Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[Attila]

Attila, I like your style, man!

Mais t'es trop gentil, mon p'ti! I blush with pleasure      Seriously, thanks for the kind words and the feeling is strictly mucilage, as we used to say when I was a kid.
ciao e grazie mille,
Attila

[Attila]

@Tank

The discovery of God would have to include a detailed and verifiable definition of what God is.

But is that circular? How do you find something if you don't know what you're looking for? I should say I came from and have spent all my life in a religion-free personal (not public) environment. I am as a child in discussions about god. I'm not pissing about here. I really don't have a clue about what a god could be? Do you mean "the creator of the universe"? If so, my choice is either:
a. no god
b.  The background hum coming off the Milky way.
Ok, in terms of understanding the pre-big-bang universe b. has more interest but that interest has absolutely nothing to do with b. being god. Option a. could be true and b. remains equally interesting in the your sense, Tank. So tell me, why should I care?
ciao,
Attila

[Cforcerunner]

Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what your on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

Very well, I'll do my best to commentate on the discussion point in short layman's terms.

Hi Cforce,
We seem to live in very different time as well as philosophical zones. Thus, we will have gaps in our conversation. At this point let me acknowledge your superior education, experience and wisdom. I don't think anyone reading our respective contributions to this forum would have the slightest doubt about it. All this notwithstanding let me suggest that your response could be considered as patronising. Communicating in simple comprehensible language has always been quite enough for individuals we would both agree are worth reading, from Bertrand Russell to Richard Feynman to Noam Chomsky.

If I object to a term in a given context and attempt to present reasons why I object, being responded to by the phrase "this definition ... is fine for the time being" could be interpreted as authoritarian. Now I am sure that these are unintended outcomes but I would request, if there are to be further exchanges between us, that you be sensitive to the impact of your phrasing.

Early on your refer me to your example of "a male pagan farmer in Ethiopia during a period where humanity is transitioning out of hunting and gathering and into agriculture." In your subsequent responses you refer repeatedly to this "example" on the assumption that it has some content. You seem to know what he thinks and that this knowledge can have an impact of the points that are in question. I again confess my own ignorance. I have no idea what a pagan farmer in Ethiopia thinks. If you could indulge me by referring to some works where this is discussed, I'd be most grateful. In addition, I wonder about your use of the term "pagan". What is its semantic content in the time frame referred to? Were there non-pagans then? If not why make the effort of adding the word "pagan"? Is that a critical part of your example? Would it not be possible and easier to use more accessible examples, say, from our own time where I have some hope of understanding what you are talking about.

I am well aware that I may be "cramping your style" with these requests and I have no wish to impose my style of discourse on you. Terminating this discussion may be a more suitable response from you and one that I'll happily accede to.
ciao,
Attila

Unfortunately, the time I have to commit to this forum highly fluctuates. I'd like to eventually post some arguments which I would like to one day turn into a thesis or dissertation, and would enjoy hearing some feedback from anyone who is willing to give constructive criticism. With today's economy, philosophy will have to be a hobby for me, but if financial opportunity arises, maybe I'll have a head start throwing together some ideas that can be expanded upon.

Attila, call me Chris. Feel free to contact me on skype (smithcm), it will be easier to discuss things verbally and more topics can be explored in less time. Regardless, I will try to re-edit this post as time allows and respond to some of the questions of your previous posts.

[Earthling]

I think your unconcern is far more common than the alternative, what I would describe as the militant atheist position. Almost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

[Earthling]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

[Attila]

I think your unconcern is far more common than the alternative, what I would describe as the militant atheist position. Almost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

None of the above. Somehow I feel relieved. 1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually). 2. I am extremely political. The notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles. 

[Tank]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

[Attila]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

Are you asking me? I assume not. Anyway, sadly I have but fortunately no one I spend any time with has any use for it. I certainly have no interest in it.

[Earthling]

1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually).

What is the difference between "believing" and "thinking?"

Darwinism only attempts to explain what happened after we got here. How do you think we got here? 

2. I am extremely political.

I think that most militant atheists are as well. That is probably what you have in common with them. They feel repressed in what amounts to primarily a theocracy. They like to think of themselves as independent, and so incapable of being organized, but the fact is that the average so called atheist is actually more of an Apatheist. It is the growing militant atheists that you see online discussing these issues that could benefit from organizing. It is nonsensical to use the excuse of having nothing in common, comparing the organization of Atheists with herding cats, Like Dawkins does, because what do you expect, in the past, similar organization of women, blacks, homosexuals or any other minority to have in common but the need to organize?

The fact is that aside from the Apatheists they are relatively few. But growing.   

The notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles. 

Oh, I don't know. Lets consider the definition of an atheist. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). The antithesis of theist. Then consider the definition of a god. Anything or anyone who is thought to be mighty (from the Hebrew el meaning "strong; mighty one,") This means that a stick, stone, or object that is venerated exists as a god. It also means that any man that exists that is called a god is an existing god. Moses, the Judges of Israel and Jesus were men called Gods in the Bible. Eric Clapton was called a god, Frodo (Baggins) doesn't exist and was called and therefore - a god. All of this is in line with an accurate understanding of the Bible and a good college dictionary.

[Earthling]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

I asked the question because I don't understand how anyone could be aware of the Bible and speculate on the possible discovery of a meaningful communication with God. That is exactly what the Bible is. 

[Tank]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

I asked the question because I don't understand how anyone could be aware of the Bible and speculate on the possible discovery of a meaningful communication with God. That is exactly what the Bible is. 

Ah! I thought what's you'd say.

[Tank]

1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually).

What is the difference between "believing" and "thinking?"

Darwinism only attempts to explain what happened after we got here. How do you think we got here? 

2. I am extremely political.

I think that most militant atheists are as well. That is probably what you have in common with them. They feel repressed in what amounts to primarily a theocracy. They like to think of themselves as independent, and so incapable of being organized, but the fact is that the average so called atheist is actually more of an Apatheist. It is the growing militant atheists that you see online discussing these issues that could benefit from organizing. It is nonsensical to use the excuse of having nothing in common, comparing the organization of Atheists with herding cats, Like Dawkins does, because what do you expect, in the past, similar organization of women, blacks, homosexuals or any other minority to have in common but the need to organize?

The fact is that aside from the Apatheists they are relatively few. But growing.   

The notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles. 

Oh, I don't know. Lets consider the definition of an atheist. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). The antithesis of theist. Then consider the definition of a god. Anything or anyone who is thought to be mighty (from the Hebrew el meaning "strong; mighty one,") This means that a stick, stone, or object that is venerated exists as a god. It also means that any man that exists that is called a god is an existing god. Moses, the Judges of Israel and Jesus were men called Gods in the Bible. Eric Clapton was called a god, Frodo (Baggins) doesn't exist and was called and therefore - a god. All of this is in line with an accurate understanding of the Bible and a good college dictionary.

You were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

[Earthling]

You were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

[Whitney]

Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

[Asmodean]

But... But... I don't care whether or not gods exist, really... And yet, I am the next best thing to militant when it comes to working against organised religion.