How atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God

[McQ]

I think the name God is not so acceptable to atheists, because they associate it with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or leprechauns, etc.

I like to ask what names in place of God would you atheists suggest to be more acceptable to yourselves?

What about higher power all in lower case, which is also believed in by some scientists?

And also grand architect of the universe, all in lower case, which is the name for the builder of the physical universe according to Masons.

But I really have to read more about the higher power of a sort from scientists in order to know what they genuinely mean by that term.

And also from Masons about the grand architect of the universe.

What do you guys here, both atheists and theists say, but specially atheists?

Anyway, if you atheists here want to contribute a name to take the place of God of the Christians, please feel free as far as I am concerned.

Yrreg

Finally, a question not framed as a double negative or a litote!

Very easy to answer, but you already know the answer. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods, period. Doesn't matter what name you give the god or gods. They simply do not exist. There is no need to prove they don't exist. The burden of proof is on those who say that a god or gods exist.

[Yrreg]

You don't mind any name for God, just that it be supported by evidence.


That is very good.

But I do have a problem, who is or are to decide that the evidence presented by theists are relevant and sufficient for the ascertainment of God's existence?

Because in human affairs of certain kinds unless some persons also fellow humans acceptable to contending sides make a final determination that is binding on both sides, the conflict can go on and on and on endlessly though all the grounds have been covered and all angles and nooks of the issue have been dealt with, so that theists can claim that insofar as humans can be certain God has been established to be in fact existing, while atheists till insist there is no relevant and much less sufficient evidence.

That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, I proposed most sincerely that we together atheists and theists put up a panel of the most unimpeachable panel of men in regard to impartiality on the one hand and utmost mastery of logic on the other to judge which side, atheists or theists have more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

As usual no atheists want to even show favorable regard to my proposal, instead they put up only objections; and when one of them, curiosityandthecat, was willing to discuss with me about the grievances of atheists, I did not see him any further lending his presence to that thread, after posting his message about being amenable.



Yrreg

[Kylyssa]

'Imaginary being' or 'imaginary beings' would be better than the word 'god'.  That's why people equate god with invisible pink unicorns, etc, because they are also imaginary beings.  Perhaps 'fantasy being(s)' or 'fantastical being(s)' would be better.  Some might prefer 'mythological creature(s)' or something similar.

[John09]

theists can claim that insofar as humans can be certain God has been established to be in fact existing

Yrreg

Since you are a theist, offer your proof of god's existence.

I nominate myself as the leader of the impartial and impeachable counsel. I will decide.

1, 2, 3...GO!

[Heretical Rants]

But I do have a problem, who is or are to decide that the evidence presented by theists are relevant and sufficient for the ascertainment of God's existence?

We want evidence, not feelings.  This means no post hoc and no "I once was lost,  but now I'm found."

After that, you really just have the watchmaker argument, which is basically a blind shot-in-the-dark hypothesis that doesn't even support any specific God, just the deist god.

Ancient scriptures and self-fulfilling prophesies also do not count, nor do vague passages that could be interpreted to mean anything.

Example:
And [I swear] by the night when it draws in, and by the dawn when it breathes in. (Qur'an, 81:17-18)

This supposedly describes the process of photosynthesis.

[Whitney]

That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, I proposed most sincerely that we together atheists and theists put up a panel of the most unimpeachable panel of men in regard to impartiality on the one hand and utmost mastery of logic on the other to judge which side, atheists or theists have more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

First of all, don't respond to this or any other comment till after you have addressed McQ's comments towards you in the other thread.  This is red so you will see it.

That said, why do we need to create a panel?  This is a topic that has been discussed amongst philosophers ever since people started thinking about a god (obviously the discussion has grown more sophisticated over time).  It is more than obvious that agreement on who has the most reason is unlikely.  However, the more reasonable theists and atheist alike don't tend to care about what others believe as long as they aren't pushing their views on society.

[Will]

But I do have a problem, who is or are to decide that the evidence presented by theists are relevant and sufficient for the ascertainment of God's existence?

Generally, people with a given education or expertise is to decide. Most people on this forum have much more than a passing knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics, sciences that are verifiable. From my experience, when someone presents evidence for god or gods, it's entirely unscientific. Everything from "Look at the trees" to "the Earth is 6,000 years old" really can't stand up to the scientific method, which is itself verifiable.

Please don't take it personally that we don't believe, it's not much different than you not believing in Zeus (I'm assuming you don't believe in Zeus).

Because in human affairs of certain kinds unless some persons also fellow humans acceptable to contending sides make a final determination that is binding on both sides, the conflict can go on and on and on endlessly though all the grounds have been covered and all angles and nooks of the issue have been dealt with, so that theists can claim that insofar as humans can be certain God has been established to be in fact existing, while atheists till insist there is no relevant and much less sufficient evidence.

I am only bound to my understanding of the universe and the facts at hand, as are you. Interpretation need only be independently and objectively verified to determine if some bias is in play.

That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, I proposed most sincerely that we together atheists and theists put up a panel of the most unimpeachable panel of men in regard to impartiality on the one hand and utmost mastery of logic on the other to judge which side, atheists or theists have more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

Hold on a second. Is the argument about objective facts or about reasons to be atheist/theist? The former means nothing but science and logic, the latter can certainly include subjective experience and interpretation.

As usual no atheists want to even show favorable regard to my proposal, instead they put up only objections; and when one of them, curiosityandthecat, was willing to discuss with me about the grievances of atheists, I did not see him any further lending his presence to that thread, after posting his message about being amenable.

Yrreg

Oh come now, you must realize that this forum is bombarded with preachers and trolls masquerading as people wanting an open dialogue almost daily. Any mistrust or defensiveness is based on our experience. With all due respect, your OP has in it a fundamental misunderstanding of atheismâ€"that we don't like the name god. It's not that at all. We simply find no compelling evidence to believe in the concept. You could call god whatever you want, but as long as you're speaking of an omniscient, omnipotent creator, it's the same thing. A rose by any other name.

[AlP]

Another quality post Will. It might be directed to a deaf ear but I'm listening.

[LoneMateria]

Another quality post Will. It might be directed to a deaf ear but I'm listening.

I agree with both statements.  Yrreg was posed a lot of questions in the last thread which he just ignored (By both me and others).   He seemed like was just looking for a post that would agree with him, when he realized that a post wouldn't he'd stop reading it.  I've covered this flawed concept of letting truth be decided by committee in the last thread and he obviously didn't read it.  At least Whitney is on our side and doesn't want this to turn into the last thread.  w00t go Whitney!!!

[Yrreg]

I think the name God is not so acceptable to atheists, because they associate it with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or leprechauns, etc.

I like to ask what names in place of God would you atheists suggest to be more acceptable to yourselves?

What about higher power all in lower case, which is also believed in by some scientists?

And also grand architect of the universe, all in lower case, which is the name for the builder of the physical universe according to Masons.

But I really have to read more about the higher power of a sort from scientists in order to know what they genuinely mean by that term.

And also from Masons about the grand architect of the universe.

What do you guys here, both atheists and theists say, but specially atheists?

Anyway, if you atheists here want to contribute a name to take the place of God of the Christians, please feel free as far as I am concerned.

Yrreg

Finally, a question not framed as a double negative or a litote!

Very easy to answer, but you already know the answer. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods, period. Doesn't matter what name you give the god or gods. They simply do not exist. There is no need to prove they don't exist. The burden of proof is on those who say that a god or gods exist.

I am responding to you, McQ, because I have received a request from Whitney to respond to you before I respond to him on his post.

You see, McQ, I am into the concept of God, and you people keep on harping on the existence of God.

Can we just keep to the concept of God?

There, that is my response to your post.

Now, is that a violation of the agreement that I want to talk about the concept of God as understood by Christians, but you and every atheists here want to talk about the existence of God which they insist does not exist, is that a violation of the agreement I accepted on registering here to be a member of this forum?

It is very clear to me that you people are insisting that I don't even talk about the concept of God as understood by Christians.

Is that being scientific?



Yrreg

[Yrreg]

That is why in the thread not from myself about the author of that thread feeling bad for atheists, I proposed most sincerely that we together atheists and theists put up a panel of the most unimpeachable panel of men in regard to impartiality on the one hand and utmost mastery of logic on the other to judge which side, atheists or theists have more and better reasons to be atheists or to be theists.

First of all, don't respond to this or any other comment till after you have addressed McQ's comments towards you in the other thread.  This is red so you will see it.

That said, why do we need to create a panel?  This is a topic that has been discussed amongst philosophers ever since people started thinking about a god (obviously the discussion has grown more sophisticated over time).  It is more than obvious that agreement on who has the most reason is unlikely.  However, the more reasonable theists and atheist alike don't tend to care about what others believe as long as they aren't pushing their views on society.

Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

-------------------------

Whitney, I must commend you, because I think you are the most powerful person in this forum, some kind of a Christian God here insofar as being banned here is concerned or being to put it in concrete terms, thrown out...

Still you have conducted yourself in a manner which shows that you have been throughout my presence and participation here acting rationally instead of passionately against me.

Thanks, and I must say kudos to your scientific mind and heart and attitude toward me, testimony of which is I am still here and still writing at this very moment.



Yrreg

[Karras]

Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

Do you live under a rock Gerry?

You can hardly miss some representatives of Christianity pushing their views. Here's a few examples:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Not that it is restricted to Christianity, though it does seem to be largely them and Islam who are so aggressive in their recruitment tactics. Jews typically seem to be happy as a more exclusive club and you don't tend to hear much out of Sikhs or Hindus either, at least not outside of their native communities.

[Yrreg]

Okay, shall we now go or return to the topic of this thread, "How atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God?"

And remember I am just into the concept of God, not into the factual existence of God.

I mentioned that scientists, some of them, which some can be many or few, accept the concept of a higher power.

And I also mentioned that Masons accept the concept of the grand architect of the universe.

What do scientists understand by a higher power?

I have not read on them writing about their concept of a higher power, but from my knowledge of the English language it is obvious that it is a power (search English dictionaries please if you have to on what is power) that is more than any humans know about, say, like the Christian God or perhaps lesser, but still higher than any power above the powers atheists know and live under, for example, the law of universal gravitation.

About the grand architect of the universe of the Masons, again I have not read on what they with great precision mean by that designation, but I am sure anyone with a knowledge of English that enables them to read newspapers intelligently know what it means, namely, to put it in simple concrete English, builder of the universe (see universe in English dictionaries for people who don't know what other peoples using English are talking about with the word universe).

Okay, tell me, atheists here, what do you think about the higher power accepted by some scientists and the grand architect of the universe accepted by Masons.

Remember, I am talking about the concepts, not the presence of anything in factual existence corresponding to the concepts.


Please also contribute your ideas on how to revise the concept of the Christian God, okay?

So that it will be acceptable to you as atheists, that is namely the concept only, please, but not the existence to be corresponding to the concept.


You will tell me that atheists as you are you don't have any belief in God or gods.

But you still have a brain which can think about what kind of a concept you want for a Christian God, if you don't like the concept of the Christian God known to every Christian who knows his Christian faith.

You want me to repeat again what is the common concept of God for all Christians?

Here:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

You don't like that concept of the Christian God? Then tell me what concepts you want of the Christian God or how you would like to revise it.





Yrreg

[Karras]

Let me ask you this, do you really think that Christians would accept their God being redefined into something else, just to pander to atheists?

You seem to be so keen on focusing on the "creator" part of the God concept but how about this one: "genocidal"?

The God of the Bible both commits and encourages genocide in several biblical stories. That all manner of hand waving apologetics have been used to justify this does not really help. The God described in the Christian Bible is a pretty unpleasant character. Now even if you can find enough Christians willing to redefine their God into something more palatable, this can only really be accomplished by removing vast swathes of the Bible. Do you honestly think this is likely to happen? More to the point, do you honestly think atheists could make it happen, even if we want to?

It could also be argued that Allah is more problematic than your Christian God, though I expect Muslims would be even more resistant to any attempt (either from without or within) to redefine him.

[Yrreg]

Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

Do you live under a rock Gerry?

You can hardly miss some representatives of Christianity pushing their views. Here's a few examples:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Not that it is restricted to Christianity, though it does seem to be largely them and Islam who are so aggressive in their recruitment tactics. Jews typically seem to be happy as a more exclusive club and you don't tend to hear much out of Sikhs or Hindus either, at least not outside of their native communities.

I am in the Philippines, as I said of Chinese ethnicity but Philippine nationality.

We have a democracy here and I learned in school that in a democracy people can talk about anything that is not libelous on other people, but don't touch anyone's nose without his permission, and about political, religious, moral, whatever, artistic, even how to raise kids, they can talk until their lungs get exhausted or write until their fingers get numb, and get their views published any ways and means they can command, but the moment anyone starts kicking any other person to get his views put into practice, he is going to get arrested and put behind bars, for the safety of society and yes the preservation of democracy in our country.

And we in the Philippines try to emulate Americans in the practice of democracy, though we put more emphasis on demos and less on kratia, that is the trouble with our peoples here I grant you that.




Yrreg