Atheism & Agnosticism: Logic of Beliefs & Origin of Christianity

[Dooga Blackrazor]

If this topic needs to be deleted I apologize for making it. I wasn't sure from the thread what the rules were exactly. The topic is meant for a calm debate on what makes up atheism and agnosticism and what has more logic centered around it. I'm also curious about theories on origin of Christianity. Again, this isn't meant to start arguements and can be deleted or locked if necessary.

**

I do not believe in God, I believe in the possibility of God.
I do not believe that God doesn't exist, I believe it is possible he doesn't exist.

Does this make me Atheist, Agnostic, or both? Atheist Agnosticism is something else entirely though.

Also, are there any thoughts on what is more logical: atheism or agnosticism? Is it truly logical to discard the possibility of some sort of supreme being? What are the theories towards how Christianity and the history of religion started?

 

[bola]

To put it simply, if God is made up of particles/atoms, he is a slave of the system, and therefore he is only the highest possible being in the system/universe.
If he is not made up of atoms, but is entirely separate and outside the universe, well, then we get to something completely different.

Who can possibly know what is outside our universe?
Both ideas of "the universe is too perfect to have a creator", and "well I say it's so perfect it HAS to have a creator or intellect of some sort" both apply.
So therefore, I believe being an agnostic is most logical.

However, I have discarded a biblical God, any type of God that people have created, I say we simply know NOTHING about any current creator or omiscient being in our universe. Nothing at all.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Do you believe we know nothing because we can prove nothing, and we cannot confirm any ideological beliefs of monotheistic religions; or, do you believe that monotheist religions were simply created in all senses?

I discard a biblical God because of the shaky information I have been presented with and because there is no proof at this time that I deem correct. I don't necessarily deny the possibility that some historical religious happenings did occur; however, they were likely improperly documented over time.

 

[Janitor]

This site I just found may be of interest.

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/quanda/qa3/q48.html

 

[Kerrie]

Dooga, your thread will remain open so long as it stays philosophical, which I can see is your intent. Let's not get into the Christianity subject however.

I would say you are more agnostic with the beliefs you stated. Atheists tend to deny any sort of creative intelligence. Agnostics just don't acknowledge but would be open to change (from what I understand).

 

[philocrazy]

If this topic needs to be deleted I apologize for making it. I wasn't sure from the thread what the rules were exactly.
-------------------------------------------------------------
the rules are clear my child
this world bans philosophy
i've been banned on several forums

Philosopher Philocrazy
PS when philosophy makes money they turn it into a religion!

 

[Kerrie]

the rules are clear my child
this world bans philosophy
i've been banned on several forums

Philosopher Philocrazy
PS when philosophy makes money they turn it into a religion!

interesting quotation there, although untrue
are you giving me warning that i may ban you too?
yes, the rules are quite clear,
so please adhere to them, and i assure you won't be a fool!

 

[philocrazy]

warning?
not at all sir
i was merely accounting some hard facts of life in civilisation: "WESTERN DEMOCRACY"
western democracy is giving Philosophy Warnings!
you just gave me one

Is this forum free and Democratic?
i rest my case

 

[Kerrie]

warning?
not at all sir
i was merely accounting some hard facts of life in civilisation: "WESTERN DEMOCRACY"
western democracy is giving Philosophy Warnings!
you just gave me one

Is this forum free and Democratic?
i rest my case

interesting you would address me as a "sir"
ignorant you are that i am a "her"
keep up the blathering,
and a ban of your membership i do assure.

 

[loseyourname]

You guys are cracking me up. You should date.

 

[Kerrie]

for some reason, people like this give me a reason to feel poetic.
i can't date though, i have a nice diamond on my left ring finger now

 

[Louis Cypher]

There's are certain areas of our brains that make us feel spiritualy aware, these areas are a natural consequence of religion and evolution, religion makes our communities safer and better places to be for everyone - yeah I know not anymore, 3rd biggest killer in Europe religion and it's wars - therefore thoughts of religion will eventually lead to a positive imprinting on the brain. Does god exist? or did we make him up, chicken and egg, it's all pretty meaningless, one thing I will say though is that agnosticism is waiting for proof before making a decision, atheism is an absolute belief that god doesn't exist; in that case what's the difference between a christian and an atheist?

 

[Doc Al]

..., atheism is an absolute belief that god doesn't exist...

Nope. An atheist simply lacks belief in god(s); nothing "absolute" about it.

 

[3mpathy]

it is not all pretty meaningless if u believe that god is present in our everyday lives. :P

Dooga you are agnostic. agnostic is like you he might exist, but like dude he might not?!?... athesist are like the is NO god, wut so ever! u are "if"-yish so u are agnostic.

now for your other questions. Christainity/Judism(sry4spelling) differed from the main the beliefs of the Romans and Greeks. they thought that u went to the underworld now matter wut and that unless u were some BIG hero like Odysseus then u went to some flat area, the plains of something.The plains were pretty boring too, nothing to do for all eternity, unless u got pluto pissed off : ). Christianity/Judism says that u went to Heaven if u were a good little boy/girl, hence the term Ethical-Monotheism. i don't know about u but if I am picking a religion and one says that I am going to be doing nothing for the rest of my unatrual life and one says that ill be happy after I am dead...hmmm...tough decision!

now my thoughts on athesism vs "agnosticism"( can i even put the ism at the end of this word? nvr seen it spelled that way... o well)
i think that saying that humans know everything and that there is NO possiblity of anything odd being out there that doesn't really fit our sense of reality, is arrogant. if u believe that there are weird things that ppl don't experience in everyday life, in physics, such as TINY peices of matter, then who says that there can't be other weird things too? No, I am not saying that God is the size of a electron, or that he is even made of matter, but admiting that u are ignorant and then saying ur omniscient is just being stupid.

 

[3mpathy]

this is a separate question from my other post so I am not editing.

then wut do atheist believe in besides that there is no god(s)?

 

[russ_watters]

Nope. An atheist simply lacks belief in god(s); nothing "absolute" about it.

That's agnostic. Athiesm is a positive belief that god doesn't exist.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Is that the accepted definition now? Dictionary.com states:

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.
Belief: Something believed or accepted as true.

Under those definitions you could say that Agnosticism is a type of Atheism.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I guess its a little unclear what "disbelief" means (it may go either way), but "denial of" is a pretty clear positive belief. And since we have another word for describing the lack of belief (agnostic), it makes sense to differentiate.

 

[BoulderHead]

People have, in times past, been labeled ‘atheist’ for having belief in certain god(s) instead of others and I think in this day and age such thinking can be seen absurd. My preference involves examination of the words;

Theism: belief in a deity
A-Theism: without theism.

Atheism quite properly describes lack of belief and this in an of itself outlines no other view which may be held by the subject. When I describe myself as atheist there is nothing beyond what is outlined above I am attempting to convey. To ascribe anything beyond this is to force words and preconceptions into an unwilling mouth.

 

[russ_watters]

However, the dictonary implies there is a difference between athiesm and agnosticism (sp?):

agnostic:
-One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
-One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
-One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

If an athiest is an agnostic, then what do you call someone who believes that there is no god?

 

[BoulderHead]

Does the agnostic have a belief in a deity?

A-Gnosis: without knowledge

Without knowledge of what?
If it is knowledge of a deity a further question might involve asking just how much knowledge is being spoken of. If it is meant to be absolute is it not then impossible to have belief in something for which one lacks any knowledge whatsoever? Personally, I do not care much for that word and believe it was invented to distance the originator from negative connotations associated with certain atheist people.

Atheist is short, simple, and speaks directly to the point. Going beyond lacking belief in a deity it is altogether possible to hold many other viewpoints. The same is of course true for theists who may have many different beliefs and yet still may properly be described as theists.

[edited for clarity (and removed the word 'scope')]

 

[BoulderHead]

If an athiest is an agnostic, then…

I am not making such a claim.

…what do you call someone who believes that there is no god?

A believer.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I used to be an agnostic long ago; I honestly didn't know (agnosis), or really much care, whether there was a god or not. Then I had a conversion experience and became a Catholic for many years. I believed in God and a lot of other stuff too. Sometimes I still kinda beleieve some of it. Now I mostly call myself an atheist; I don't believe in a personal go at all, and I see no reason to add even such human details as a Deist god might posess to my interest and respect for the entirely non-personal iniverse.

So from personal experience (yay Chalmers) there is something there is like to be an agnostic, and it's different from what there is like to be an atheist.

 

[Human Being]

On Atheism

The following website has lots of great information about atheism -
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/index.shtml

This page, from that site, is specific about two "kinds" of atheism, and
also briefly discusses agnosticism, so I will include those statements -
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.[/size]

For the record, I'm a strong atheist. I strongly believe gods cannot exist.

 

[cragwolf]

I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't have a belief in a god or gods. My gut feeling is that they don't exist. This gut feeling is based on my education and my experience of the world and thinking about it. But it's only a gut feeling, and as such, I allow for the possibility of a god or gods existing. Same as I do for unicorns and elves. And women who are attracted to me.

 

[Artorius]

"The self-proclaimed agnostic must still designate whether he does or does not believe in a god - and, in doing so, he commits himself to theism or to atheism. But he does commit himself. Agnosticism is not the escape clause that it is commonly thought to be."

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

 

[BoulderHead]

"The self-proclaimed agnostic must still designate whether he does or does not believe in a god - and, in doing so, he commits himself to theism or to atheism. But he does commit himself. Agnosticism is not the escape clause that it is commonly thought to be."

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

Very true and that is just another reason why atheism is the word I prefer to use.

 

[Skomatth]

Anthony Flew, a famous proponent of atheism who recently changed his mind, always delineated between two kinds of atheism. There is the positive atheist who denies the existence of a god and there is the negative atheist who is not a theist because he lacks sufficient reason to believe in a god. I think the difference between an agnostic and a negative atheist is that the negative atheist could be persuaded to acknowledge a deity whereas the agnostic would say it's impossible to know. A positive atheist concludes using some form of reasoning that there is no god.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You can argue symantics etimology and origins of words all day but what it comes down to in the end is the common conception of those words meanings if you actually intend to communicate your ideas to someone.
Common definition of the word "athiest": One that believes god does not exist.
Common definition of the word "agnostic": One who does not believe one way or the other in the existence of god.
If you ask an agnostic "Do you believe god exists?", then by a strict logic it would have to answer no.
But at the same time if you ask an agnostic "Do you believe that god does not exist?" again by the same strict rules an agnostic would have to answer no.

People have, in times past, been labeled ‘atheist’ for having belief in certain god(s) instead of others and I think in this day and age such thinking can be seen absurd.

I've seen such outmoded definitions for words like heathen, gentile, and pagan but never athiest. Could you site an example?

 

[BoulderHead]

You can argue symantics etimology and origins of words all day but what it comes down to in the end is the common conception of those words meanings if you actually intend to communicate your ideas to someone.

Yes, which is why the common definitions you went on to describe are not the end of this story. The intelligent speaker understands his audience and adjusts what is said to suit different groups or individuals in order to convey the clearest possible meaning. In some circumstances non-theist might be better understood than atheist.

I've seen such outmoded definitions for words like heathen, gentile, and pagan but never athiest. Could you site an example?

At the time I said that I was thinking of Romans accusing those who did not (or would not) worship their gods (or emperor), of atheism.

 

[Locrian]

Interesting.

That's agnostic. Athiesm is a positive belief that god doesn't exist.

Common definition of the word "athiest": One that believes god does not exist.

Personally, I find that the word "God" is insufficiently defined and therefore does not reference anything at all. Is not accepting that a word is properly defined the same as having a positive belief that something does not exist? I mean, if a word hasn't sufficient meaning to be even considered for existence, then surely it doesn't exist. However, that seems tautological.

I mean, I'm not agnostic on whether slithey tothes, the jabberwok, light-dark mumblies or fuzchiwonks exist. On the other hand, is it acceptable to say that I have a positive belief that slithey tothes do not exist? I mean, the word doesn't mean anything. I can't be any less positive about anything about it, and at the same time, can't be any less agnostic on whether I think it's there.

There seems to me to be a false dichotomy afoot.

In otherwords, I find your definition of atheist too strict. Saying I have a positive belief there is no god would, in my opinion, be misrepresenting my views. Saying that I am not commited to whether it exists or not would also be in error. I find there is not even an idea with which to have belief or not have belief. I suppose you can call me whatever you like, but it would seem to me I'm more an atheist than an agnostic.

 

[loseyourname]

Non-cognitivism, eh? I've always considered that an interesting idea, even though I don't buy the empirical verification theory of meaning. What exactly does the word "God" refer to?

 

[3mpathy]

could u please explain the basics of the empirical verification theory of meaning? ty

 

[loseyourname]

could u please explain the basics of the empirical verification theory of meaning? ty

The only factually meaningful statements are those that can, in principle, be verified empirically. By this standard, the statement "God exists" is factually meaningless without a clear formulation of what "God" means (clear meaning empirically verifiable).

 

[Ronhrin]

The only factually meaningful statements are those that can, in principle, be verified empirically. By this standard, the statement "God exists" is factually meaningless without a clear formulation of what "God" means (clear meaning empirically verifiable).

I disagree, everything makes sense given the certain context, and, as for the "meaning", well, it has more to it than what meets the eye, meaning is a requirement of our flawed perception, life and everything surrounding it, is just a micro system within the universe, and we (humam beings) are a system within life's system, a program, a bio-machine, and our basic instructions are to grow, feed, and reproduce, every other instructions that humans now possesses where gained with time and we have to remember that the humam being broke quite some rules within is nature to became what it is now. What I'm trying to say is that with all this time the humam program/consciousness had suffer some major changes, either way, the ability to perceive is something so complex that could suffer some drastic errors, for instance, imagine this:

we create a super computer with the purpose of descriving flavor, for that to be possible, this computer would have to possesses some AI and we would have try to teach it what flavor does consist, when we gave it an apple, how could we know that the apple would taste for it?
given this another question emerges, how can I know that an apple taste equal to you compared how it tastes to me? we can never know if our perceptions are the same, could we?

 

[Locrian]

I disagree...

Loseyourname was defining the concept for someone, not defending it. So you are disagreeing with a definition, but didn't make a case for that.

...

even though I don't buy the empirical verification theory of meaning.

I don't know whether I hold that either. At least, I don't require that the definition of God be empirically verifiable. Pretty much any definition that is consistent between people using the word and contains words which have meaning would be fine with me.

Anyhow, this morning I am more curious than ever to hear exactly what word describes my religious beliefs best from those so sure in their definitions. Someone could ask me any minute today, and how would I reply without some guidance first? I need a label, and quick!

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

So, would Atheist Agnosticism be even more logical than Agnosticism?

Atheist Agnosticism

- It is possible that God exists. Other religious beliefs are possibly correct.
- The belief that logic suggests that it is most likely God doesn't exist.
- We cannot know at this time whether God exists, and perhaps we will never be able to know.
- Not believing in God or that God doesn't exist.
- Believing in possibilities with Atheism being proclaimed the most likely possibility.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Interesting.
Personally, I find that the word "God" is insufficiently defined and therefore does not reference anything at all. Is not accepting that a word is properly defined the same as having a positive belief that something does not exist? I mean, if a word hasn't sufficient meaning to be even considered for existence, then surely it doesn't exist. However, that seems tautological.

I mean, I'm not agnostic on whether slithey tothes, the jabberwok, light-dark mumblies or fuzchiwonks exist. On the other hand, is it acceptable to say that I have a positive belief that slithey tothes do not exist? I mean, the word doesn't mean anything. I can't be any less positive about anything about it, and at the same time, can't be any less agnostic on whether I think it's there.

There seems to me to be a false dichotomy afoot.

In otherwords, I find your definition of atheist too strict. Saying I have a positive belief there is no god would, in my opinion, be misrepresenting my views. Saying that I am not commited to whether it exists or not would also be in error. I find there is not even an idea with which to have belief or not have belief. I suppose you can call me whatever you like, but it would seem to me I'm more an atheist than an agnostic.

This to me just seems silly. There is a basic broad spectrum definition of the word God. The problem with coming at it the way that you are is that it is not an equation or scientific theorum and there for can not be measured in that manner. Your argument holds just as well for things such as beauty and art. There is no manner with which to define these things sufficiantly for empirical verification yet I doubt that you would refer to the words as meaningless. If you could sufficiently define "God" in a scientific manner then you would be able to see if it is verifiable and the problem of defining where a person stands on the subject would be pointless.
And yes, if you believe that the word god is ill defined and meaningless then you would likely be labeled an athiest.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Is there such a thing as an agnostic who believes in God?

What I think I mean by that is someone who believes in God but also belives that fact can't be proven or disproven.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think that may have very well been the original definition of the word.
From what I remember when I first read about it it was supposed to be an antonym like athiest except instead of being based from the word thiest it's based from the word gnostic. One of the fundamental points of the gnostic practice was to have direct knowledge and experience of god. Agnostic I believe was supposed to mean someone who believes the oposite of that, that it's not possible.

 

[Locrian]

Your argument holds just as well for things such as beauty and art. There is no manner with which to define these things sufficiantly for empirical verification yet I doubt that you would refer to the words as meaningless. If you could sufficiently define "God" in a scientific manner then you would be able to see if it is verifiable and the problem of defining where a person stands on the subject would be pointless.

You suggest that I want "God" defined in a "scientific manner", and yet I never said anything of the sort. I'm not sure how you were confused, but I did not use that description, and for a reason. If you find what I wrote silly, it might be because you are putting words in my post I would never use, and then attempting to apply them in ways I would never choose to.

It is true that the word art has more than one definition, but I can tell which definition is being used based on context, and they are all reasonably consistent. As for beauty, I can't remember the last time I was asked if beauty exists in a literal sense; nor do I think the answer to that question is as easy as you imply. You are accusing me of not being consistent with my argument, but I see no reason to think you are correct.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It would seem to me that by stating something is insufficiantly defined and therefore not possible to consider existent or is just meaningless you're evaluating it on the basis of the value of the information which is a scientific manner with which to look at things. If the information is incomplete or there isn't enough of it or it referances itself and nothing else it is mathematically/scientifically valueless/meaningless.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was hurried yesterday writing that last post. Whether you were doing it purposefully or not it seems to me that your argument was mathematical/scientific in nature based on the description I used above.
At anyrate what I mean is at what point is it sufficiently defined and possible of being considered for existence? The word "god" is just as well defined as the word "art" in my opinion. When you say "art" you could be referring to impressionism, realism, surealism ect. You could be referring to sculpture, painting, music, photography, ect. When you say "god" you could be referring to a Hindu god, or a Christian god, or an Egyptian god, ect. You could be referring to a benevolent god, a molevolent god, a nuetral god, ect. In both instances you can combine the elements that are common to all examples of what the word describes and use that as the basis for your definition. A broad generalized word that is subjective. You may or may not believe that any particular example of god is something you can consider existent. Personally I don't believe there is "art" inherant in a can of tomato soup or even other examples of "art" yet others would disagree with me. Or howabout dada? Do you challenge the "art" of dada due to it being incoherant and insufficiently defined?

 

[Locrian]

Whether you were doing it purposefully or not it seems to me that your argument was mathematical/scientific in nature based on the description I used above.

No, it wasn't. It is you who has insisted I made this suggestion in three posts now. You can stop it now; no amount of repeating that will make it true.

When you say "god" you could be referring to a Hindu god, or a Christian god, or an Egyptian god, ect. You could be referring to a benevolent god, a molevolent god, a nuetral god, ect.

Well, that's a good point. Some religions of the past have reasonable definitions to describe their God - and, interestingly enough, they always obviously don't exist. When faced with the question, I usually have to choose which definition they mean based on context - just as you are choosing one definition of art. I assume they mean any god. For that, I have to consider the one they've chosen - when I ask, that's when the trouble begins - because most people do not believe in a god that is well defined and obviously doesn't exist. Instead questioning what their definition of the word "god" means produces inconsistent and mostly meaningless results.

By the way, I find your example of the word art to be completely unconvincing. There are several definitions of art. It is true that the way the definition you are using is applied is subjective. I do not consider that an impediment at all. You can't understand why I wouldn't, because you are still insisting I believe something I don't - that definitions require some kind of scientific basis. Until you stop this mischaracterization, you just won't understand.

Of course, I wonder why you care about why I think what I do. You started out asking questions because you thought it was silly. Since you made that assumption based on an incorrect (and loose) interpretation of what I said, it seems to me a moot point now. I didn't start this conversation to defend my stance - though I'm more than happy to. I'm pretty sure no one else gives a hoot, so maybe we could take it to pm's instead. I posted initially because wanted to know what those who find atheist so easy to strictly define would label me. I find it revealing I haven't gotten much of a response.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, it wasn't. It is you who has insisted I made this suggestion in three posts now. You can stop it now; no amount of repeating that will make it true.

Apearantly you didn't notice that I have changed my wording. I assumed that you were intentionally using a scientific/mathematical sort of argument in my first response. You stated that wasn't the case so I explained why it appeared that way to me and made sure to point out that it was just that, the way that it apears to me not stating that it was true. Yet you simply state that it isn't the case and make no comment on my reasoning as to why it appeared that way nor do you make any attempt to correct my interpretation of your argument so far as I can see.

Well, that's a good point. Some religions of the past have reasonable definitions to describe their God - and, interestingly enough, they always obviously don't exist. When faced with the question, I usually have to choose which definition they mean based on context - just as you are choosing one definition of art. I assume they mean any god. For that, I have to consider the one they've chosen - when I ask, that's when the trouble begins - because most people do not believe in a god that is well defined and obviously doesn't exist. Instead questioning what their definition of the word "god" means produces inconsistent and mostly meaningless results.

How is it so obvious that these "gods" don't exist?

By the way, I find your example of the word art to be completely unconvincing. There are several definitions of art. It is true that the way the definition you are using is applied is subjective. I do not consider that an impediment at all. You can't understand why I wouldn't, because you are still insisting I believe something I don't - that definitions require some kind of scientific basis. Until you stop this mischaracterization, you just won't understand.

I am insisting nothing. The reason I can't understand is that you have not explained when you believe a word is sufficiently defined. I asked you that question and you have yet to answer it.

Of course, I wonder why you care about why I think what I do. You started out asking questions because you thought it was silly. Since you made that assumption based on an incorrect (and loose) interpretation of what I said, it seems to me a moot point now. I didn't start this conversation to defend my stance - though I'm more than happy to. I'm pretty sure no one else gives a hoot, so maybe we could take it to pm's instead. I posted initially because wanted to know what those who find atheist so easy to strictly define would label me. I find it revealing I haven't gotten much of a response.

I believe I gave you a response. I said that if you find the word "god" illdefined and meaningless then you would likely be considered an athiest. And I ask questions because I am interested in what you think and I think that this is a fine location to discuss since it is a thread discussing definitions.

 

[Locrian]

The reason I can't understand is that you have not explained when you believe a word is sufficiently defined. I asked you that question and you have yet to answer it.

But I did, before you ever responded to me. And in that post I also made statements that should have prevented this appearance you got of me.

At least, I don't require that the definition of God be empirically verifiable. Pretty much any definition that is consistent between people using the word and contains words which have meaning would be fine with me.

Please note this is something i posted prior to your first response to me.

I think that this is a fine location to discuss since it is a thread discussing definitions.

Well okay then. Making the case that the word God is insufficiently defined is a long one. The first step in the argument that "God" is not well definined is to show it isn't consistently defined between people using it. By this, I do not mean it has more than one definition. I mean that people who think they are talking about the same thing have very different ones. How some examples? From

http://www.christianforums.com/t1172045-defining-god.html

A post requesting a definition of God. See the original thread for handles. I only tried to use those presented by Christians.

God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.

(Obviously lifted from a dictionary Still the number one is useful)

I'm not sure that you can define God. Not if you are talking about the Biblical creator of the universe. We are certainly not given a definition in scripture, and when Moses asked him, all he said was "I AM". I'll watch this thread with interest though to see if anyone can really find one that come close.

al;dfjal;skdjfal;sdhf;lan louretqpiowre vzxcnv;l arwutq-24irfaskldnf ;kljafv=-AQU4320TAMNREWLG'K ASNDIO FYU9PRQ4WA;OJRNL;J[o8asudf8g jioa j89fuqpwjtrea'lksnfzxm.vcnbzl;ksjhfdg8 4-0ajioewjmtrali sdjhf;alskdjf

Well, they were non-denominational

God is existence.

Maybe a definition of God can be found in His names:

Elohim (God)
Jehovah/Yahweh (the self-existent one: I AM)
Jehovah-jireh (the Lord will provide)
Jehovah-rapha (the Lord who heals)
Jehovah-nissi (the Lord our banner)
Jehovah-Shalom (the Lord our peace)
Jehovah-ra-ah (the Lord my shepherd)
Jehovah-tsidkenu (the Lord our righteousness)
Jehovah-shammad (the Lord is present)
Jehovah-Elohim (the Lord God)
Jehovah Sabaoth (the Lord of hosts)
El Elyon (the most high God)
Adonai (our master)
El Shaddai (Almighty God, the strength giver)
El Olam (everlasting God)

There are many ways to define God, all of them correct, for they reveal one truth about Him.
The Creator of the universe.
The Supreme Good.
The Absolute Being.

Who am I to define the undefinable?

Ein Sof is undefinable. To understand what the Bible is talking about you have to really study the original Hebrew or speak/read from someone who can comment on it. There are ten forces of creation, but these are not Ein Sof. There are many differnet names used in the Bible. When you read God in the Bible, it is not the same word used all the time. The different names of God talk about the different aspects of creation but they are not Ein Sof. All we can try and do is illustrate the nature of Ein Sof.

http://100prophecies.org/ THat God...Jehovah dude! alpha and omega dude,creator dude, father,Son, and Holy Spirit Dude,...the Dude who inspired the writing of the Bible,,the Dude who told the prophets to write out these 100 prophecies...that dude...that's the definition..dude!

Of course, these are examples, and only the first step in the argument. The second is to show that these things are not just minor variations, but that they have serious implications on determining what these people are talking about. People might define "art" differently, but they are very similar definitions. If you include the fact that people find different things valuable and/or attractive, all of a sudden a good definition of "art" is easy. Considering some hold that "god" cannot be defined at all, it should be obvious the above definitions are not similar, and creating an overarching definition is not a simple process.

Finally, I would argue that if you created a definition that included all of the above (as some do), it would have no meaning, due to it containing concepts that have no meaning. The almagamation you end up with when combining everyones definition - and lack of definitions - of "god" is rather troubling. For instance, christians are happy to admit god is trinitorial in nature, yet are rather stumped when asked what the difference between these thirds are; except, of course, that they are. When someone tells me something exists, and is everywhere, but undetectable and not subject to physical space and is all-knowing (meaning it contains all information) but must be logical in nature, I'm rather suspicious of whether they mean anything at all.

I don't think I can elaborate any more than I have at this time, and I apoligize. This is primarily because of time constraints. I have no intention of convincing anyone here that I am right about this philosophical stance, just that I do have it, and that I apply it to all things - I have not made an exception just for this concept.

I also hoped at first that after some examples my stance would sound less silly. I've changed my mind. I think any well reasoned stance on this issue will always seem silly to those who disagree. I am not suggesting I'm immune to this, concerning my perception of others.

 

[Zlex]

Is there such a thing as an agnostic who believes in God?

What I think I mean by that is someone who believes in God but also belives that fact can't be proven or disproven.

I am positive that I do not 'know' if God exists. As a matter of pure faith, I believe that God exists, without proof. So, that makes me a theist. However, as a devout agnostic, I do not claim to 'know' who he is, what he is, or what he wants, and question how it was or is humanly possible for anybody to claim to 'know' anything like that, except as a matter of pure faith, which is what all of that purely is. Meaning, a belief in something for which proof is not evident or even possible.