:

Quote from: "Dries"

Quote from: "Dagda"What does this have to do with your definition of God?

OK, here's my definition of god:

I agree with this definition.

Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

Quote from: "Tanker"Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

Exactly what I attempted to say above, in so many words. Thanks.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Man, Godwin's law is on overdrive in this thread.  :yay:  :yay:

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Man, Godwin's law is on overdrive in this thread.  :yay:  :yay:

 

Quote from: "Tanker"Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

No, it is not the essence of what I am asking you. An imaginary friend, by its very definition, cannot exist out with the imagination of the creator (it is imaginary). By this definition I believe in imaginary friends-I believe you have one and he exists in your imagination. I cannot describe it, but I can certainly define it-a friend which exists solely in your imagination.

In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "Tanker"Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

No, it is not the essence of what I am asking you. An imaginary friend, by its very definition, cannot exist out with the imagination of the creator (it is imaginary). By this definition I believe in imaginary friends-I believe you have one and he exists in your imagination. I cannot describe it, but I can certainly define it-a friend which exists solely in your imagination.

In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

I was afraid you would focus on the "imaginary" of my example rather then the context. So I havecome up with more NON-imaginary examples.

The most beatiful place I've ever been, can you describe it for me?
A painting I wish to make please describe it for me?
There is a poem that means alot to me, can you tell me why it does?
What is my perfect woman like?
What is my favorite color and why is it?

You can imagine a beatiful place but it won't be mine your descrition will be null.
You can imagine a painting but it won't be mine you description will be null.
You have heard poems but it won't be mine your decription will be null.
Your taste in women is not mine your description will be null
Your asthetics aren't mine your reasons will be null.

A god, any god, is an idea. Many peoples idea of "god" are similar and yet not the same. Hence the many denominations within any large religion. I have no religion and I have no god. I could decribe what I think other peoples idea of god is but it won't be my personal idea of what a "god" is becase that will be a null.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Dries"

Quote from: "Dagda"What does this have to do with your definition of God?

OK, here's my definition of god:

I agree with this definition.

 :headbang:  

Quote from: "Dagda"In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

WTF??????

Quote from: "Dagda"In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

Most of us define God as something that doesn't exist.

Dagda,

You have yet to clearly define your concept of god.  

What or who is your god?
 
Does your god require worship?  If so why?  

Has your god inspired or directly written any sacred instructions for you?  If so what are those instructions?

How are those instructions different from moral or ethical codes of other religions or philosophies?

Does your god have to be obeyed?  If so why?  What happens if she is not obeyed?

What does god do for a job?  She clearly does not answer prayers.  She clearly does not object to or try to correct pain and suffering.  She clearly does not heal amputees.

Quote from: "Dagda"In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

Dagda if you have an imaginary friend named ______ I can tell you right now that I don't believe in it without knowing it's name or how you might describe your imaginary friend.  It doesn't take any faith to not have a belief.  


An atheist is just not a theist...it doesn't even necessarily require 'denial' that something exists.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the concept of god doesn't exist because obviously god as an idea exists as all ideas 'exist' the instant they are thought up.  However, most religious people don't consider god as an idea, they believe in god as an anthropomorphic thing which actually exists and should be obeyed and worshiped.  When I say I don't believe in god, I'm referring to any construct of god that goes beyond the initial idea.  Otherwise, I wouldn't be saying that I don't believe in god, I'd be saying that I don't believe in imagination.  I don't "believe in" the idea of god either, as no belief is required to know that people have imaginations.

It's the jump from having an idea to deciding that that idea exists in more ways than just an idea that I'm opposed to.

Quote from: "Dries"Today, most people accept that the gods of the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Romans, the Greeks and the Norse gods did not exits and they were only mythical figures.  The question that begs to be answered is the following: Why would the god of the three dominant monotheistic religions (christianity, islam and judaism) suddenly rise to be the "real god"? If we readily accept that the ancient gods were the products of superstition, doesn't it follows automatically that the cycle of superstition is being  perpetuated? In my view at least, it seems to be the case. There's  no logical basis for the belief in the existance of the more "ancient"  gods than there is in the belief of a singular omnipotant god.  Furthermore, if one consider the sheer size and complexity af the universe and compare it to the creation stories (or myths; I wouldn't even call it a theory), in my view it's clear that everything in existance was the result of a chance occurence. So, stop worrying about god, enjoy your life and look forward to the eternal deep sleep.  :)  

A very good point is being made in this post. If the majority of all gods are thought of as merely a myth, what makes yours real? (If I may paraphrase.)
Let's see what was written as a response: (emphasis mine)

Quote from: "Dagda"What does this have to do with your definition of God?
This is indeed an interesting argument in its own right, and I fear I cannot do it justice in a thread not dedicated to the thesis, but if I can be brief: I think the pagan deities cannot be tied up in an easy explanation. I think there were indeed some religious deities which came about through various chance occurrences (natural phenomenon, creative lunatics etc), but this cannot, in my theistic mind, explain all of these deities. Some other (if not most) will be misrepresentation of the divine, but this is still not completely satisfactory. To explain them completely I turn to a rather interesting theory: anything which is believed in takes upon a form of existence and allows it to act upon the world in a limited fashion (the collective power of the human mind creating an anthropomorphic supernatural entity which can act upon the material world in a limited fashion). In this manner I am not an atheist in regards to these other gods, but I do believe that there needs to be some kind of supreme head boss God which is independent of the human consciousness, at least in some way.

Here's how I read that:
Those other gods? Well, some existed and some were made up by "creative lunatics." The ones that were believing in a real god, were believing in MY god, they just didn't know it. Those jackasses were just confused. I mean, why shouldn't they be? Jesus didn't reveal to the world who the TRUE GOD really was until after they had all been frying IN HELL for quite some time thanks to misrepresenting the divine. Serves 'em right, those assholes!

Ok, ok, I laid the sarcasm on pretty thick there.... but seriously? That was your response? Sarcasm aside, is there any other way for me to interpret what you wrote there?

QuoteG-roll, I think you have given a bad analogy. For instance I could claim that smoking cigarettes is bad for me without ever studying the medical journals in-depth. However, I would have a rough idea of what a cigarette was, and at least some of the properties of the fore mentioned fag. Indeed, at no point would I attempt to bring into question the existence of the cigarette, and if pressed for a definition I would be able to explain the properties in such a way that someone completely in ignorance of cigarettes would be able to recognise one after our discussion. However, if you wished to argue with someone who thought cigarettes were a harmless habit, it would not help your case if you claimed that you don’t need to know what a cigarette is or what it does to know you are right. I think the harmless habit man/woman would probably win the argument by default.That which does not benefit the hive does not benefit the bee either-Marcus AureliusDagda

perhaps i did, but i still dont see how your argument is realistic. i doubt anyone here has not experienced religion and does not have there own definition of god. why would i have to know of your definition of god to dismiss it?
i have experienced junkies and other drug addicts. so after seeing them, i know drugs are bad (mmmmkay). haha sorry couldnt help that one.
likewise i have dismissed the belief of any god brought before me. i have experienced at least one form of religion. so by your statement i should give this janisim a chance despite my current experience? again i know nothing of janisim, but i have experienced other religions.

Quote from: "G-Roll"perhaps i did, but i still dont see how your argument is realistic. i doubt anyone here has not experienced religion and does not have there own definition of god. why would i have to know of your definition of god to dismiss it?
i have experienced junkies and other drug addicts. so after seeing them, i know drugs are bad (mmmmkay). haha sorry couldnt help that one.
likewise i have dismissed the belief of any god brought before me. i have experienced at least one form of religion. so by your statement i should give this janisim a chance despite my current experience? again i know nothing of janisim, but i have experienced other religions.

Right as everyone pretty much had the same response, I will give a rather general response (wish I had time to respond to each individually, but there we go). I do not believe in the ‘traditional’ Christian definition of God (omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent), and so in that regard I am atheistic. However, I can only reject this classic view of God because I can define it-I know this God does not exist because I know these three premises are a contradiction. In the same manner I would only be able to deny the existence of God completely if I first had a definition of what God is, and from there reasoned that this definition, and all other definitions of God, are illogical or unrealistic for whatever reason. Once I had eliminated all definitions of God as illogical, I could safely say that an atheistic disposition was the only logical course. However, if we cannot say with any certainty what definition suits God, then we can with no certainty say that this definition ( and therefore God) is illogical. As such it is impossible to fully dismiss or accept the premise of God, and therefore all followers of logic must remain agnostic until a definition is found which can then be proven to either be logical or illogical from which we can then decide if we are atheists or theists.  

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Here's how I read that:
Those other gods? Well, some existed and some were made up by "creative lunatics." The ones that were believing in a real god, were believing in MY god, they just didn't know it. Those jackasses were just confused. I mean, why shouldn't they be? Jesus didn't reveal to the world who the TRUE GOD really was until after they had all been frying IN HELL for quite some time thanks to misrepresenting the divine. Serves 'em right, those assholes!

Ok, ok, I laid the sarcasm on pretty thick there.... but seriously? That was your response? Sarcasm aside, is there any other way for me to interpret what you wrote there?

Hold on a second, surely as an atheist you believe that ALL gods were created by some creative lunatic, or misinterpretation of some natural phenomenon? How can you possibly have a problem with this explanation?

As for the misinterpretation of the divine, although I assume that it is my divine being which has been misinterpreted (it would be rather pointless of me being Christian if I did not), I like to think that if evidence came to light which showed that it had been Shiva who had been misinterpreted I would become a Hindu (assuming of course that such a religion exists!) Although we must be careful not to create imperialistic ventures around the idea of our God being superior (we can’t be sure so I think there is enough restraint in place in this modern age), I don’t think this idea is anymore insulting (if insulting it is) than the idea above.

The third premise I think is probably the most ‘liberal’. Most religions share my belief that there must be a head God (I merely say He is Yahweh) so nothing unusual there. As for the idea that the pagan gods may have existed in some form, well I think that is rather less than insulting. Let us not forget that the Hebrews believed a similar version of this before the Babylonian Exile.

dagda, just because someone doesn't believe in a god (is an athesit) doesn't mean they aren't also agnostic.

you should read this post that goes over basic terms such as agnostic, gnostic, atheist, apatheist etc in the manner which they are used by the large majority of freethinkers.  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830)  I quoted part of it for you below:

QuoteWhat is an agnostic?

Agnostic translates as: a (without) gnostic (knowledge) so it means “without knowledge.” A purely agnostic person does not think it is possible to know if a god exists or not and, thus, remains undecided.

What is an agnostic (weak) atheist?

Agnostic atheism is simply another name for the broadest conception of the word atheist. An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god yet does not claim to have knowledge of said god’s non-existence. A weak atheist’s disbelief is largely dependent on a lack of evidence for a god.

What is a gnostic (strong) atheist?

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

From http://www.strongatheism.net (http://www.strongatheism.net) :

"Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues."

Why does it matter if there is a god or not?  He-she-it certainly perfoms no function.

QuoteRight as everyone pretty much had the same response, I will give a rather general response

fair enough  

Quote(wish I had time to respond to each individually, but there we go).

i doubt anyone will fault you for it.

QuoteI do not believe in the ‘traditional’ Christian definition of God (omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent), and so in that regard I am atheistic.

QuoteAs such it is impossible to fully dismiss or accept the premise of God, and therefore all followers of logic must remain agnostic until a definition is found which can then be proven to either be logical or illogical from which we can then decide if we are atheists or theists.

so really, you made up your own picture/beleife of god. (kinda like every one else in the whole world)
you make some thing up and expect everyone to consider it, understand it, and then if we so choose, dismiss it.
i choose just choose to dissmiss it knowing its all made up, by people not much different than you and your take on god.

Quote from: "Dagda"However, if we cannot say with any certainty what definition suits God, then we can with no certainty say that this definition ( and therefore God) is illogical. As such it is impossible to fully dismiss or accept the premise of God, and therefore all followers of logic must remain agnostic until a definition is found which can then be proven to either be logical or illogical from which we can then decide if we are atheists or theists.

But why give such credence and philosophical scrutiny to something that is practically impossible to not dismiss as being just a figment of the human imagination?

Quote from: "notself"Why does it matter if there is a god or not?  He-she-it certainly perfoms no function.

I disagree. Even if the Godhead does not exist in the theistic sense, I think that proving His existence (whatever that may be) would be one of the greatest discoveries in human history-our understanding of the Universe would be fundamentally altered.


In my last post when I refer to agnostics as the only logical alternative in the absence of a definition, I mean in agnostic in the sense that we simply cannot know if God exists or not, and therefore should not lean one way or the other. Complete absence of knowledge of the divine.

Quote from: "i_am_i"But why give such credence and philosophical scrutiny to something that is practically impossible to not dismiss as being just a figment of the human imagination?

How can you be certain that God can be dismissed if you do not know what God is? I can dismiss an imaginary friend only because I know exactly what an imaginary friend is. In the other examples over describing your favourite poem etc, this is not the same. Imagine Jane came up to Tom and said ‘I have a favourite poem, what is it?’ Tom might respond in many ways, but he would not deny the existence of the poem, just that the idea of having a ‘favourite’ is a completely subjective experience. However, an atheist is essentially denying the existence of the poem, and to deny the existence of anything with any certainty we must first define what the non-existent thing is.  The challenge is simple; what is God, and how does this definition lead to non-existence?

Dagda,
There is a definition of a poem.  Poems can be listened to and others will hear the same words.  Poems can be read and all will read the same words.

You never answered my questions.  

Please define "God".  Please explain what this "God" does.

Quote from: "Dagda"How can you be certain that God can be dismissed if you do not know what God is? I can dismiss an imaginary friend only because I know exactly what an imaginary friend is.

Take what you think of as knowing exactly what an imaginary friend is and therefore your comfort with dismissing it - that's how a lot of atheists regard god.  Just another imaginary friend, no more or less powerful or mysterious, and just as easy to dismiss.

I was never religious, I never had to go to Sunday school and get the concept of god pushed at me at an age where I still contemplated the existence of Optimus Prime and unicorns and the like, I never went through the process of realizing that all imaginary things - except for god - weren't real, therefore I don't understand how you can disregard all other imaginary things yet regard god as somehow different.  In my opinion, it's not.

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "i_am_i"But why give such credence and philosophical scrutiny to something that is practically impossible to not dismiss as being just a figment of the human imagination?

How can you be certain that God can be dismissed if you do not know what God is?

But I do know what God is, or maybe it's more accurate to say that I am completely convinced of what God is. God is a human fabrication, a made-up idea. Humans are very creative, you know.

Quote from: "i_am_i"But I do know what God is, or maybe it's more accurate to say that I am completely convinced of what God is. God is a human fabrication, a made-up idea. Humans are very creative, you know.

Ah, so now we get down to the bones of it. God is a human fabrication. There are two problems with this definition;
1)   What evidence is there for this claim?
2)   If you define the very nature of God as a human fabrication, how can you remain open minded about the existence of God? Any evidence which appeared which may indicate the existence of some form of deity would go against the very nature of your definition; your God is improvable as an independent entity and this narrow definition therefore limits intellectual enquiry. You have essentially created a definition which leaves your hypothesis unassailable.

Quote from: "notself"Dagda,
There is a definition of a poem. Poems can be listened to and others will hear the same words. Poems can be read and all will read the same words.

You never answered my questions.

Please define "God". Please explain what this "God" does.

That is my point; the analogies given were bad because the argument itself is weak.
I rather thought I answered your question in the thread marked ‘theology’, but perhaps I am mistaken. To my mind God is a form of collective consciousness. A floating Tao, if you like. My view is essentially panantheistic (God encompasses all, but is not constrained by the material universe). This is a rather basic definition, but I remained you that this thread is arguing that it is bad philosophy to deny the existence of something which you have no definition for; please do not focus on my definition of God as this would be off topic. If you start another thread about my definition of God, then I will happily join in, but I will not reply to queries on this thread (not the place, I think).

Quote from: "Dagda"To my mind God is a form of collective consciousness. A floating Tao, if you like. My view is essentially panantheistic (God encompasses all, but is not constrained by the material universe).

Sounds quite different from what the roman catholic church believes. You know where people get condemned to by the roman catholic church whenever they don't believe EVERYTHING they want you to believe right?

Guess I'll be seeing you there.  

Edit:
You also probably shouldn't use phrases like "to my mind.." if you consider yourself a roman catholic. That implies that you are thinking for yourself (gasp!!) and that's VERY frowned upon.

Quote from: "Dagda"If you define the very nature of God as a human fabrication, how can you remain open minded about the existence of God? Any evidence which appeared which may indicate the existence of some form of deity would go against the very nature of your definition; your God is improvable as an independent entity and this narrow definition therefore limits intellectual enquiry. You have essentially created a definition which leaves your hypothesis unassailable.

QuoteTo my mind God is a form of collective consciousness. A floating Tao, if you like. My view is essentially panantheistic (God encompasses all, but is not constrained by the material universe).

If you define the very nature of God as a form of collective consciousness, how can you remain open minded about the non-existence of God? Any evidence which appeared which may indicate the human origin of some form of fictional deity would go against the very nature of your definition; your God is redundant as an independent entity and this vapid definition therefore evades intellectual enquiry. You have essentially created a definition which leaves your hypothesis irrelevant.

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "i_am_i"But I do know what God is, or maybe it's more accurate to say that I am completely convinced of what God is. God is a human fabrication, a made-up idea. Humans are very creative, you know.

Ah, so now we get down to the bones of it. God is a human fabrication. There are two problems with this definition;
1)   What evidence is there for this claim?
2)   If you define the very nature of God as a human fabrication, how can you remain open minded about the existence of God? Any evidence which appeared which may indicate the existence of some form of deity would go against the very nature of your definition; your God is improvable as an independent entity and this narrow definition therefore limits intellectual enquiry. You have essentially created a definition which leaves your hypothesis unassailable.

The evidence is there but only if you make it a point to look for it. You have no interest in looking for it so anything I cite as evidence will by dismissed by you. It's like when the cops are certain that they've arrested the right man. Why should they continue looking for evidence that could lead them to the real perpetrator?

My definition only limits intellectual enquiry if all you want to think about is God. Having reached the conclusion that God is a human fabrication it is then time to move on and begin the real intellectual enquiry, which is how to be the best human being you can be and how to live the best life you can, to finally get to know your fellow human beings and to finally begin to see the greatness of human achievement, and to finally see the mystery and wonder of the universe.

In this particular world there are two living groups. One group lives behing a very tall mountain, the second group lives on the other side of that mountain.Lets call them group A and B. Group A has an advantage over group B, and that is that they are able to see Group B as they come near the mountain to pray to a stone figure that nature carved out into a figure. The Stone to group B is what they call GOD and it has the power to create and destroyed life. They define such a stone as the CREATOR of all things. Group A feel sorry about group B since they have a totally different concept of GOD; their god lives in a place that they can't reach nor see beyong their horizon which is the very top of that mountain. Every day some from group A go to the place where they are able to observe group B to tried to break through the transparent rock but are never able to do so. One day a courageous member of group B found an ingenious way to climb the mountain and does so. Since group A knows all the members of group B they recognize this individual and after much confusion the individual was able to communicate with a finger saying from " up there ". The individual was then asked if GOD was there but to that individual GOD is a Stone on the other side of the mountain. Some members from group A escorted the individual to the place where they were being observed and from that moment realized that a new GOD had to be created. A GOD that did not live on their planet was more logical since such a God, they thought for sure no one will ever reached. With that came a new story and a new definition about " GOD ".