Atheism meant the belief of no god

[Smasherman]

Langauge is a poor carrier of thought. The argument seems to be merely a matter of definition. So there isn't actually a valid argument here, since definitions vary widely. The definition I use, however, is Psi 5's.

I was going to write about the nature of perception as well, but that doesn't belong here.

 

[arildno]

Shall I take your word for it or are you able to offer definitive proof of your assertion?

It doesn't need proof, since there is no third alternative.

 

[nameless]

Lack of a third option neither affirms or negates your first two assertions.
If you cannot answer my questions, just say so and I'll leave you alone.

 

[arildno]

Lack of a third option neither affirms or negates your first two assertions.
If you cannot answer my questions, just say so and I'll leave you alone.

You are evidently seriously defective in mental capacities. Goodbye.

 

[nameless]

Hahahahahahaha...
I liked your first posting before the 'correction';

You are evidently serious defective in mental capacioties. Goodbye.

Hehehe..
What can I say?
It's bad karma to be nasty to the handicapped!
Hahahaha...

 

[pmb_phy]

Just goes to illustrate how someone can be absolutely brilliant in one area and turn into a 'drooling idiot' when emotionally held 'beliefs' are in question. Ego vs intellect.. and never the twain shall meet!

True. However, I'd still like to read the article again. I was looking for a very proof "proof" of the non-existance of God and his was the absolute worst I've ever came across. Thanks.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

I think that to an atheist, the question of whether God exists is useless. There is just no need for God, and if God does exist, who cares?

Woa! Let me get this straight. Are you saying that if there was a person who used to be an atheist and then changed his mind then he'd still think there'd be no reason to care? If this is what you're saying then do you actually believe this would happen in anyone who became a believer from an atheist?

There's no reason to think that he affects us.

Why do you say that? Jews, Christians and Muslims, a very significant portion of the worlds mono-theistic religions, believes that God affects our lives and continues to do so. Ho did you arrive at such a belief? Do you know a lot of atheists who became believers?
[quite]That said, atheists do like to speculate.[/QUOTE]Why? To get anywhere scientists speculate in order to make a first move toward a theory.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

I think that to an atheist, the question of whether God exists is useless. There is just no need for God, and if God does exist, who cares?

Woa! Let me get this straight. Are you saying that if there was a person who used to be an atheist and then changed his mind then he'd still think there'd be no reason to care? If this is what you're saying then do you actually believe this would happen in anyone who became a believer from an atheist?

There's no reason to think that he affects us.

IF we take as the part of the definition of "God" That intelligent being who created the universe then I'd say he had a lot to do that has affected us - He created us! Unless you look at God as a non-absent parent who gives birth and then takes off. In that case the birth still toof place.

But I don't understand why you'd say that anyway? Is this a matter of opinion as far as what believers actually believem? If so then recall that Jews, Christians and Muslims, a very significant portion of the worlds mono-theistic religions, believes that God affects our lives and continues to do so. How did you arrive at such a belief? Do you know a lot of atheists who became believers?

That said, atheists do like to speculate.

Why? To get anywhere scientists speculate in order to make a first move toward a theory.

Pete

 

[arrow]

It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes.

I believe the Bible is the only specific revelation from God to man. II Timothy 3:16

I believe the Bible is the only supernatural book in the world, and that it is the source of faith from God to man. Romans 10:17

I believe God states that a man's morality dictates his theology. Romans 1:17-32.

In regards to atheists God says that the fool has said in his heart "no, God."

If my belief in God and heaven is wrong I will not have lost much in this life. If an atheist is wrong he will have lost eternity.

As a Christian this world is the worst hell I will know. As an atheist this world is the best heaven he will know.

If someone knocks on your door be glad because it is God's love through them to you...caring about your eternal happiness. (www.desiringgod.org)

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Atheism for me is a constant denial for God's existence...

 

[Rade]

It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes.

Perhaps, but neither are there any true Christians either, for if anything is clear in the philosophy, it is that one must love those that hate you.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I am an Atheist, but I have never heard of Gould's proof. I would also be interested in reading it. I am already confident that God doesn't exist, of course, but I am always interested in reading more on the matter.

For those interested in Atheism, I would, if you haven't already, look into reading the opinions of Richard Dawkins, a Strong Atheist/Antitheist. He has some interesting arguments that involve reductionism and the proper application of modern scientific theory into spiritual matters.

 

[arrow]

Perhaps, but neither are there any true Christians either, for if anything is clear in the philosophy, it is that one must love those that hate you.

Yes, we are to love our personal enemies. We aren't perfect, only forgiven. God's definition of a "true" Christian is a soul that has by faith trusted in Jesus Christ's death on the Cross for sin. John 3:16

Nationally however, God ordained each nation to have authority & responsibility to defend.

 

[mugsby]

i'm an atheist becuase i 'believe' there is no god, you can't prove there is one way or another so i chose what i 'believed' to be logical in the absence of blind faith.

confusing ain't it.

 

[kcballer21]

Woa! Let me get this straight. Are you saying that if there was a person who used to be an atheist and then changed his mind then he'd still think there'd be no reason to care? If this is what you're saying then do you actually believe this would happen in anyone who became a believer from an atheist?
Why do you say that? Jews, Christians and Muslims, a very significant portion of the worlds mono-theistic religions, believes that God affects our lives and continues to do so. Ho did you arrive at such a belief? Do you know a lot of atheists who became believers?
[quite]That said, atheists do like to speculate.

Why? To get anywhere scientists speculate in order to make a first move toward a theory.
Pete[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about someone who used to be an atheist, that is a meaningless description. A person who used to be an atheist is not an atheist. (sorry to be redundant)
How do believers arrive at their beliefs? Is there some sort of overwhelming evidence? I was only speaking for atheists, or what my idea of atheism is.

 

[sameandnot]

what does everyone mean when they talk/think about God? I just want some ideas that people are judging with. this is surely the most important question here.

 

[sameandnot]

we should analyze this together, when we have a good definition. we should be able to find out what it means and then it will be infinitely easier to evaluate its existence... agreed?

 

[sameandnot]

i mean: how can you argue for or against something, when you are unclear as to what it is that you are arguing for or against? we will base this examination on intelligence and reason, rather than emotion.

 

[sameandnot]

ok, so we know that someone is going to give the "classic" definition of God, namely: and being that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, am i missing some necessary characteristic?

what does that mean? what is such a being? any other definitions are welcome.

 

[sameandnot]

there is the common conception, i perceive, of god, where god is something like a human standing outside of the universe, or maybe also inside of it, or maybe...

what does the word omnipotent mean, for example?

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

"all power" gives something of a different conception, doesn't it?

 

[sameandnot]

so... is it that omniscience means "all knowledge" and omnibenevolent means something like "all goodness"?

what a different picture this is painting, already!

 

[sameandnot]

so i am still wondering what is meant by God, to the people of this post and forum in general.

 

[sameandnot]

funny, how no one asked this question, but there were already four pages of debate, before i got here... maybe i am just out of the loop... or maybe assumption is running this gig... or maybe i am just dumb...

 

[sameandnot]

hmmmmmm...

 

[Rade]

God's definition of a "true" Christian is a soul that has by faith trusted in Jesus Christ's death on the Cross for sin. John 3:16

No, this is false, this is not what Jesus taught. Since this reference to John 3:16 was not deleted as a violation of forum rules, I will assume I can continue the argument. First, "God" never defined the "true Christian", in fact the term was not even used by Jesus, let alone God. Your quote of John 3:16 is John's philosophy, but clearly not the thinking of Jesus. We get to what Jesus would say about this in Luke 10:25-37. By any definition, a "true Christian" must be a human that wishes to have eternal life after death. And, in Luke 10:25 we see that Jesus addressed this issue...thus he was asked by a lawyer " ...what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And note that Jesus then asked then lawyer ...what is written in the law, how readest you ? And when the lawyer gave the correct answer derived from " the law"...note what Jesus said, he said ..."thou hast answered right, this do, and thou shalt live". So, you are welcome to put your faith on what "John 3:16" says, but I select to put my faith on what Jesus says, e.g., the "true christian" ...follows the law... and loves God with all his/her heart and soul .... By his own words, Jesus died on the cross and was raised so that all humans would realize that when he said we must "follow the law" to have eternal life, he really meant it.

 

[sameandnot]

What is the God that you love with all your heart and soul? what do you love, is my question? something, and not other things, some people but not other people, some religion, but not other religions? do you love something called God, but is divided, and therefore limited? can God be anything less than everything? perhaps even everything puts a limit on God, for maybe He is greater than everything. What then is That? Rade, Arrow, group? please help dissolve these misunderstanding with me.

 

[sameandnot]

can God be defined by a name, a definition, a word, a form, an idea? is your love such that it transcends these definitions? anything less would surely limit God, would it not?

 

[Rade]

What is the God that you love with all your heart and soul? what do you love, is my question? something, and not other things, some people but not other people, some religion, but not other religions? do you love something called God, but is divided, and therefore limited? can God be anything less than everything? perhaps even everything puts a limit on God, for maybe He is greater than everything. What then is That? Rade, Arrow, group? please help dissolve these misunderstanding with me.

This is a good question, e.g., what is the "love of God" as understood by the "law" that Jesus mentions in my post above. Recall that when asked who it was, God said "just call me I AM". I hold this to mean that God = Existence. Thus to say one should love God, it is the same as saying one should love existence, and that you should love it with all your heart and soul for the simple reason that there is nothing else to love. But we can go further, we can also hold that there are only two ways to love any existent, (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside. And here we get to the point of the saying by Jesus, to love others (those outside self) as self (love of self); that is, in order to have comprehensive love, one must love all that exists, including one self (and note the difficult part of the philosophy, one also then must love those that hate them). Finally, as to your question, is God perhaps greater than everything (e.g., all that exists) ? Perhaps, but I do not see that it logically follows. Why must there be more than all that exists, limits as to alpha and omega ? --it is not clear to me in this philosophy of Jesus that anything is outside these limits or that such limits exist. Perhaps it is just that the purpose of existence is to continue to exist, and this then is the "concept" that humans "define" as being "God".

 

[sameandnot]

This is a good question, e.g., what is the "love of God" as understood by the "law" that Jesus mentions in my post above. Recall that when asked who it was, God said "just call me I AM". I hold this to mean that God = Existence. Thus to say one should love God, it is the same as saying one should love existence, and that you should love it with all your heart and soul for the simple reason that there is nothing else to love. But we can go further, we can also hold that there are only two ways to love any existent, (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside. And here we get to the point of the saying by Jesus, to love others (those outside self) as self (love of self); that is, in order to have comprehensive love, one must love all that exists, including one self (and note the difficult part of the philosophy, one also then must love those that hate them). Finally, as to your question, is God perhaps greater than everything (e.g., all that exists) ? Perhaps, but I do not see that it logically follows. Why must there be more than all that exists, limits as to alpha and omega ? --it is not clear to me in this philosophy of Jesus that anything is outside these limits or that such limits exist. Perhaps it is just that the purpose of existence is to continue to exist, and this then is the "concept" that humans "define" as being "God".

If God is, as was said, Existence... how can there be a distinction between inside and outside the self? is god inside or outside? this is not an "and/or" situation, i am suggesting. the distinction is an error of the mind... we agree? for if god is All then that which I refer to as "i" is also That. can "I" be both God and not God? It and not It. remember that we are talking about what "I" am, so we must acknowlege what "I" am not... namely a body/mind/ego.

interesting that whenever there is the identification with the body or the mind, the ego is there, permeating. so it is said that the body/mind is not Real, but then, that it is not really unreal. I may propose that the errors of the mind are the fruit of the seed of ignorance (ego), which is the identification of the "Self" with the body/mind. that is to say that it is the root of erroneous knowledge/belief. without Knowing the Self, how can any subsequent "knowledge" be credible?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

We are all born atheist as are dogs and trees and rocks. Until we choose to believe in the existence of 'God', (whatever that is), we remain atheist.

 

[Rade]

If God is, as was said, Existence... how can there be a distinction between inside and outside the self? is god inside or outside? this is not an "and/or" situation, i am suggesting. the distinction is an error of the mind... we agree? for if god is All then that which I refer to as "i" is also That. can "I" be both God and not God? It and not It. remember that we are talking about what "I" am, so we must acknowlege what "I" am not... namely a body/mind/ego.

You lost me. All I am saying is that any single existent [a], that is, a subset [a] of God {= a to infinity, e.g., existence}, can love in only two ways (1) internal to [a] and (2) external to [a]. There are no other logical possibilities. Thus, to answer your first question, God (existence) is both inside [a] and outside [a], but our "knowledge" of what is inside and outside differs, that is, each [a] knows that it exists via processes of the mind (ps, I happen to have an unconventional view that it is the existential moment that provides such knowledge to [a] that it exists), but has uncertaintain knowledge (e.g., < 100 %) that anything exists outside [a].
And yes, I agree that God must be both "i" and "I", however, clearly "I" cannot both be God (existence) and non-God (non-existence) at the same time--this conclusion leads to a logical contradiction and thus must be rejected. To attempt to answer your last question...what the "I" is, is a very small (think # 1) subset of God, a subset of a larger existence that some folks call "God" other folks (me for example) call "existence". As to "what you as [a] are not", you are not "non-existence", what more does any human need to know. For if [a] in fact exists, then must logically follow the axiom "existence exists".

 

[Orefa]

In place of a full definition of what God would be, I find it sufficient to pick a few pre-requisites without which no entity would qualify to use the title (in my book):

1. All-Powerful: if you can't do it all, you don't qualify. As tough as you may be, if your abilities are limited then you're not tough enough to bear the big title.

2. All-Knowing: if you don't know, you don't qualify. You might be a "Q" entity from Star Trek but not God. Come to think of it, onmiscience sort of follows from omnipotence: if you're all-powerful then you can just give yourself omniscience.

3. Willful: if you have no intent, you don't qualify. You might be a force of nature that guides everything in the Universe, but I won't worship you. Why would I if it cannot influence you will? I might study you, but I won't call you God.

Then to decide if such a being can exist, we need to determine what it takes in order to exist. No full definition is needed here either, only a basic characteristic. In my book (again) you don't exist unless you have some sort of effect on something. The invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist for this reason: it doesn't affect reality. Gravity exists because it made me fall once, it had an effect. What is real matters. What doesn't matter is not real, it is not worthy of any consideration.

So can an omniscient, omnipotent willful being have an effect on reality?

If a being is able to implement its will, as God would have to be, then the plan must already be in motion. If the being is all-knowing as well then the plan is not going to change either: what could possibly change the mind of an omniscient? Once the universe has been created and set in motion then no further action is required for eternity. From the postulate of a creator who knew (omniscient) what it wanted (willful) and was capable of it (omnipotent) it follows that no further intervention is needed. Without the need for any further intervention the being has no effect, does not matter and therefore does not exist, if it once did.

I see no need to study "all" evidence, just to look at the pre-requisites and see if the concept is possible. Your own definitions may vary, and you may require more strictly mathematical derivations than the above, so you will have to do your own proofs or existence or non-existence. This one is what works for me.

 

[sameandnot]

In place of a full definition of what God would be, I find it sufficient to pick a few pre-requisites without which no entity would qualify to use the title (in my book):

1. All-Powerful: if you can't do it all, you don't qualify. As tough as you may be, if your abilities are limited then you're not tough enough to bear the big title.

2. All-Knowing: if you don't know, you don't qualify. You might be a "Q" entity from Star Trek but not God. Come to think of it, onmiscience sort of follows from omnipotence: if you're all-powerful then you can just give yourself omniscience.

3. Willful: if you have no intent, you don't qualify. You might be a force of nature that guides everything in the Universe, but I won't worship you. Why would I if it cannot influence you will? I might study you, but I won't call you God.

man! this is difficult! Orefa, what do you mean when you say "if you don't know, you don't qualify"? are you implying that god is some finite/bodily form that can know and do anything/everything? who is this "you" that you talk about? are you referring to some "human-like" being? some person, perhaps? do you see what i am saying? i think not but i will try to show you nonetheless.

it is apparent that you have anthropomorhised this "god-person". but when we talk about "god" are we talking about some "thing" inside the universe that, say, "throw the moon out to into space, and thereby play catch with Sirius?" do you see what i mean? is it some huge, brute, intellectual with infinite strength and knowledge?? someone whom you can walk up to and say, "hello, god... you sure are big and smart... do you think that you can take your big hand and cover the sun for a moment so that i may get some cool rest below this tree?" this is obviously rediculous, but the rediculousness only reflects the rediculousness of talking about and omnipotent "thing", without considering it first. i am not saying that you are rediculous, please do not think me rude, i am simply trying to reveal the abdurdity of the commonly held notion that god is some human with a grey beard sitting on cloud 9 (where ever that is) and controling everything, as a common human might. where is that "person"? do you see? what are we talking about when we say that it is "all power", "all knowing", "all goodness".

ALL POWER. all that is power... is the definition of "omnipotence" (by wikipedia)

how can we say that some human-like thing is, at the same time "a thing" and the power of gravity that allows fusion to occur, or the power of the sun to heat the planets?

ok i am finished.

 

[sameandnot]

i mean: we cannot say that god is an entity whom is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. all we can say is: what we are referring to when we say "god", is simple omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. in other words, what we refer to as being god is: all-power, all-knowing (or all-knowledge), and all-goodness. (period) ;)

 

[sameandnot]

to say that god is some entity, is to limit god, to being not some other entity... no? therefore we cannot say that god is some "thing". but rather examine if there is all-power, and what is all-power? if there is all-knowing, and what is it? etc. still, even though we have labeled "god" as being such characteristics, we must also know that, what "god" really is, is also not limited by our definitions, and is thereby infinitely more than we can ever say He is.