The God Debate

[Whitney]

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.

[pinkocommie]

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.

[Ihateyoumike]

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)

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?

[G-Roll]

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.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.

[Dagda]

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.  

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.

[Whitney]

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  I quoted part of it for you below:

What 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 :

"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."

[notself]

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

[G-Roll]

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

fair enough  

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

i doubt anyone will fault you for it.

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

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.

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.

[i_am_i]

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?

[Dagda]

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.

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?

[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.

[pinkocommie]

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.

[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.

[Dagda]

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.

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).

[Ihateyoumike]

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.