What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

Maybe, but not in this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, so you would go with my first interpretation of gnosticism rather than theism. I agree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean by that? And no, the sarcasm was not escpaist in nature, it did give an answer and made a valid point while being sarcastic too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The very idea of a God for an atheist is contextualised by the theist. Atheism is a stance on the Gods of the theist and as such is a reaction to theism. Its not the job of the Atheist to define God, since many definitions exist and one may be an atheist to Zeus, he may also be an atheist to a personal god but an agnostic to a deist god and a theist towards pantheism. In this sense, it is nonsensical for the atheist to define the god, its logically correct for the theist to define the God and then for the atheist to give his stance on that God. Because -

Ballist - You, aballist, tell me which ball you think I dont have.
Aballist - I cannot tell that unless you tell me which ball are we talking about.

A.
Ballist - I am talking about the beachball.
Aballist - You not have a beachball.

B.
Ballist - I am talking about a ping pong ball.
Aballist - You might have a ping pong ball.

C.
Ballist - I am talking about testicles - Balls.
Aballist - You do have those balls.

See, it only works if the theist defines the god.

 

@LG --

I'd like to know where these "working models of god" are, because I've never seen one.

 

And how is that exactly?

We dont running with some definition of God because we arent believers. We have reacted to the beliefs of theists and found them unbased and illogical. To ensure that we dont fall into their pit of irrationality, we reject those Gods. But these Gods are asserted and defined by theists, we merely have a stance on their assertion.

Again, we are all atheists towards Xenu, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Apollo, etc. The specificity, if lost, can allow us to define the Gods we dont believe in, such as a person creator God, a scriptural god, etc. But since atheism is not independant and is always a stance on the theist's claims, it is the job of the theist to define the God, not the atheist. You do understand that the burden of proof and the burden of definition need to go hand-in-hand for the argumentation to be sensible at all, dont you?

 

The burden of defining it to precision is on the theist.

I do concede that some strong militant antitheist atheists are indeed baised.

No rational atheist can ever be an atheist to ALL gods. I am a spinozist myself and an agnostic for deism. A working definition of God as a person creator being who has created the universe as well as the individual and helps and intervenes in their life is the definition that most atheist think of since that is the most relevant in our life. The concept must be provided by the theist, since the specific stance on a God can only be given once the one making the assertion defines his God. For example, everyone is an atheist to Zeus, but it is logically impossible to be an atheist to the Spagetti monster.

Then please define your position - theistic agnostic? Weak Theist? Non-partisan Agnostic?

 

Being better depends on the skills of the person, not his beliefs. And what makes you think that we are more moral than theists? We are bound by nothing but our alturism, we are free to lie, cheat and manipulate - and some do, for good or for bad. Atheists may act more morally because they lack dogmatic compulsions to do immoral things and as such their alturism acts as a good ethics guide. They are not, however, by the definition of "Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles" moral.

Yes, but its just too many to list. Atheists can only say that they are atheists towards a particular set of gods - like personal gods or creator gods or mythical gods, etc. Any further refinement must be by the theist, since the claim of the theist is what the atheists reject.

 

This post has my endorsement.

Btw,See, about that sarcasm thing?

 

if you have attempted to launch into any criticism on the subject you have already beaten me to it I'm afraid

 

so since there is quite spectrum that goes on under the name of theism I think you have to get a bit more specific than the current vague panderings being offered.

kind of like making the claim "physics is wrong" - totally meaningless statement unless you want to start asserting which particular functions or qualities of it one is talking about

iow you are so vague and general about it that atm you are not even distinguishing your self from individuals tasked with honing truths and application - for instance a great deal of luthers work is about what is wrong with religion/concept of god. guess you must be in the same boat as him, huh?

 

This.

 

If all aspects of physics were based upon the premise that pixie dust determines how everything works, an "aphysicist" would not have to be versed in every nuance of every theory of pixiistic physics in order to criticize it. All theories of pixiistic physics are flawed.

Guys, this is logic 101. If you cannot make the case for your opening premise, the rest of your case stands invalid. It does not get a voice until the foundation upon which it is built is a made satisfactorily.

God involves a higher power, whether it be sentient or not, observing or not, interfering or not, or creating the universe or not. Atheists see no evidence for any higher power that could conceivably labelled God. The premise is flawed. You don't get to make the rest of your case.

 

To reiterate: your complaint is that atheists don't learn the nuances of God before they start tearing it down.

You've got it backwards.

What actually happens is theists come to the table with the claim that there is a God, but have yet to demonstrate that premise satisfactorily before they try to move on to argue to nuances of their case. They are premature in all followup arguments. In the Great Debate of God, theists have not yet made it past their opening premise. All your discussions after that are invalid.

We give you free rein to make the best possible case you can. Demonstrate that any version of God exists.

 

Seconded.

 

arauca

IQ tests measure your ability to answer the questions on an IQ test. In this instance I was using it as shorthand, a better, more accurate word would be "intelligence". My bad.

wynn

Not fair as far as a discussion goes. Neither side(Atheist/Theist)can know anything whatsoever about Spinoza's god, not even if he exists because all that information is on the other side of a singularity. Since there is no difference between whether he exists or not to the Universe Occam tells us it is an unnecessary entity.

That is a lie, whether by ignorance of the facts or prejudice against those facts. The two PRECEPTS(truths accepted as true for the purpose of argument)of impericism are not DOGMAS(truths which must be accepted by faith, handed down from on high). Assuming(as we must)that the Universe exists and that we are capable of knowing about it are the minimum for building knowledge from the ground up(IE accepting that the Universe is as we see it). Dogmas are "knowing" something because you are told to. There are no Truths(tm) or Dogmas in science.

There are consequences for not being reasoned in science, but the scientist who can, through reason, dispute current paradigms and produce evidence for their opinion are the most celibrated scientists in history. There is no demand that you must believe anything in science, but that you must have reasons for not doing so, not beliefs and ignorance. Einstein did replace Newton for very good reasons, Gallileo did replace Christian Dogma for very good reasons.

Yes, they do. Scientists like Neil Degrass Tyson make a good living doing so, as did Carl Sagan. It is what scientists live for. That's the difference between explaining why you should accept something as true(as science does, questions welcomed)and demanding you believe something because of dogma handed down from god(and don't you dare question god).

Because they don't accept something for which no evidence has been presented? How can one know anything about anything that has not been shown to exist? I know nothing about the breeding habits of the Unicorn. I know a lot about what has been said about gods, nothing about what has been shown to be true about gods, do you?

Not better, just more rational(including a rational basis for morals). Which god are we supposed to discuss, I don't believe in any of them(and there are thousands). Before we can have a discussion you must first define which of those thousands we would be discussing.

I see no reason to discuss how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin until someone shows that Angels exist, that they can dance and the availability of dancing shoes in size -13. It not that it is ignored, it is assumed(minimally)so we can move off of the starting block. The whole of science is based on just two reasonable precepts, 1. The Universe exists and 2. We can understand it through our senses and reason. It is(minimally)possible that we are all in a Matrix and that it is all illusion, but it gets you nowhere to dwell on it other than to acknowledge that slight possibility.



lightgigantic

Just like I accept what my doctor says about the medical field, though I will ask lots of questions, investigate the state of current knowledge in the specific medical problem and read the literature of any drug he supplies. The idea that we cannot know anything unless we are personally in that field is a recipe for paralysis, not reason. I take what a scientist says on reasonable, provisional good faith, but it is not faith in dogma and if my doctor starts a faith healing session I'm out of there, never to return.

Well, if it's religion in general, then I think it's a bunch of superstitious, supernatural non-sense with little pearls of man's wisdom scatter here and there. Some of the things Jesus taught make good sense, even Mohamad had a few statements of good sense, Buddha was wiser than both of them combined(he and Dawkins would get along like old buddies)and Ba'al's religious practices sound like good fun(except for the sacrifices, that is), the Mayans and Aztec were simply bloodthursty thugs, as were the Nordic gods. You see, in order to discuss whether one should believe in a certain religion it is important to designate exactly which one you're talking about, which you guys simply refuse to do.

I can offer MANY frameworks, but they are not all the same thing. I have dismantled MANY of those frameworks, but the frameworks have little in common. For example there are real reasons that most people should not own Pitbulls and Rotweillers, but those reasons do not apply to my Chihuahua. They are all dogs, but they are not the same thing.

ALL definitions so far put forward by believers in that definition, every single different one and all such definitions so far advanced by proponents.

THEISTS have their particular definition of god, the one they believe in and promote. There are many different kinds of theist and almost as many different definitions and descriptions of god, they must be addressed individually. Being an Atheist means you are not convinced to believe in any of them individually or en toto.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Grumpy, that was one of the finest posts I've had the pleasure of reading in all my time here at Sciforums. A wonderful showcase of the power of common sense.

 

but that is the point .... neither physics nor theism is based on a singilar aspect that can be simplified in such a narrow manner .... to suggest otherwise is to dumb down the argument and feebly attempt to avoid the obvious that the very terms "know" (or epistemological frmework) and "god" quite often take different forms in the arguments of atheists and theists

 

@LG --

I wouldn't call such hopelessly irrational and flawed concepts "working models" since they obviously don't work. So far the only models of god which are even remotely plausible(of the tens of thousands out there) are the deistic models, and those suffer the problem of irrelevance.

 

Yes. It is.

Again. No matter how you dress it up, in a million myriad ways, God has, at its core, an initial premise that atheists do not accept, absent evidence.

God, by any definition that has ever been posited to any atheist anywhere, ever, is beyond matter, beyond the 4 fundamental forces, beyond time as we know it.

Atheists see no evidence that the universe has - or requires - any but those things.