Any atheists here who were once believers?

[wynn]

On matters of God, probably not.

Depending on who/what God is, strong agnosticism about God could have implications for other matters as well.

Ah, the old "simplify until the important difference is removed".

Not at all. But you are introducing tests that require faith in other people before one can have any certainty about what one believes or not. One might as well abolish oneself altogether then!

But coffee is not objectively tasty. Some people dislike coffee. "experienced as being objectively tasty" is an oxymoron: experience is subjective.

Doesn't stop millions of people of claiming it. Our whole Western idea of normalcy is based on the conviction that there is a normal, normative, objective way to experience something. It's one of the unspoken premises of Western psychology and culture at large.

The act of holding belief is a personal matter, but the rationale for belief need not be.
Just as it is a personal matter to hold a cup in one's hand... but there need be no personal reason to pick up the cup, rather just impersonal reasons.

When something is communicated to other people, there is always some room for games of one-upmanship. The claim that one's beliefs are held for objective, impersonal reasons is, if played right, an excellent tool to gain the upper hand over other people - "I believe what I believe for objective reasons, therefore, I'm a better, worthier person than you, and you need to bow down to me." Engage in an interaction with others from this position, and you're likely to win. Whereby it is completely irrelevant if your beliefs are actually held for objective reasons or whether doing so is even possible. The mere mention of "objectivity," "neutrality," works like a charm on many people, they are like magic words, casting a spell on people, making them believe you.

This is where philosophy and applied social psychology meet, and cross.

Only a very naive philosopher would take people at their word.

Well, sort of. The tenets of a belief - i.e. what you are believing in - should be independent of the personal... otherwise it is the personal that gives them (in part) existence. So if the tenets are independent, the reasoning for belief in them should also, in my view, be independent. We should believe in them because they exist, not because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy to believe it. But I appreciate that it is not always possible to separate the personal, and maybe I am speaking from ideal rather than anything else.

For starters, there are many things which don't exist or have no chance of existing, unless one first believes they do. For example, you'll never attempt to finish a course of education if you don't believe you can do it; when you begin, your degree doesn't exist yet, and yet you believe in it as if it would already exist.

Seondly, as for believing in something because it makes us warm and fuzzy to do so: I can't think of a single example of that, from anyone. While there are examples of, say, Christians who seem to believe in heaven for such warm and fuzzy reasons, for these people, there's also quite a bit of strife and struggle involved, and they don't feel all warm and fuzzy either. While I've known people who believe "I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell! ha ha!" it's not like there is a complete absence of tension for them in life; such a belief may give them some satisfaction, but certainly not a 24/7 one.

If believing because it gives one warm fuzzies to do so would be a realistic possibility, then how come people don't do it all the time?
I've never seen a happy pollyannaist, just tense ones.

Thirdly, there are things we currently do not know they exist, but we have to believe they could, otherwise, we won't take up a course of learning and practice to find out they do. Cristopher Columbus wouldn't set out to find a new seaway to India if he didn't believe one exists, or could exist.

I find that theistic religions aren't particularly clear on this point, but traditional Buddhism is: the path is not the goal. There is a goal, and there is a path to it, but the path doesn't cause the goal.
By path is meant a course of cultivation, training, of developing skills, expertise, insight.

This outlook is much more present in the more traditional forms of Catholicism than in modern forms of Christianity, for example. In those popular, modern forms, it is indeed expected that one starts off as a full-blown believer, as in those modern paths, they have very little sense of there being a path of cultivation to begin with. Hence the objections you raise apply; but they don't apply with the traditional, conservative ones.

I'm still intrigued as to why you do think them absurd, unless working from some assumption that renders them so?

Why do you think that most people are terrified of being completely alone for a long time?

 

[Billy T]

I was hoping you would come around.

Aw! He looks kinda sad, though.

Yes, but if uni is God and made this universe, he has cause to be sad. - Probably his first try at getting it right.

 

[wegs]

Depending on who/what God is, strong agnosticism about God could have implications for other matters as well.

This. Yes.

I was in the process of replying to you, relating to your replies about agnosticism, when I lost the post. But, to this point, I can't help but agree. Stemming from a childhood when I was constantly told that what I thought was wrong (on a number of issues), I've been and still am a very indecisive person. Even in minor matters. When I order ice cream at a local shop, I always order two flavors. While it might seem trite, it is unfortunately, how I've lived most of my life. After my dad passed away when I was a child, I second guessed every decision, and never felt completely confident when I made them.

So, it really could be that I'm not necessarily drawn to agnosticism over atheism, because of what it actually signifies, from a spiritual sense. Rather, I'm just extremely at ease, when I don't have to make a decision. Agnosticism doesn't require much of me. It doesn't require me to take a firm stand, one way or the other.

I can't believe I'm admitting this here, and had you not posted it as you did, I might not have made the connection. Hard to ignore words that are right in front of one's face, that almost feel as if they were composed with the sole purpose of reaching that specific reader.

 

[(Q)]

For starters, there are many things which don't exist or have no chance of existing, unless one first believes they do. For example, you'll never attempt to finish a course of education if you don't believe you can do it; when you begin, your degree doesn't exist yet, and yet you believe in it as if it would already exist.

Sorry, but that has to do diligence, hard work and rigor, not belief.

Thirdly, there are things we currently do not know they exist, but we have to believe they could, otherwise, we won't take up a course of learning and practice to find out they do. Cristopher Columbus wouldn't set out to find a new seaway to India if he didn't believe one exists, or could exist.

Sorry, but Columbus did not hold a belief, he had evidence to back up his understanding.

 

[wegs]

This is what put the Uni in Unitarianism. But folks, don't go away mad. Just send away your long held superstitions.

Ask yourself: what better symbolizes the kernel of the Universe. So far it's got more going for it than any religion I can think of. That being said, I personally favor the idea of a Great Wolf scattering the stars across the sky. What? You folks think that's a myth? Careful, that's a double-edged sword. But at least Wolf can be shown to infer "God spelled backwards" so it has to stay in the basket as a viable contender for explaining Ultimate Reality. Non-English speakers could try to offer that tired old etymological argument, but everyone with half a sense knows God speaks English. He is directly quoted saying "Let there be light." And from behind the burning bush somewhere, we heard God, and he is definitely a baritone. I forgot what he said, but it sounded just like Charlton Heston. I think Chris Farley (RIP) figured out what it was, by measuring the acoustic resonance of phonemes in a vortex. No doubt about it: English was God's native tongue (or tongues). Dig a little deeper and you realize God is obviously Uhmurruhcun. Why else would he let the U.S. kick butt and take names? Even the KKK knows God is white, obviously you didn't have white folks taking care of black bankers' scuffed spats down on shoe shine stands of Wall Street in the 1920s. And what do white folks speak? Duh. English. Not British or Scottish or even Australian, but English.

The more I think about it, choosing a religion is something like buying a car. You get to choose the color, instrument package, mileage, a seat vs. a pew, power windows . . . and of course horsepower. But I guess since religion isn't going anywhere--it sure isn't leaving home--we might as well forego the investment and stick to walking. Besides, you never know what new facts you'll pick up along the way, once you've begin to study the ground under your own feet.

Speaking of hooves, that leaves a unicorn as a pretty good choice. It's genetically closer to a wolf (something the Christian God can't show since he has no DNA) and it has a much better disposition that a wolf, which is another clue. All that "Angry God" stuff is, well, myth. It's like Dad rushing off to work without so much as a peck on the cheek. It's not that he didn't love you, he was just in a hurry to tend to pressing business.

Consider this. The unicorn is not as well known as the wolf, and yet shows up in books and stories everywhere. So that ought to tell you something. It's either described as pink or purple which no doubt infers God approaching (ultraviolet) or going elsewhere (infrared). Evidently God is a very fast unicorn. And of course he's very busy tending to supernovas, tilling their atomic DNA into new systems. Don't mistake this for his reason for ignoring your pleas for better stuff. I'm sure he'd be glad to help, it's just that has bigger fish to fry.

The "corn" in "Unicorn" isn't even what it appears to be. God could be saying "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog's back" and at mach one million or so, all you would hear is "corn". Say it real fast, corn. See what I mean? At mach one million, he could be reciting the entire text of Origin of the Species followed by Einstein’s paper on Electrodynamics, followed by Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible and all you would hear is "corn".

All that stuff about The Word isn't too far off base, since "corn" is an utterance which (as we have seen) compresses as much information as we need into one concise little blip on your sonar. Corn. It's not just a word but a veritable cornipedia, all rolled up for believers to ingest. Talk about your holy meals. Put down the wafer. Step away from the chalice. It's all about the corn.

That leaves for the skeptics the fusion of "Uni" + "corn". Here you need to know a little acoustics. If you're hearing "corn" in all directions, like polytheists do, then your idea of God is the lesser known Omnicorn. You've never heard of such a thing, have you. That's because they're coming and going in all directions at mach one million, cancelling each other's waves and leaving no trace at all. But Unicorn is unidirectional, either purple (approaching) or pink (leaving). This unidirectionality is symbolized by the horn located near God's vocal orifice. Anyone can tell you horns are unidirectional. The challenge for the believer then, in this One True God, the God of the unidirectional all-knowing cornipedia, is to go with the program. Dust off those old textbooks and do the math. It all adds up. All of the evidence points to divine revelation.

QED, God is a Unicorn.

PS - for those who can't resist the chance to snipe, there is a site for you. It began as Institute for Corn Research but was bought out with some of the gold the Catholics are hoarding over in the Vatican. That's why they have guards all around the place. Anyway, the Catholics for some reason hired these fundamentalist web designers who inserted a bunch of encrypted Java script into the home page, so it comes out way way weirder than the Pope intended, but he doesn't know, because it only runs if you access the page from a location outside the walls of Vatican City. That's when they changed it to Institute for Creation Research. But if you have any complaints about the Great Unicorn, or if you are want to argue about the transcendental meaning of a holy scarecrow, or any other religious lunacy, then please, for the love or all that is sacred (to include cosmic foam and pink cotton candy) --whatever-- please refer to the ICR site. They're dying to hear from you. Because you folks are full of it.

Can't. Stop. Laughing.
:roflmao:

''...the fusion of uni + corn...''
''...if you're hearing corn in all directions...''
''...cornipedia...''

You could do stand up comedy with this schtick of yours, Aqueous.

 

[Seattle]

Why don't you try reading what I've written and stop trying to be a smart arse?

If you're as confident and cocky as you're making out, then respond to what I'm saying.

Personally I think you're a coward. But let's see.

jan.

It's not being "brave" to call someone a "coward" over the internet. Nor is it being very "godly" but I won't take the bait and get offended. Obviously I have read all that you have written. What else have I been responding to all this time?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are saying that God is real and a part of nature because he is in people's minds and in your view he isn't a concept and therefore if he is in someone's mind he is real. If he is real in one persons mind he is real.

I think, the distinction that you are making is that in your opinion God is unlike other thoughts or concepts. You don't think God is a concept therefore if he presents himself in your mind that is proof of his existence.

You don't extend this concept to anyone/anything other than God. If a unicorn appears in someone's mind you would agree that it is just a concept without further proof.

In the case of God you feel that if anyone sees/feels/talks to God then that is proof of his existence since (to you) God isn't and can't be a concept and therefore if he appears it can only be because he exists.

Am I correct in your beliefs on this subject?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

That is not to say that every concept we can conceive of exists as anything other than the concept (i.e. within the mind).

From your pov (there is nothing but nature), it makes no difference.
Only something outside of nature can deem something within nature non-exisent.

And everything we conceive of exists as concepts (i.e. within the mind) but not necessarily in actuality as anything other than that concept.

Your pov must accept all concepts, as they are all variations of the only truth, which is nature.

I don't believe in your personal concept of God, nor mine. I believed in God. I believed in my concept of God. I could not have believed in God without having some concept of God.
You have yet to show how that is possible - neither logically nor practically - other than through mere word games.

You believe nature is everything. All concepts are part of nature. Only something outside of nature can claim parts of nature non-existent. That transcendent property acts outside of nature. Hence, concepts are not necessary.

And theism, by any definition, is belief in God. Not belief in a specific concept, or non-concept of God. It is belief in God. Just as atheism is a lack of that belief.
I believed in God. I was a theist.
I no longer have that belief. I am an atheist.

Your worldview is the belief that nature is all there is. Not a concept, but a belief. Your belief in God is borne out of your worldview, nature. You yourself stated that ''everything we concieve of exists as concepts'', and that included your belief in God. How do I know that you believed in your concept of God? Because now you changed your concept for a different one (agnostic atheist), claiming God doesn't exist because He doesn't come to visit you. In your new belief you can explain God away, while being the person you see yourself as.

Well, yes, in that I don't believe in any of them any more, and I used to believe in God and Santa Claus.

Santa Clause is also a made up concept, which is why you had no trouble in seeing God that way. A theist does not even consider Santa in the same ballgame.

My concept of God was, initially (up to about the age of six or seven), that of a Sky Daddy, but not after that.
And before I stopped believing it was merely "First Cause".

What was your concept of God from seven to first cause?

Until you explain how it is possible for one to believe in God without believing in one's concept of God, you're just lost in your word-games and your desire to conclude that it is not possible to believe in God and subsequently become an atheist. You have offered nothing but word-games to explain your position.

That's simple. I didn't believe. I have never believed in any concept I hold.

Beyond being "first cause" I have no idea what and who God is, even inside of Santa, the old man in the sky or any other concept one wishes to suggest.

That's because you believe in concepts and ideas, that's what makes you an atheist. Concepts, and ideas, are cornstructs of nature, and you believe nature is all there is. God is not a concept, and is transcendental to nature, therefore outside of your radar.

That is what a (strong) agnostic is... someone who considers God unknowable.

And what is that consideration based on? Nature is all there is! A concept. And you believe in concepts because nature is all there is (your worldview).

Do you know more of who or what God is? And yet you still refuse to acknowledge you believe in that concept of God??

I don't believe in concepts, yet I am able to believe. IOW, I don't believe nature is all there is, not that I have a concept of my belief.
But you already know this.

Who said I ''concluded'' anything?

So you're also an agnostic????

''Agnostic'' is a word that describes a concept. In reality we either believe in God or we don't.
But read that segment of my response and you will see the reason for my question.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Not necessarily a duck.

Not everyone may be able to achieve it, but that does not negate the matter of them having the concept of what it is. One can not even be a musician without the concept of what an instrument is, what music is etc. So your analogy remains woeful.

Concepts don't matter. You just feel it. That is how and why it maifests. The feeling is instaneous, and complete, not constructed and thought about. Musician who adopt it as a concept, are not as influential as those that don't. They are merely copying, just like you copied a belief in God.

You have concluded "I am not my body" - so you have a concept... of what "I" am, what your "body" is, and how (you consider) the two are not the same. These are concepts. Your conclusion is a concept. It can be nothing else.

One can conclude that one needs air to breath, and water to drink, but one will breath and drink without having a concept of breathing and quenching thirst. It may look as though one has thought about it, and acted upon ones thoughts, but the reality it isn't. One can understand that one needs to breath and quench without having to construct a concept, just like one can understand that he is not the body providing one let's go of the concept that nature is all there is. Because all that can be is a concept and everything that is borne out of that is of the same ilk.

I live my life at a practical level as though God does not exist, but I have no knowledge as to whether God exists or not, nor even what God may be other than the "first cause" that theistic religions seem to agree upon.

In your mind this concept holds water, because you have given it thought, but the reality is, you live as though God does not exist, therefore your position is God does not exist. All what you have said only serves to justify your position.

I am saying that God either exists or he doesn't, irrespective of my belief.

That's what you're saying, but we have establised that in reality, God, for you does not exist, and will never exist as long as you hold to your worldview.

To consider a person a liar the person must know they are wrong.

You must consider your belief in your concept, now wrong, which is why you no longer believe in it. So it follows that if somebody is in the same position as you were, they are also wrong.

To consider a person delusional there must be evidence to the contrary that the person ignores / refuses to acknowledge.

You believed in your concept of God, you now believe He doesn't exist. What if you had carried on believing in your concept, after changing your concept to God does not exist? Do you think you would have been delusional?

Neither is the case with belief in God. At best they have knowledge that I do not but that which I am not capable of discerning the truth or otherwise of (hence the cycle of needing to believe to believe).

You're not about to change your mind upon our discourse, and I'm explaining to you that a belief in God is generated by the aspect of us that is not natural. Hence nature isn't all there is. In fact, you are fighting it. Next you'll be asking for scientific evidence.

At worst they are simply mistaken.

From your pov, how can they be mistaken. They are completely natural, there is nothing but nature, and therefore they are expressions of nature, and nature cannot deem itself mistaken, or non existent. The other side is that they are correct, and nature isn't all there is, there exists something which can contradict, and correct what is deemed as ''natural'' and the concept of nature is all there is.

Did you lie or were you delusional with every wrong answer you gave in exams you took?
So stop with your unfounded and unwarranted accusations.

Sorry, is this discussion overwhelming you?

And yet nothing you have said suggests how I did not believe in God

That's not correct. You claimed to believe in God, then you stopped believing in God. The reason you stopped (now here's the clincher), is because there is no evidence of Him, yet you claimed to believe, before this new concept. If there is no evidence of Him, now, then for you, there never was. You just thought you believed in God, but in reality is was a construct of nature, and for you, nature is all there is.

Yet you believe in God without believing in your concept of God, which means that you can not, in any way, describe anything about God, any attribute, or even say that God is something along the lines of "first cause". Word-games, Jan. That's all you're offering.

My concept of God is probably just as bad as yours, or worse.

Nice accusation.
Perhaps it is not a matter of not wanting to, but rather an inability to because you are unable to explain it in a way that is understandable - but rather you indulge in word-games of "believing in God without believing in the concept of God".

That's because you are hiding behind the constuct of rules of engagement (in the intellect).
We build walls primarily to keep things in and out.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

It's not being "brave" to call someone a "coward" over the internet. Nor is it being very "godly" but I won't take the bait and get offended. Obviously I have read all that you have written. What else have I been responding to all this time?

You were being an asshole, trying to belittle me, and people who believe in God. But it seems my outburst got your attention.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are saying that God is real and a part of nature because he is in people's minds and in your view he isn't a concept and therefore if he is in someone's mind he is real. If he is real in one persons mind he is real.

I think, the distinction that you are making is that in your opinion God is unlike other thoughts or concepts. You don't think God is a concept therefore if he presents himself in your mind that is proof of his existence.

You don't extend this concept to anyone/anything other than God. If a unicorn appears in someone's mind you would agree that it is just a concept without further proof.

In the case of God you feel that if anyone sees/feels/talks to God then that is proof of his existence since (to you) God isn't and can't be a concept and therefore if he appears it can only be because he exists.

Am I correct in your beliefs on this subject?

Seattle, please read my above response to Sarkus, I believe the points you raised are addressed therin.

jan.

 

[Seattle]

Seattle,



You were being an asshole, trying to belittle me, and people who believe in God. But it seems my outburst got your attention.



Seattle, please read my above response to Sarkus, I believe the points you raised are addressed therin.

jan.

My intention wasn't to be an asshole (as you put it). You seem to be purposefully being vague (maybe it's not on purpose). If someone says something you respond..."that's not my God, or my religion or whatever". Now you, after just having accused me on not answering you, respond to my post by telling to me read another post.

I will do that but why be so difficult to converse with? Just say what you think rather than making everyone have to spend dozens of posts trying to pry it out of you? How about just stating what you religion is rather than saying it's not Christianity (or whatever)?

 

[Seattle]

Jan, OK, I've read it. You believe or "know" God exists because you feel it. Just as one doesn't usually have to think about "love" as a concept (even though one can) one just usually "feels" love without having to give it much conscious thought.

That is the way it is with God for you. Is that correct and if so why was it so hard to get that out of you?

We don't have to agree with you but for the sake of conversation it is important and useful to at least understand how the other person thinks.

Other's have described this same thing as "common sense" and "belief" as opposed to "logic" and "evidence".

I'm not trying to change your mind (or anyone else's). I just disagree that just because one "feels" something that it is real. Believers in Zeus "felt" it I'm sure. I "felt" Santa as a kid.

Nevertheless, I'm not mocking your belief. I'm glad we at least now understand where you are coming from. That's all that anyone is trying to get out of this thread (I think).

There is a creationist, Ray Comfort, who called into a radio program with Lawrence Krause (theoritical astro-physicist) and Ray continued to ask the same types of questions for an hour. Lawrence would answer them and Ray would apparently ignore the answer and ask a similar question. It made no logical sense.

Finally, Lawrence said that he had to go since Ray apparently wasn't going to listen to anything he said. Lawrence gave one more answer and at this point Ray admitted that all his questions came from his belief that the Earth was no more than 10,000 years old because that's what the Bible said.

He said he didn't need any more facts or logic because he has his faith.

When that's actually the case I like to hear that (honest statement) right up front. It's much more straightforward to just say my faith says this is true and nothing else is going to change my mind. Why go through all the arguments pretending to disagree with facts on a logical basis when the fact is that logic or facts (science) isn't going to change ones mind?

Ultimately it does seem to come down to one group making their decisions basic on logic and evidence (science) and the other group basing theirs on faith, what they see as "common sense" and on what they "feel".

There's no need to make it look like one is basing these things on something other than what it is really being based on in my opinion. As they say, it is what it is.

 

[wynn]

He said he didn't need any more facts or logic because he has his faith.

When that's actually the case I like to hear that (honest statement) right up front. It's much more straightforward to just say my faith says this is true and nothing else is going to change my mind.

Why go through all the arguments pretending to disagree with facts on a logical basis when the fact is that logic or facts (science) isn't going to change ones mind?

It's called preaching. It probably wasn't Ray who wanted his mind changed; it was probably Ray who wanted to change Lawrence's mind.

 

[Seattle]

It's called preaching. It probably wasn't Ray who wanted his mind changed; it was probably Ray who wanted to change Lawrence's mind.

Of course, it was definitely that

 

[Jan Ardena]

How is it that one can be logged in here, multi-qoute a variety of posts, put together responses to those posts, press 'post quick reply,' and poof! Everything is gone that you just replied to, and a sign in page appears. :bugeye: I went back a page, but to no avail. Ugh. ARGH! So painful.

Tell me about it.
What I do know is copy the text, close sciforums, then open up another one. Go to the post, click ''quick reply'', paste the text in empty box, then press submit.

I think there is some kind of 'time out' mechanism, that messes with stuff, and shit happens.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

From your pov (there is nothing but nature), it makes no difference.
Only something outside of nature can deem something within nature non-exisent.

It makes the most significant difference whether the it exists as a concept (i.e. just in the mind) or in actuality.
Either something is within nature or it is not. People can deem what they like to be in or out of nature and it has no bearing on what actually is. All we can do is claim. And anyone can claim what they consider to be in or out of nature.

Your pov must accept all concepts, as they are all variations of the only truth, which is nature.

It accepts concepts as concepts - not as being anything other than concepts.

You believe nature is everything. All concepts are part of nature. Only something outside of nature can claim parts of nature non-existent. That transcendent property acts outside of nature. Hence, concepts are not necessary.

The parts bolded in this and a previous response of yours above are assumptions that are unsupported.
Please support the assumption, given that your entire argument here seems to hinge upon it.
At the moment it just seems to be part of the same belief... you must hold the assumption to believe, and you hold the assumption because you believe... the wonderful cycle of believing to believe.

Your worldview is the belief that nature is all there is. Not a concept, but a belief.

My concept of nature is "all that there is". It is this concept that I adhere to due to the evidence I am aware of.

Your belief in God is borne out of your worldview, nature. You yourself stated that ''everything we concieve of exists as concepts'', and that included your belief in God. How do I know that you believed in your concept of God? Because now you changed your concept for a different one (agnostic atheist), claiming God doesn't exist because He doesn't come to visit you. In your new belief you can explain God away, while being the person you see yourself as.

I have never claimed that God does not exist. You seem to be using a definition of atheism despite constant explanation of that difference.
I simply do not hold to the belief that God exists. But he may. I don't know.
As to how you can know I believed in my concept of God... you can't, any more than I can know that even now you believe in God.

Santa Clause is also a made up concept, which is why you had no trouble in seeing God that way. A theist does not even consider Santa in the same ballgame.

Rather you don't, you see yourself as a theist, you apply the same to all theists.
Your error.
You are also assuming that because the end result was the same that the concepts of God and Santa Claus must have been in the same ballgame. Another error on your part... the result does not define the process nor even the initial starting points.

What was your concept of God from seven to first cause?

Something that permeated every aspect of the universe and beyond, in a dimension hidden from our view. Or something along those lines. I can't recall in detail.

That's simple. I didn't believe. I have never believed in any concept I hold.

Then quite simply I think you are either deliberately misleading, or you're using a different notion of what a concept is. Or perhaps you are just believing in a feeling. But then why you would possibly call indigestion "God" is beyond me.

That's because you believe in concepts and ideas, that's what makes you an atheist. Concepts, and ideas, are cornstructs of nature, and you believe nature is all there is. God is not a concept, and is transcendental to nature, therefore outside of your radar.

I am not a concept. What you believe I am is a concept. Do you not understand that to even have a notion of something it MUST be a concept. We can not operate without. It is what our brains use to process information. You think of an elephant and you have a concept of what an elephant it. That concept is different to the actuality of an elephant. The elephant exists regardless of whether you have the concept or not. Before anyone had seen an elephant, the elephant existed.
Not sure I can explain the difference any clearer than that.
But simply put - if you believe in something you MUST necessarily have a concept of that thing.

And what is that consideration based on? Nature is all there is! A concept. And you believe in concepts because nature is all there is (your worldview).

That is not actually my worldview... it is that nature is all that one can know, not that it is necessarily all there is.

I don't believe in concepts, yet I am able to believe. IOW, I don't believe nature is all there is, not that I have a concept of my belief.
But you already know this.

You claim you don't have a concept of God. I don't believe you - and you have demonstrated quite aptly above why not: because you have already put words to your belief by saying what it is not! "I don't believe nature is all there is...." is part of your concept of your belief.
QED.

''Agnostic'' is a word that describes a concept. In reality we either believe in God or we don't.

Correct, we either believe in God or we don't. But the "don't believe" is Atheism, and does not necessarily mean that we believe God does not exist. Agnosticism generally fuels one's atheism: we don't know and we don't consider ourselves able to believe in that which we either don't know or can't know.

But read that segment of my response and you will see the reason for my question.

I have read it, so I'll ask again: So you're an agnostic???

Not necessarily a duck.

At least you admit that it walks and looks like one.

Concepts don't matter. You just feel it. That is how and why it maifests. The feeling is instaneous, and complete, not constructed and thought about. Musician who adopt it as a concept, are not as influential as those that don't. They are merely copying, just like you copied a belief in God.

You don't really know many musicians, do you.
So you believe in a feeling that you call God.
So you do have a concept of God, even if it is that which gives rise to your "feeling".

One can conclude that one needs air to breath, and water to drink, but one will breath and drink without having a concept of breathing and quenching thirst.

Breathing perhaps, but not quenching thirst. And even for breathing it is not something someone can "believe in" - i.e. have an active belief in - without a concept of it.
So I disagree with the analogy as it does not apply to the situation being discussed.

In your mind this concept holds water, because you have given it thought, but the reality is, you live as though God does not exist, therefore your position is God does not exist. All what you have said only serves to justify your position.

What one does in practice does not necessarily explain one's position. Practice is a digital matter - you either do something or you do not. To equate one's position purely to the practical is thus flawed. But maybe it makes you feel better to think that way.
Secondly you are claiming to believe in God without having a concept of God - yet you have clearly given it some thought - and thus you are claiming that it is possible to give something thought yet not have a concept of it.
Your position is thus inconsistent.

That's what you're saying, but we have establised that in reality, God, for you does not exist, and will never exist as long as you hold to your worldview.

No we have not established it. In practice God does not exist for me, but you are equating practice with reality in this regard. I do not know if God exists in reality, so it is disingenuous to say that in reality God does not exist for me.

You must consider your belief in your concept, now wrong, which is why you no longer believe in it. So it follows that if somebody is in the same position as you were, they are also wrong.

And how would I know they are in the same position as me? Further, I do not consider any of the concepts "wrong" - I have merely concluded that I do not know God... so any concept might be right. Through my religion I was being asked to believe in a God that I could not believe in. That concept of God might still be what God is. I don't know.
And just because someone is wrong does not mean they are lying. To lie one must be aware of the inaccuracy of what they say.

You believed in your concept of God, you now believe He doesn't exist. What if you had carried on believing in your concept, after changing your concept to God does not exist? Do you think you would have been delusional?

FFS, Jan. Stop with saying that I believe God does not exist. It is tiresome.
If I changed my concept to "God does not exist" and kept believing in the existence of a God I believed did not exist... that would be delusional in as much as you hold contradictory beliefs.
But what does this have to do with the price of eggs?
All you seem to be doing is making unwarranted implications from what I have said in an effort to accuse me of saying (1) that I believe God does not exist; (2) that I consider those that believe to be delusional or lying.
NOTHING I have said can be implied as much.
So ffs stop with this line of drivel you're pushing.

You're not about to change your mind upon our discourse, and I'm explaining to you that a belief in God is generated by the aspect of us that is not natural. Hence nature isn't all there is. In fact, you are fighting it. Next you'll be asking for scientific evidence.

No I won't. I'll just highlight your a priori assumption: "Belief in God is generated by non-nature therefore nature is not all there is... therefore God exists".

From your pov, how can they be mistaken. They are completely natural, there is nothing but nature, and therefore they are expressions of nature, and nature cannot deem itself mistaken, or non existent. The other side is that they are correct, and nature isn't all there is, there exists something which can contradict, and correct what is deemed as ''natural'' and the concept of nature is all there is.

WTF? Are you now saying that people can not be mistaken in what they believe???
Or that other people can not deem them mistaken???
And again I have highlighted your assumption that seems to lead you to this conclusion, which you're going to have to support.

Sorry, is this discussion overwhelming you?

The discussion, no. Your continuing attempts to twist, through unwarranted implications, what I say to suggest I consider believers "liars or delusional" or that I believe God does not exist... those are getting irritating.

That's not correct. You claimed to believe in God, then you stopped believing in God. The reason you stopped (now here's the clincher), is because there is no evidence of Him, yet you claimed to believe, before this new concept. If there is no evidence of Him, now, then for you, there never was. You just thought you believed in God, but in reality is was a construct of nature, and for you, nature is all there is.

I now consider nature to be all that can be known about, not necessarily all there is.
I didn't used to think this. At one point I believed in God even while I accepted that there could be no evidence for God.
Recall, I used to believe in God as "First Cause" - for which I did not expect there to be any evidence.
So your summary above is not correct for all these reasons.

My concept of God is probably just as bad as yours, or worse.

But of course you don't believe in this concept of yours... you believe in God.
Which only suggests that what you call your concept of God is not actually your concept of God, because you would know that God is not what you would consider your concept of God to be.

That's because you are hiding behind the constuct of rules of engagement (in the intellect).
We build walls primarily to keep things in and out.

Get off your elitist stool, Jan.
You are simply not explaining yourself clearly, and you are being (seemingly deliberately) inflammatory with your unwarranted interpretations of my replies to you.

But maybe you're right - maybe I am hiding behind rules which require a certain level of intellect in the other person to get past.
C'est la vie.

 

[Sarkus]

Jan, OK, I've read it. You believe or "know" God exists because you feel it. Just as one doesn't usually have to think about "love" as a concept (even though one can) one just usually "feels" love without having to give it much conscious thought.

That is the way it is with God for you. Is that correct and if so why was it so hard to get that out of you?

If one believes in this "feeling" one does need a concept.
One has a concept of "love", and must do so to be able to refer to it as such. Even if it is just "that feeling that draws me to another person..." (assuming you're not both wearing high-powered magnets!) etc.

And Jan claims not to believe in a concept of God.

 

[Seattle]

If one believes in this "feeling" one does need a concept.
One has a concept of "love", and must do so to be able to refer to it as such. Even if it is just "that feeling that draws me to another person..." (assuming you're not both wearing high-powered magnets!) etc.

And Jan claims not to believe in a concept of God.

You, me and Jan are in part just playing with words. I think you get what I am talking about regarding Jan (I may not be right...who knows..but I think you know what I am trying to convey). Jan, I think, is distinguishing between thinking of something in the abstract and having a direct feeling. Therefore he is expressing this as not being a concept but being a direct feeling.

It's irrelevant whether you (me or anyone else) thinks that for this direct feeling there must be a concept first. Jan doesn't choose those words and after all we are trying to figure out what Jan is saying.

I've heard others use this wording to describe their version of God. I'm not saying I agree with their choice of words but I've heard it before.

For instance, some people insist that before some rapture type of experience that they were never really religious, didn't really worship, and weren't believers particularly. They weren't thinking about God, they weren't studying religion. Then one day they had a direct experience and now God is with them and they "see" him everywhere.

Again, I have my own explanations for what is really going on but that's their explanation. So, they would consider this "experience" evidence of God. Some would even say it's not based on a "belief" ... it just "is"...based on this experience that they had that changed everything for them.

If I am wrong Jan will correct me but I think I am correct regarding Jan's view of all this. Some might also say that if this direct feeling hasn't happened to you then you aren't really a true believer. The idea being that if God is just an intellectual concept that you have studied and now "accept" that's not really having that "true" trans formative experience that they seem to think is required for the "real deal" experience.

 

[wynn]

And Jan claims not to believe in a concept of God.

Yes, because he believes he believes in God, as God really is, and not as how he imagines God to be.

So he's basically implying to have supreme knowledge or insight into God's identity. And for the most part, there just is no talking to such people. They believe they are right, and nothing gets through to them.
Whether they really have supreme knowledge or insight - that's another matter.

 

[James R]

Tangential comment...

The same principle rears it's head in the moral landscape. If everything is nothing but nature, then there is no right or wrong. Thereforse an atheist Has no real sense of what good action and what is bad action. But if you claim to have morals, then where in nature does morals manifest. Survival?
If that is the case, then it can be said that murder, rape, eating someone elses babies can be said to be good, moral action by someone who percieves it that way. Who is to say that person is wrong if his nature sees fit to act that way?
My point is, there is another principle that transcends nature, and it's nature is different to the purposeless material nature.

Morality involves intelligent, social, human actors. Since morality is inherently social, it is not to be found anywhere "in nature" outside of human societies (barring the existence of intelligent life elsewhere).

It is wrong to assert that an atheist can have no real sense of what is good or bad action. Actions have consequences. On the basis of utility alone, we can say that some actions are good and others bad.

Murder, rape and eating babies are all morally wrong in part because they are socially limiting. A person who murders others or rapes or eats babies will be ostracised from society. Nobody wants to live with a murderer or rapist or baby killer.

Who says that murder is wrong? Answer: we all do, as social animals.

The idea that morality is handed down to us by a divine being is deeply flawed. No doubt you are aware of the argument first put by Plato in his Euthyphro dialogue. Are actions good and bad because God says they are, or are they good and bad by some independent measure? If you adopt the first position, you rapidly tie yourself in illogical knots.

 

[James R]

Question for Jan Ardena:

What reasons do you have for believing that anything exists apart from nature?

Alternatively, if you assert that God is part of nature, is there any objective method by which we can know that God exists?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Just a quickie.

Does God exist for you, as you read this post?

jan.