There are many fundies here, and also many atheists. But how can the religious people claim all of this knowledge of our creator? And how can the athiests claim to know beyond doubt that there is no 'God'?

Isn't it healthier to simply say "I don't know"?

There is a lot of ignorance on this subject on both sides, and maybe sitting in the middle of it all is the best step forward to perhaps actually getting answers?

It's definitely healthy to be humble and honest whatever your perspective is.

I've had God interact with me. I've had things happen that have proven to me without the very slightest doubt that God is more real than anything in this world. I'll be honest about that.

I've had God interact with me.
can you explain this interaction for us? I am curious.

I don't really like "agnosticism" because most people take it to mean something to the effect of: there is a god, but god is a mystery to me.

I practice my own brand of agnosticism, I call it Stoic Agnosticism. Stoic Agnosticism basically mean that I acknowledge that there may be a god, but it is just as likely for the tooth fairy or easter bunny to exist.

Stoic Agnostic,

He's interacted with me on various levels....different circumstances, different ways. I don't really have it figured out you know? How this whole spiritual realm thing works. But it's a spiritual interaction...telepathic you may call it. I've had it come in the form of ideas, dreams, visions, telepathic conversation (aka prayer). I've had prophecy revealed to me. Sometimes He comes to me through other people who usually are unaware, sometimes via the internet, sometimes through art, like music or poetry, paintings or stories. I've seen Him manipulate my immediate material environment right before my eyes...that was a trip. I've had a spirit inhabit my body and write poetry through me. I've also had other physical manifestations/symptoms of interactions with the spiritual realm. I have to say that recently, I seemed to have hit the spiritual motherload. The whole ride has just been mind blowing....amazing.

There are many fundies here, and also many atheists. But how can the religious people claim all of this knowledge of our creator? And how can the athiests claim to know beyond doubt that there is no 'God'?

Isn't it healthier to simply say "I don't know"?

There is a lot of ignorance on this subject on both sides, and maybe sitting in the middle of it all is the best step forward to perhaps actually getting answers?

Insisting in agnosticism is like not putting your messy room in order. Because you can't decide where to put what, so you just leave everything as it is.

In a messy room, you can't do anything, and similarly, agnosticism only gets you a step further to a meaningless old age, not to finding answers.

And how can the athiests claim to know beyond doubt that there is no 'God'?Another case of mistaken understanding of Atheism.

Atheism is not necessarily the belief in the non-existence of God.
Atheism is merely not having a belief that God exists.

Some atheists will actively claim that God doesn't exist, but since you can't prove non-existence they will have as much difficulty supporting their statement as those who believe in a God.

The rest of us atheists say that we merely do not have a belief in God, generally because such a belief is unrequired for us to live our life, is irrational and as valid a belief as an infinite other beliefs such as Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, an invisible pink monkey that lives on everyone's shoulders etc.

If you misunderstand what atheists are then you will be inaccurate in any analysis of them.

Another case of mistaken understanding of Atheism.

Atheism is not necessarily the belief in the non-existence of God.
Atheism is merely not having a belief that God exists.

Some atheists will actively claim that God doesn't exist, but since you can't prove non-existence they will have as much difficulty supporting their statement as those who believe in a God.

The rest of us atheists say that we merely do not have a belief in God, generally because such a belief is unrequired for us to live our life, is irrational and as valid a belief as an infinite other beliefs such as Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, an invisible pink monkey that lives on everyone's shoulders etc.

If you misunderstand what atheists are then you will be inaccurate in any analysis of them.

The harrap english dictionary would beg to differ with you on this, and defines atheist as "a person who believes that God does not exist".

If we all have different meanings for the same word, language becomes useless. The dictionary is here so that we have common meanings for words and can communicate effectively.

I suggest you are at odds with the rest of the english speaking world with your definition of atheist.

Why not just come out and say your an agnostic and be proud of it.

I agree with KennyJC. Agnosticism is the only position from which one can pursue answers in an unbiased manner.

Religion and (strong) atheism only have a pychological benefit for those who believe in them, while closing their minds to other options.

I have no problem with weak atheists and a lot of open-minded religous people who I happen to know. But fundamentalists from both sides make me sick to my stomach, seeing as there exists no absolute proof for either position. (Although, some religious people claim to have experienced personal proof.)

I would currently describe myself as an agnostic in search of answers. I'll probably end up more or less following some religious direction, or maybe atheism, but I'm quite sure that I won't be 100% rigid in my beliefs. My own sense of reason forbids from it.

It is true, when we have a rigid mind we prohibit further learning, and we are all learning all the way through our lives (or should be).

I suggest you are at odds with the rest of the english speaking world with your definition of atheist.
ah but he's not, you are, you only have to search the web for the meaning there are many sites (atheism, encyclopedias, dictionarys etc)

Atheism


Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. Skeptics Dictionaryhttp://skepdic.com/atheism.html

Atheism is also not a religion or a complete ethical system. It has two main definitions:
bullet The lack of a belief that deity, in the form of one or more supernatural gods or goddesses, exists. American Atheists define an Atheist to be a person who "...does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities." 1
bullet The Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia define Atheism as "The denial of the existence of God or gods." Religious Tolerance
http://www.religioustolerance.org/at_ag_hu.htm

Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, Atheism disappeared from any consideration among philosophers of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity began to have widespread influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists (60.7 percent of U.S. general scientists and 93 percent of N.A.S. top scientists expressing disbelief or doubt,wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

A person for whom the idea of god is senseless. Not to be confused with a person who hates god.
www.angelfire.com/pa/ebrownle2/gloss.html

Denial of the existence of God. An atheist accepts only the material and physical world or what can be proven by reason.
essenes.net/odict.htm

The harrap english dictionary would beg to differ with you on this, and defines atheist as "a person who believes that God does not exist".

If we all have different meanings for the same word, language becomes useless. The dictionary is here so that we have common meanings for words and can communicate effectively.

I suggest you are at odds with the rest of the english speaking world with your definition of atheist.

Why not just come out and say your an agnostic and be proud of it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Atheist

More importantly - our own Sciforums FAQ for the Religion sub-forum:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679
which states....
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
It goes beyond that to explain Weak and Strong atheists - but they are both subsets of Atheism - the non-belief in the existence of a deity.

While I do not doubt some dictionaries will differ in their definitions (and they do) - we have an agreed definition and understanding of Atheism in this forum. Either use it or don't - but don't criticise people for using that which the forum FAQ has defined for us.
If you feel that the given definition/understanding is wrong then raise it in another thread.

Etymologically speaking:
atheist 1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

Okay - moving on - The Oxford English Dictionary:
"Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Here is the OED's definition of 'agnostic':

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing."

Websters:
"Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief"

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.

So - in conclusion - either update your understanding of Atheism, or state "Strong" atheism when you mean those that actively disbelieve in God, so as to differentiate from those that aren't.

Can I define a deist as somone who believes in a god in some form or other?
and if so,
can I also define a deist as not having the belief that god does not exist?

There are many fundies here, and also many atheists. But how can the religious people claim all of this knowledge of our creator? And how can the athiests claim to know beyond doubt that there is no 'God'?

Isn't it healthier to simply say "I don't know"?

There is a lot of ignorance on this subject on both sides, and maybe sitting in the middle of it all is the best step forward to perhaps actually getting answers?

I, as an atheist, never claimed knowledge about the existance, or lack thereof, of god, I only voiced doubts and believe. I do not believe in a god does not mean that I have knowledge of the nonexistance of god.

Knowledge and believe do not depend on one another.

I
Knowledge and believe do not depend on one another.

Ah yes, but most atheists (I am not saying you are most atheists) would not allow a deist that freedom. They would demand a deist proove that god exists.

"Knowledge and believe do not depend on one another"
Remember this line next time you debate with a deist.

I am a deist but my concept of God is very loose and and undefined and doesnt completely fit with any major religion. But I am usually categorised as being part of one religion or another as soon as I mention God.

So we are all grouped and miscategorised from time to time. If we really want to be exact everyone on this planet has slightly different views and differing levels of belief / disbelief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a deist is someone who reaches the conclusion of God through reasoning, as opposed to a "theist" who reaches the conclusion of God through revelation / theology etc?

My personal journey is one of reasoning.

A summarised version;
I cannot accept we are matter that lives through chemical reaction alone.
I find myself with no morals there - I cannot find specialness in life.
I cannot accept that all life is seperate and contained within matter.
I therefore believe there is a greater part to humanity, such as - soul / spirit / higher conscienceness / global conscienceness.
This then leads me to the possibility that if we have spirit then there may be other spiritual entities in existence.
And this leads me to the possibilty some form of god exists.

Sarkus, thanks for such good work showing the definition and abuse of the term 'atheist'. I think many forget that it implies a lack of belief in all gods, not just theirs! Therefore, everybody is an atheist, unless they also believe in Pan, Loki, Ganesh, Shiva, Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Jupiter etc etc.

I dislike the term 'strong atheist' though. I would prefer 'antitheist' or something, as this slip sliding implies more than there is to atheism.

I therefore also think the term 'agnostic' is pointless too. People either believe, or not. Nobody _knows_ that god exists, those that do believe have _faith_, not _proof_ or _knowledge_. Therefore, strictly everybody is an agnostic (and therefore the term fails to differentiate sides in any debate) or the term is merely used for people who don't know their own mind.

So, this last point in mind, agnosticism is far from being wise.

Ah. Atheists do not so much lack belief in God, as much as they hate and fear the idea that there should be one.

I follow your reasoning, Light Travelling. While I feel pretty much the same way, I'm just not sure that my feelings are justification for a belief in a higher power.

Then again, I don't think one could write off all of the "supernatural" experiences claimed by people over the centuries as lies, hallucinations or some misunderstood natural occurrences. But then again, maybe one could!

At any rate, deism is something I plan to take a closer look at, sounds interesting.

ah but he's not, you are, you only have to search the web for the meaning there are many sites (atheism, encyclopedias, dictionarys etc)


Actually I am not because I did not give you my opinion. All I did was quote a dictionary definition, so I think what you want to say is the dictionary is at odds.

Search the web for the meaning - Are you suggesting the web is now the definitive source of all knowledge - the web come on, there is all sorts of weird shit on the web, I could come out with all sorts of different definitions if I look hard enough.

Originally posted by phlogistician

"Nobody _knows_ that god exists, those that do believe have _faith_, not _proof_ or _knowledge_. Therefore, strictly everybody is an agnostic (and therefore the term fails to differentiate sides in any debate) or the term is merely used for people who don't know their own mind.

But many theists and antitheists do "know" that they are correct. At least judging by some of the things they say, they don't seem to doubt their position in the slightest. An agnostic at least admits that you can't be sure

My personal journey is one of reasoning.

A summarised version;
I cannot accept we are matter that lives through chemical reaction alone.
I find myself with no morals there - I cannot find specialness in life.
I cannot accept that all life is seperate and contained within matter.
I therefore believe there is a greater part to humanity, such as - soul / spirit / higher conscienceness / global conscienceness.
This then leads me to the possibility that if we have spirit then there may be other spiritual entities in existence.
And this leads me to the possibilty some form of god exists.
I follow your reasoning, Light Travelling. While I feel pretty much the same way, I'm just not sure that my feelings are justification for a belief in a higher power.

Then again, I don't think one could write off all of the "supernatural" experiences claimed by people over the centuries as lies, hallucinations or some misunderstood natural occurrences. But then again, maybe one could!

At any rate, deism is something I plan to take a closer look at, sounds interesting.Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".

Ah. Atheists do not so much lack belief in God, as much as they hate and fear the idea that there should be one.

Surely, needing an afterlife and a supernatural protector shows who has fear.

Atheists are happy to live, and die, and there be nothing but oblivion.

But many theists and antitheists do "know" that they are correct. At least judging by some of the things they say, they don't seem to doubt their position in the slightest. An agnostic at least admits that you can't be sure

Nobody can know, they can strongly assert themselves sure, but their subjective experiences really aren't to be trusted. So agnosticism I think is more about not knowing your own mind, than anything larger.

Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".

Are you saying that a valid reason for being atheist is as a safety measure to prevent accidentally calling an alien life form God.

If the creator of human life / universe were an alien life form, would that not still make it God. A rose by any other name etc

Or, does that just not fit your idea of what god should be - even though you dont believe in god, you obviously have an opinion on what god is.

Originally Posted by phlogistician
So agnosticism I think is more about not knowing your own mind, than anything larger.

But I don't see how to rationalize any other position. In the end, every other world view requires faith.

I've considered the agnostic stance for a while and stand by it. I know very well how I reached it. It's the only position that reason, in my opinion, will allow. I do agree with what you said on an earlier post, about strictly speaking, everybody could be classified as agnostic. I just think that if everyone acknowledged that, than fundamentalism could be avoided altogether, and the world could be spared a lot of grief.

Agnosticism should, in my opinion, at least be the starting point to one's search for answers to the "big" questions, as opposed to blind belief in the religion of one's parents or society, or of some guru promising whatever.




Off topic here: I've followed your posts a lot on these forums, and liked what you had to say on many of them. Its cool to be discussing things with you "face-to-face" ,so to say.

Are you saying that a valid reason for being atheist is as a safety measure to prevent accidentally calling an alien life form God.No.

If the creator of human life / universe were an alien life form, would that not still make it God. A rose by any other name etcThat's you putting a definition of God into play - not me.

Or, does that just not fit your idea of what god should be - even though you dont believe in god, you obviously have an opinion on what god is.I have no opinion as to what "god" is. It means nothing to me personally. I will happily discuss with others using their own ideas.

Everyone can define "god" however they want, and as long as it requires me to believe in something that is utterly unprovable then I will not place faith in it.
As soon as your definition of "god" requires no faith - i.e. is proven as fact - then I'll accept it, openly - not as "god" but as what it actually is.

So if an alien race really were our creators - then that is what they are. They are not "god" to me. They would merely be an alien race who happened to be our creators. If you choose to label them "god" then feel free to do so.

being sceptic and open minded seems like a good thing to be.

but some people can't deny the existence of god since they see it as real as this world. and then there are those who think it's absurd to think theres a god, so they have to deny it.

Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".

Hi Sarkus...sorry to butt in, but why did you bring this up? Just curious...

take a look ay sarkus's post in reply to the same, it is common knowledge.
no the web is not the sole source for information, however most famous name dictionarys and encyclopedias are on the net.
I might be at odds with the dictionary, however you put it forward to express you thoughts, as we all do. ok

Stoic Agnostic,

He's interacted with me on various levels....different circumstances, different ways. I don't really have it figured out you know? How this whole spiritual realm thing works. But it's a spiritual interaction...telepathic you may call it. I've had it come in the form of ideas, dreams, visions, telepathic conversation (aka prayer). I've had prophecy revealed to me. Sometimes He comes to me through other people who usually are unaware, sometimes via the internet, sometimes through art, like music or poetry, paintings or stories. I've seen Him manipulate my immediate material environment right before my eyes...that was a trip. I've had a spirit inhabit my body and write poetry through me. I've also had other physical manifestations/symptoms of interactions with the spiritual realm. I have to say that recently, I seemed to have hit the spiritual motherload. The whole ride has just been mind blowing....amazing.

None of this implies a god, necessarily, though, does it? Could just as easily be a range of other possible metaphysical entities, couldn't it? It most certainly doesn't [necessarily..] imply the christian god...

Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".
Hi Sarkus...sorry to butt in, but why did you bring this up? Just curious...
The path that Light Travelling was heading down in their reasoning led me to say it, possibly more as a throw-away comment than anything serious.
This then leads me to the possibility that if we have spirit then there may be other spiritual entities in existence.
And this leads me to the possibilty some form of god exists.To jump from the possibility of the existence of some spiritual entities to the existence of some sort of God suggests, perhaps erroneously on my part, that they think "god" could be found merely where I see an alien species - albeit one that may have created us, that is far more technologically advanced etc.

I hope this answers your question?
If not, feel free to PM me.

everybody could be classified as agnostic. I just think that if everyone acknowledged that, than fundamentalism could be avoided altogether, and the world could be spared a lot of grief.

Isn't that right! But unfortunately, that isn't how religions work. People like to be in a structure or hierarchy, so with religion, we have vicars and priests etc, who profess in depth knowledge of the subject, and to _know_ truths about the religion. While we have organised religions, we will always have fundamentalism.

People who express personal beliefs are far less likely to organise themselves into a religious army, or decide that another person must be killed for their personal beliefs.

Agnosticism should, in my opinion, at least be the starting point to one's search for answers to the "big" questions, as opposed to blind belief in the religion of one's parents or society, or of some guru promising whatever.

I agree, however, nearly all of us are are inducted into a religion at birth, and many just can't see that their beliefs are due to cultural habit, rather than religious correctness.

I'd far rather have it that we teach children about each world religion without bias, once they are of an age to understand the subjects. Then let them make their own mind up, should they choose to follow one. Of course, it would be confusing for young children, for instance, Christians say Jesus was the messiah, Jews say he wasn't. Kids want a definite answer, so I think these topics would be best left until a child was ten or eleven years old.

Back to definitions for a while, I think that agnostics are atheists. This is the scientist in me, who likes Venn diagrams. You have a set of people who believe, and everybody outside, is an atheist. Now where does agnosticism lie? It's not in the belief set, is it? ;-)




Off topic here: I've followed your posts a lot on these forums, and liked what you had to say on many of them. Its cool to be discussing things with you "face-to-face" ,so to say.[/QUOTE]

The path that Light Travelling was heading down in their reasoning led me to say it, possibly more as a throw-away comment than anything serious.
To jump from the possibility of the existence of some spiritual entities to the existence of some sort of God suggests, perhaps erroneously on my part, that they think "god" could be found merely where I see an alien species - albeit one that may have created us, that is far more technologically advanced etc.
.

I know we are off topic but we are here, so can we explore this a little bit further just for fun.

I get from the term 'technologically advanced' that your thought process is still very much in the material. But expand this thought of alien life. What if it were a non coporal, super intelligent being, filling the vastenes of the universe and creating through the power of its will.

So if an alien race really were our creators - then that is what they are. They are not "god" to me. They would merely be an alien race who happened to be our creators. If you choose to label them "god" then feel free to do so .

Here again I think we need to examine what our concept of what God is. If they were a superhuman being that created life / universe, that kind of fits very well with a definition of God. (I wont try to define the word God from any source here, but it might be an idea to do that). And of course God could be Gods - In both the bible and Koran God refers to himself as 'us', and we obviously have Hinduism.

And even atheists need a concept of what God is, to know what they don't believe in. No offence, but you cant not believe in an undefined thing. In order to form an opinion on any subject we must first define it in our minds.

And even atheists need a concept of what God is, to know what they don't believe in. No offence, but you cant not believe in an undefined thing. In order to form an opinion on any subject we must first define it in our minds.

Exactly.

Okay - when I hear the term "god" it is always associated with an unprovable "thing" (spiritual, ethereal, material, whatever) that relies on faith for belief. It is always used to define a currently (or eternally) unknown.

I do not place "faith" in an unknown - hence I do not believe in "god" - either in material terms or in spiritual or ethereal or any other.

As soon as the unknown that you have defined as your God becomes known then you can still call it God - but I will call it by what it is now known to be. And there won't be a need for faith.


And whether the "alien race" or "god" is technologically advanced or is more/differently evolved such that it exists with out form - or whatever - until it is shown to us it relies on faith to believe in it. I choose not to believe in it. I consider that its existence is a possibility, as is an infinite number of other things. But I won't "believe" that it is true.
As soon as it is shown to us, and shown to exist within this universe, then I will not need to "believe" - for it will be known. We may not understand it, at first or indeed ever, but it will not be "god". It will merely be an advanced life-form.

But I say again, if you define "god" as the creator of our race, and this alien race turns out to be our creator, then feel free to refer to them as "god". It is, after all, just a label.

(Forgive me if I now go on a ramble, but I'm sort of thinking out loud....)
Speaking from my own point of view, as I can not speak for all atheists, it's not that I don't believe in the word "god": you could after all define "god" however you want.
I do not "believe" in any concept that requires faith - i.e. in an unproven or unprovable concept, especially those that are given to us through theology (scripture etc).
All definitions of god that I have come across require some element of "faith". If not then you are putting the label of "god" onto a purely material thing - and the questions then are (a) why not call it by what it really is? and (b) why worship this material thing?

thankyou for your reply, I would answer as follows;


And whether the "alien race" or "god" is technologically advanced or is more/differently evolved such that it exists with out form - or whatever - until it is shown to us it relies on faith to believe in it. I choose not to believe in it. I consider that its existence is a possibility, as is an infinite number of other things. But I won't "believe" that it is true.
As soon as it is shown to us, and shown to exist within this universe, then I will not need to "believe" - for it will be known. We may not understand it, at first or indeed ever, but it will not be "god". It will merely be an advanced life-form.

This does sound a bit like you are waiting for some form of God / higher conscienceness to show itself. You probably feel you aren't but its just an observation.


All definitions of god that I have come across require some element of "faith". If not then you are putting the label of "god" onto a purely material thing - and the questions then are (a) why not call it by what it really is? and (b) why worship this material thing?

This seems to be an example of how people mis-define the word god. There is an assumption that God is there purely for worship (this is because of organised religion).
But the word god has no implication of worship. You (and others) give this word this connotation, which it does not inherently have. Although it is of course true that people worship gods. I believe the word idol does have connotations of worship however.

To be classed as a god purely by definition of the word a thing needs only 1. power of creation and 2. powers exceeding those of the human.

So like you say at the end of the day its about labels. To say I believe in God really means I believe that something exists in some form or other somewhere in the unviverse with the power of creation and powers exceeding ours.
You can even argue that we have the power of creation, so maybe we are gods (or gods children). After all many religious teachings tell us that God is whithin us and can only be found by looking within.

Again I'm just thinking out loud here.

This does sound a bit like you are waiting for some form of God / higher conscienceness to show itself. You probably feel you aren't but its just an observation.No - I was using this merely as an example, based on my understanding of the reasoning you were using. It is in no way indicative of my own stance.
Don't get me wrong - I would dearly love an alien race to show itself - but purely from my scientific curiosity etc.

This seems to be an example of how people mis-define the word god. There is an assumption that God is there purely for worship (this is because of organised religion).
But the word god has no implication of worship. You (and others) give this word this connotation, which it does not inherently have. Although it is of course true that people worship gods. I believe the word idol does have connotations of worship however.

To be classed as a god purely by definition of the word a thing needs only 1. power of creation and 2. powers exceeding those of the human.

So like you say at the end of the day its about labels. To say I believe in God really means I believe that something exists in some form or other somewhere in the unviverse with the power of creation and powers exceeding ours.
You can even argue that we have the power of creation, so maybe we are gods (or gods children). After all many religious teachings tell us that God is whithin us and can only be found by looking within.

Again I'm just thinking out loud here.
Thanks for an understanding of your idea of "god".
When you say "creation" I presume you referring actual creation from nothing rather than mere matter-manipulation?
If so then we certainly do not have the power of creation.

Unfortunately, everyone's definition of what constitutes a "god" or even their "God" is most likely different - and as we agree, it becomes a mere label.
But when you refer to "god" you have faith. Whether you worship or not you say your "god" exists - when you say "I believe in god" - whatever that god is - you display faith.
This is the commonality of belief in all "gods" - it is not the "god" but the believing.

Originally Posted by phlogistician
Back to definitions for a while, I think that agnostics are atheists. This is the scientist in me, who likes Venn diagrams. You have a set of people who believe, and everybody outside, is an atheist. Now where does agnosticism lie? It's not in the belief set, is it? ;-)

In my version, the antitheists make up a separate set, since they also have a belief, namely the non-existance of God. That leaves the agnostics outside, same as your example. But then again this is all depends on how one defines atheists and agnostics.

I don't really find myself disagreeing with anything you've said after your first post. The only problem I have is with the claim that agnostics "don't know their own mind". I believe the pure scientist would look at the evidence for and against the existance of a higher power, and realize that he has no means to prove it either way. Then his honest answer to the question of whether or not such a being exists, would have to be that he doesn't know. To quote Confucius here: "Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance." Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Buddha often credited with telling someone who asked him about the existance of God that the question wasn't of relevance? So even some religions assume an agnostic viewpoint of sorts.

Of course, people are emotional creatures with the need to believe in something, so hoping that everybody will assume an agnostic worldview is a naive wish. Even so, agnosticism remains, as I see it, the only logical conclusion. Of course, one must differentiate between people who say "I don't know" because they haven't thought about the question, and those that say it because careful thought has led them to the conclusion. In the latter case, I think it can be said that these people do know their own mind.

Light Travelling, Water,

And even atheists need a concept of what God is, to know what they don't believe in. No offence, but you cant not believe in an undefined thing.To help clarify since I think you are confusing the proposition and the concept.

Atheists have little trouble understanding the concept of gods but it is the theist proposition that such things are real that the atheist finds unacceptable and unsupported, hence no reason to believe the proposition.

re: Agnosticism

There are only two positions, either one believes a god exists or one does not believe. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods as is widely defined by atheist literature and relevant knowledgable organizations. Agnostics lack a belief in gods and are therefore also atheists.

Historically atheism was erroneously assumed to be a belief system that gods do not exist. An idea propagated and overtly emphasized by religionists, for of course their own biased purposes. Many older dictionaries also depict this incorrect position. Newer dictionaries are slowly correcting their entries.

Agnosticism grew out of a desire to take the more reasoned skeptical road of – I don’t know. That is also the dominant atheist position. However, the idea that atheism is a belief that gods do not exist remains a quite widespread misunderstanding by the many that have not looked more closely at these philosophies. In this respect the use of the term agnostic is largely seen as neutral, and more comfortable with many who see the title of atheism to be more militant in nature.

re: Agnosticism

There are only two positions, either one believes a god exists or one does not believe. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods ....

Exactly. This is where the term 'atheist' gets twisted. It is not about a belief in a negative. It's about not believing. So as you say, there are two positions. Not a third, as agnosticism implies. Agnostics don't believe, they don't have _faith_, so are atheists.

To re-iterate, we are all atheists. Because nobody believes in all of the gods. Many deists excuse themselves of this, because they say that pantheistic religions worships facets of one god. This is not the case, they are separate entitities, and unless you belive in all of them, are an atheist too.

I know it's mere semantics, but I would actually say that if you believe in a god, no matter which one, you are not atheist.
Atheism is the absence of the belief in god.
As soon as there is not that absence, i.e. as soon as you believe in one, many or all gods, you are not atheist.

Yes, surely atheism is a lack of belief in the concept of god, rather than in specifc gods.

I know it's mere semantics, but I would actually say that if you believe in a god, no matter which one, you are not atheist.


I disagree, for one very important reason. People who believe in one god refuse to accept that there are solid reasons for not believing in that one god. BUT they have the exact same reservations about other deities. They probably think believing in Zeus is absurd, as absurd as some atheists find the need for a single god. So, for credibility, they say pantheistic religions are misguided (which is arrogance) and pantheists worhship facets of their one god. This is a clear case of double think, and not to be tolerated.

As far as I am concerned, 'God' is one amongst many gods, and I do not believe in any of them. Deists have to recognise their true positoin on these other deities, and I will not excuse them from having atheistic tendancies towards them. But they will shy away from deconstructing other gods, knowing the same arguments apply to theirs. They are on the hook, so let's not let them off.

Ah. Atheists do not so much lack belief in God, as much as they hate and fear the idea that there should be one.

Wha?

Similar to those theists who fear and revere their god, and hate those who do not?

Originally Posted by Light Travelling
And even atheists need a concept of what God is, to know what they don't believe in. No offence, but you cant not believe in an undefined thing. In order to form an opinion on any subject we must first define it in our minds.

Uhm... does a dog believe in god? What about a baby?

By definition, a baby or a dog would fit "weak athiest", for they lack belief in a god or gods.... No?

Oh, and it should be noted that agnosticism does not specifically regard issues of theism. Agnosticism is about epistemology (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html)... the nature of knowing and such.

I disagree, for one very important reason. People who believe in one god refuse to accept that there are solid reasons for not believing in that one god. BUT they have the exact same reservations about other deities. They probably think believing in Zeus is absurd, as absurd as some atheists find the need for a single god. So, for credibility, they say pantheistic religions are misguided (which is arrogance) and pantheists worhship facets of their one god. This is a clear case of double think, and not to be tolerated.

As far as I am concerned, 'God' is one amongst many gods, and I do not believe in any of them. Deists have to recognise their true positoin on these other deities, and I will not excuse them from having atheistic tendancies towards them. But they will shy away from deconstructing other gods, knowing the same arguments apply to theirs. They are on the hook, so let's not let them off.

Not so, I believe in the Gods of all religions. There are many names and many perceptions depending on time, cultures and teacher.

The god of the Jews is the same God of the christians and Muslims. So I see no conflict there.

Hinduism has many gods but overall the concept of one creator, so I see no conflict.

Buddha remained silent on question of creator, but talks of a stream of life conscienceness that the enlightened may merge into. I see no conflict there.

Taoism - tao equals universal life energy (sound like stream of life conscienceness), so I see no conflict there.

Sikhism seeks to reconcile Islam with Hiduism.

The pantheism exists in all in the forms of religion - lesser gods / angels / Jinn / spitirual beings, buddhas (there is more than one).

Some place more personality on god, some less, some refuse to comment. Differnt cultures have found different ways to express somthing that is in all of us.
But I believe that whatever name and label you put on it. God is in all of us and we are in God. ALL IS ONE. The search for God is an inner journey and that is what all the great world teachers and religious founders have taught. Although all religions have erred to differing degrees and distorted these truths in their outer form.

If you look for differences you can find them, But if you want to look for underlying truths and oneness you can find that too.

Uhm... does a dog believe in god? What about a baby?

By definition, a baby or a dog would fit "weak athiest", for they lack belief in a god or gods.... No?

Yea - you are only backing up what I said.
" In order to form an opinion on any subject we must first define it in our minds"

A dog or baby have not defined a concept of god so they can neither believe or deny its existence.

Grr. That's incorrect.

A dog and a baby both "lack belief".

(note that atheism is the natural state of being)

My yard is atheist.

Thus your attempted point "even atheists need a concept of what God" is simply wrong.

My personal journey is one of reasoning.

A summarised version;
I cannot accept we are matter that lives through chemical reaction alone.
I find myself with no morals there - I cannot find specialness in life.
I cannot accept that all life is seperate and contained within matter.
I therefore believe there is a greater part to humanity, such as - soul / spirit / higher conscienceness / global conscienceness.
This then leads me to the possibility that if we have spirit then there may be other spiritual entities in existence.
And this leads me to the possibilty some form of god exists.That’s not “reasoning,” that’s just you refusing to consider possibilities because you find them unpleasant. Can you provide rational explanations for why you hold all those beliefs? Note that "I just don't like the idea" is not an explanation.

Insisting in agnosticism is like not putting your messy room in order. Because you can't decide where to put what, so you just leave everything as it is.

In a messy room, you can't do anything, and similarly, agnosticism only gets you a step further to a meaningless old age, not to finding answers.Are you seriously suggesting that we should have beliefs simply for the sake of having them? One of the classic characteristics of a “wise” person is that they’re willing to admit when they don’t know something with certainty, rather than simply picking a possibility because they can’t stand to not have all the answers.

ALL IS ONE.


See, you're doing it! Trampling on other people's faith to suit your own dogma. Other people's gods are distinct entities, not ONE mushy vague god like spiritual confusion.

You don't seem to believe what other people do, that makes you an atheist from their point of view, can you not simply accept this?

Grr. That's incorrect.

A dog and a baby both "lack belief".

(note that atheism is the natural state of being)

My yard is atheist.

Thus your attempted point "even atheists need a concept of what God" is simply wrong.

OK I accept that we are born atheist, and I accept that some athiests never deny the existence of God.

But as we grow we either form a concept of god (or a concept is given to us). We then either form a belief that either on the balance of probability a god exists or on the balance of probability a god does not exist.

Very few people have a completely neutral stance, which is what I gather from your posts true atheism is.

And please accept this, I have seen many posts on this site which go something like - I am an atheist and god does not exist. But now I see that there is actually no connection between the two. One may say I am an atheist and one may say god does not exist, but they should never be linked as there is actually no correlation.

One of the classic characteristics of a “wise” person is that they’re willing to admit when they don’t know something with certainty, rather than simply picking a possibility because they can’t stand to not have all the answers.

Yes but there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

And a wise man will NEVER claim to know anything for absolute certainty, even if it has been apparently proved.

A wise man will have a current store of knowledge, wich will remian valid until new information comes to light and a set of beliefs which will allow him to explore the truth of matters further.


Are you seriously suggesting that we should have beliefs simply for the sake of having them? .

If we dont have beliefs we dont advance - we simply accept the current store of knowledge and seek to go no further.

If science had not believed there were smaller paricles than the atom we would never have found the quark.

If columbus hadn't believed he would have found land to the west we would never have found america.

People act on beliefs not knowledge this is the proces of discovery.

And lets look at knowledge - through time science continually prooves itself wrong as new information comes to light. So what do we really know ?

Do you call knowledge all that is proven? and if so proven by whom. Does it have to be proven by yourself, or can someone else proove it and tell you. If they do tell you , do you BELIEVE them.
You cant proove everything for yourself, noone can, so you have to believe things, and before embarking on any scientific research we have to have a belief of what we might find.

To believe is to be human.

We then either form a belief that either on the balance of probability a god exists or on the balance of probability a god does not exist.Only if you don't understand probability. :D
Simply put - there are an infinite possible scenarios outside our Universe.
Each god is just one and there are an infinite number of alternatives to god as well.
The probability that any one of those exists is thus, logically, and obeying the rules of probability - 1/infinite - which any mathematician will tell you is ZERO.
Likewise, the absence of everything outside our Universe also has a ZERO probability, under the same logic.

The only belief that has any probability greater than zero is:
"There is something outside our Universe - but such that we can never know or have any concept of whatsoever."
This, unsurprisingly, has a 100% probability.

Okay, with me so far...?

So, for all those people that believe in a god outside our Universe (i.e. the Creator of our Universe) you either believe in a specific possibility (zero chance) or you merely believe there is an inconceivable thing outside our universe - and assign nothing to it - no purpose, no meaning, no concept, no nothing!

So, in essence - why worship it?
Why call it god?
It is nothing you can ever conceptualise or do anything with.
It (whatever IT is), like our Universe, just is - anything else falls into the ZERO PROBABILITY category.


Okay - belief in a tangible god solely WITHIN our own Universe is either purely abstract (e.g. an intangible concept designed to keep people in line), or explainable as something else and thus just a label for what we don't yet know within our Universe.
As soon as your "god" can disappear outside the confines of our Universe you have to assess it as just another possibility with ZERO PROBABILITY (under the assessment above).
:eek:

I have no idea where agnostics fit into this. :D

Only if you don't understand probability. :D
Simply put - there are an infinite possible scenarios outside our Universe.
Each god is just one and there are an infinite number of alternatives to god as well.
The probability that any one of those exists is thus, logically, and obeying the rules of probability - 1/infinite - which any mathematician will tell you is ZERO.
Likewise, the absence of everything outside our Universe also has a ZERO probability, under the same logic.

The only belief that has any probability greater than zero is:
"There is something outside our Universe - but such that we can never know or have any concept of whatsoever."
This, unsurprisingly, has a 100% probability.

Okay, with me so far...?

So, for all those people that believe in a god outside our Universe (i.e. the Creator of our Universe) you either believe in a specific possibility (zero chance) or you merely believe there is an inconceivable thing outside our universe - and assign nothing to it - no purpose, no meaning, no concept, no nothing!

So, in essence - why worship it?
Why call it god?
It is nothing you can ever conceptualise or do anything with.
It (whatever IT is), like our Universe, just is - anything else falls into the ZERO PROBABILITY category.


Okay - belief in a tangible god solely WITHIN our own Universe is either purely abstract (e.g. an intangible concept designed to keep people in line), or explainable as something else and thus just a label for what we don't yet know within our Universe.
As soon as your "god" can disappear outside the confines of our Universe you have to assess it as just another possibility with ZERO PROBABILITY (under the assessment above).
:eek:

I have no idea where agnostics fit into this. :D

Ok the use of the phrase balance of probability was ill advised. But you take this out of context of the entire post.

You fail to answer that we all believe things, we do not prove everything for ourselves (see above) and before proof and knowledge, must come belief.

And this is the fault in the atheist argument and why this is such a sore subject, if you allow belief in one thing however small you have to allow other beliefs to exist. Then the whole non-belief without proof philosophy falls down.

Also - a point I made earlier. A thing does not have to be worshipped to be god. I say god may be found inside , I do not say worship ourselves I simply say seek God.

When the god within meets the God without all becomes one and this is enlightenment.

See, you're doing it! Trampling on other people's faith to suit your own dogma. Other people's gods are distinct entities, not ONE mushy vague god like spiritual confusion.?

No I do not trample peoples beliefs, because the teachings do not belong to them, they were given freely to the world. I often disagree on interpretation of these teachings. But that is not the fault of the teachings. People have percieved the gods as seperate but they are not. Religious understanding advances just as scientific understanding does!

Do not diregard all just because people percieve and interpret differently.


You don't seem to believe what other people do, that makes you an atheist from their point of view, can you not simply accept this?

If other people want to percieve me or define me as an atheist that is not my problem, but I do not define myself as such.

And do not get me wrong. I have no problem with atheism, in fact I believe it to be a valid path. The philosophers path, that of plato etc. The problem I have with the atheist is when they attack others right to believe. I have the same problem with religionists who attack others rights to different religion or no religion at all.

You fail to answer that we all believe things, we do not proove everything for ourselves (see above) and before proof and knowledge, must come belief.I don't "believe" things. I generally accept things on the balance of probability based on directly observed experience. I place no "blind faith" in anything at all. Religion and "god" is the only thing that requires it.

And this is the fault in the atheist argument and why this is such a sore subject, if you allow belief in one thing however small you have to allow other beliefs to exist. Then the whole non-acceptance without proof philosophy falls down.If that was true - if the atheist placed a belief in something else that requires blind faith. But nothing I know of does (speaking from a personal viewpoint - I can of course not speak for everyone).

Also - a point I made earlier. A thing does not have to be worshipped to be god. I say god may be found inside , I do not say worship ourselves I simply say seek God.Then we reach the matter of god merely being a label for something else (as I think we both agree).
But most likely your concept of god is equally as intangible and belief in it as equally requiring of blind faith as a worshipped god.

Or are you of the mindset that the journey that is more important than the goal?

When the god within meets the God without all becomes one and this is enlightenment.Maybe enlightenment is coming to the understanding that god doesn't exist and that we are the same people without him/her/it/whatever?

But I stress, I do not (as far as I am aware) believe anything with the blind faith that religion requires. That is why your notion that "the non-acceptance without proof philosophy falls down" is erroneous in its conclusion. It is a strawman fallacy in that you have knocked down an assumption (that I believe in other things the way others believe in god) that was never there.

However, I may very well be wrong in that - I admit - and if so it is NOT the belief in god that will get corrected but this apparent blind-faith that I have put in something else.
But do not confuse the believing that requires "blind-faith" with "believing" that is merely a subconcious weighing up of probability.

If that was true - if the atheist placed a belief in something else that requires blind faith. But nothing I know of does (speaking from a personal viewpoint - I can of course not speak for everyone)..

You have made a leap here from the belief I was talking about above to this 'blind faith'. We all have to believe sometimes before knowledge comes.
(Some religionists do have blind faith. I am not saying I hold with this view.)

I choose to accept all while waiting for knowledge - others choose to deny all while waiting for knowledge, I think that is the main difference. This leaves my mind in the 'open' position rather than the 'closed' position. Or so I believe.



Or are you of the mindset that the journey that is more important than the goal?.

The journey is certainly important, i think as important (otherwise why have it at all), but not more important.

You have made a leap here from the belief I was talking about above to this 'blind faith'....
...(Some religionists do have blind faith. I am not saying I hold with this view.)In the case of religion, of god, "belief" is synonymous with "blind faith". There is no leap.

If you "believe" something with no direct evidence of it. This is blind faith.
No god has direct evidence supporting it - and thus belief in it IS blind faith.

So what "belief" are you referring to? Please explain to help clarify.

So what "belief" are you referring to? Please explain to help clarify.

The only thing I can think of to help explain better is this;

An atheist - lacks belief.

A deist - has belief by their own reasoning process.

A theist - Has faith by revelation. (faith being like trust).

A fanatic or fundamentalist - has 'blind' faith, called this becuse they will not listen to others views or reasoning at all.

an atheist does not lack belief( this implies that a thing exists) an atheist has no belief.

A theist - Has faith by revelation. (faith being like trust).

A fanatic or fundamentalist - has 'blind' faith, called this becuse they will not listen to others views or reasoning at all.No - trust is different.
I "trust" my friends - because subconciously I have first hand evidence (from one of my 5 senses) of them with which to build up a probability that they will continue to perform as they do. "Trust" in this case is merely saying that the odds are good.
Faith when dealing with religion is blind. There is no first hand direct experience of God.

Faith when dealing with religion is blind. There is no first hand direct experience of God.

Well for you and me maybe not - but many people do claim direct experience. Can we really be 100% sure that all of them have not had the experiences they claim?

I trust my friends and sometimes put my faith in them to do things for me when I do not 'know' that they will. The two are certainly not the same but are similar.

How about this for an over simplified 'sliding scale' of religious feeling?

extremism
denial
lack of belief
true neutrality
belief
trust
faith
blind faith
extremism

Everyone has some ¨blind faith¨. If you step onto a road and see a car coming you believe it will hit you and so you get out of the way. People don´t think to themselves, ¨The probability of the car hitting me is high, etc¨. It´d take to long, and you´d get hit.

In order to live in society, or live at all, we have to define the world somehow, and this is belief. We believe that something is. That process CAN be defined as using experience to figure the probability that something will continue the way it has in the past. It can be defined in other ways however, and as we learn more about how humans work the definitions will change. A typical God based belief system is one of these definitions.

Reasons and definitions are things we tell ourselves after events so that we can use them to predict future events and act accordingly.

For the little boy at church, he gets a cookie when he says ¨God exists¨.

Everyone has some ¨blind faith¨. If you step onto a road and see a car coming you believe it will hit you and so you get out of the way. People don´t think to themselves, ¨The probability of the car hitting me is high, etc¨. It´d take to long, and you´d get hit.Over simplified, I'm afraid.
When you see a car coming, you may not consciously go "weighing up the probabilities, this car is going to hit" but subconciously you do. (Plus there is the matter of survival instinct taking over.)
With friends, you "trust" them to do something, but again that "trust" is built up on previous experience - and so subconciously you are saying "they are more likely to do it than not".



In order to live in society, or live at all, we have to define the world somehow, and this is belief. We believe that something is. That process CAN be defined as using experience to figure the probability that something will continue the way it has in the past. It can be defined in other ways however, and as we learn more about how humans work the definitions will change. A typical God based belief system is one of these definitions.No - there is a distinct difference between a "belief" in God and the "belief" that the sky won't fall down, for example.
I do not "believe" in anything the way someone has a "belief" god - and when I use the word "belief" in casual parlance I'm actually meaning "probably". i.e. "I believe you will do this..." when I mean "I think you will probably do this".
And a "god-based belief system" is MORE than a definition of society when you truly believe in the god.

Reasons and definitions are things we tell ourselves after events so that we can use them to predict future events and act accordingly.

For the little boy at church, he gets a cookie when he says ¨God exists¨.The boy who gets a cookie has no belief in god - he has a belief that if he says the right things he gets a cookie.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but we're talking here about a "belief" in god.

Well for you and me maybe not - but many people do claim direct experience. Can we really be 100% sure that all of them have not had the experiences they claim?I'm sure they've had their experience - I'm just not going to believe it's attributable to "god" until they provide evidence. Otherwise it is just willful interpretation of another phenomena.