Double Minded Atheist

[ArtieE]

Characteristics of God..
1. He must be everlasting.
Meaning He will never die like us human beings and He exists even before anything existed.

Hello Amy. This is one of the reasons I am an atheist. I can't believe the logically impossible. He is something and if He has always existed there was never a time before anything existed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hello Amy. This is one of the reasons I am an atheist. I can't believe the logically impossible. He is something and if He has always existed there was never a time before anything existed.

I generally regard "God" as something people make up in an attempt to fill in part of the huge gaps in our understanding of the cosmos.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good Morning from the East Coast of the States.

Your beliefs are beautiful. I remember coming home by cab one day and a Muslim was the driver. We were talking about religion and he discussed about his faith. Then he took me to a Mosque where I briefly talked with the head person (don't know the title) there. They gave me the first Quran I'd ever owned and wanted to pick up. I don't think I ever heard of the Quran then. It had Arabic (I think?) on one side and English translation on the other. I didn't read the whole thing but I kept it for years. Basically, I meet a lot of Muslims here and when they don't feel threatened (thinking I'm Christian) they talk a bit more. It's nice.

I didn't want to debate; but, since we are here, I do want to challenge your post.

Remember I mentioned that God is the wants/needs/and passions that people have and there is no characteristic outside of these things (not limited to)? Keep that in mind throughout this post.

I also mentioned no one has told me anything that we are not aware of of the universe. Nothing alien in reference to god. We have synchronicity and assumptions (myself included) but no facts (universal evidence that can be tested by everyone).​

1. He must be everlasting. Meaning He will never die like us human beings and He exists even before anything existed.

A lot of people want to live forever. Many religions have a way to describe it in one way or another. Like Muslim, Christians have a view to live forever. Though Buddhist may deny it because it sounds "Christian" we have a need to stop rebirth and see the true nature of life which some would define as heaven. Buddhists will not. I don't know about other faiths at the moment, but there is a sense of "living after death" whatever form or language it may be.

These are people's wants. This isn't foreign and it specifically describes god as a characteristic of what humans want (say a Christian wants the Holy Spirit in him to live in Christ). I don't know how Muslim explain, but my point is the same for all after-life religions.​

2. He must be self-sufficient. He does not need rest, sleep, food, anything or anyone to keep Him alive and sufficient. He is all powerful on His own, He does not need any external help.

Who would not want to be self-sufficient. I notice a lot of people say "I can't do this on my own." One friend turned Christian from Muslim and said that. I was surprised because that is why god is there because you can't do it on your own.

That trait is something people want and need and the only way the can have this human trait is from god because his characteristics mirror our wants and needs. God is life.​

3. He must not be bounded by time, space and mass. Time as in He knows everything in the past, present and future. His knowledge is not bounded by time

Like everlasting life above, a lot of people put that and this together in their wants. Who wouldn't want to live with god and experience this human characteristic of not being bound by time, space, and mass. Think of this? If this isn't a human concept, than how can we know of it? If it is foreign, then how can we perceive what it even means? It isn't foreign to the universe.

So, it is not a characteristic of a foreign god but the definition of god based on our wants/needs/and passions in life. God is life.​

Space as in He has no definite location at any particular time but of course He can be anywhere He wants since He's the all powerful. Mass as in He does not have any physical form that our limited mind can come up with. Simply said, any images we have of God in our minds will not be God cuz if God has a materialistic form it'll just be the same as any other creation

There are thousands of people now and throughout our history around the world who want to obtain some sort of power whether its fighting for a position in our jobs, being president, or killing a whole bunch of people because they don't follow their country's adopted faith. This power is a human trait not a god trait. We see things above us (some of us) as powerful or as beyond. Something that we want and cant have. Something about this power influences humans whether for the good or for the bad.

It's not a god trait but in Buddhism, we call it ego (or similar to). It's an attachment to pride et cetera and in Zen we dissolve all of that. There is no need for hierarchy. Life doesn't work that way. We have roles but people take advantage of those roles.

If we see kings and queens as heads, why not the everlasting god? That, and it's a perfect way of control (sorry) because no one can question it because it's a mystery. Culture is built behind it. It becomes part of the human's DNA practically. It comes from the baby wanting to be nursed by his or her mother. Humans are the same.

It's a psychological trait not a god trait.

I also noticed god-believers put themselves down saying "they have a limited mind." Even some Hindu here I noticed say that in different words. It is life their wants are over powering them. It is like they are saying "we can't go uphill so we need help." That's a human want. When you compare yourself like that, it's psychological.

Why do you think we have limited minds? Why is your concept of god so powerful that it makes you limited? What is the benefit of having a limited mind in order to see god the way you do?​

It's all psychological. It's not a god trait.

He has no beginning and no ending. Nothing made Him come into existence and nothing will put an end to His existence.

This goes with my everlasting comment above. It's a human want. Not all humans want to live forever and see life without a beginning. Other people need that "mystery" to live in hierarchy (comparing their limited brain to someone they admire), need to know their "parent" is everywhere. As adults, we don't just stop wanting a parent. Some of us need that support. I need support by the Spirits and my ancestors. You need the support by god. A Christian needs support by Christ.

Nothing wrong with that. Just, in my view it is all psychological. Once we accept that and stop saying our unevidence beliefs are facts, we understand faith more. We understand the workings of our mind. That is why I love the practice of Buddhism. It's the foundation of everything.

Rebirth (cause and affect) has no beginning or end. It's ever lasting.

I wouldn't call it powerful, but we have a high tendency to want to end it so it has some powerful affect on our wants and well being.

We tend to see ourselves as limited and wanting to be like The Buddha or for me Bodhisattvas.

These are psychological characteristics. However, unlike god-beliefs, Buddhists, Hindu, etc recognize that and embrace it. Why not god-believers?​

 

[Desert Snake]

You are stating that as if it's a fact you know but it's really not a fact just something you believe right?

No, not necessarily. You can consider it a 'fact', or not /subjective methodology for arriving at that conclusion/

Nobody actually knows anything and knowledge doesn't exist only belief?

That's an argument, however a personal 'knowing' is fine

From their perspective when they say they know they mean know not just believe strongly.

Right. However that doesn't tell us anything besides their position

So where do you draw the line if anywhere? What would it take for you to say "I know" instead of saying "I believe this very, very, very, very, very, very, very (continue with the very's) strongly."?

That varies with the individual. Some people never use the idea of ''knowing'', /you don't have to, since all that really matters is your position/adherence on the subject /
Me personally? That is not something i really consider. The position is labeled the belief, and belief tends to infer considering it a fact, especially in the religious subjects. If some one states that they believe that god exists, 'or ''believe in Jesus'', /that's a common phrase,, I'm going to assume that they basically consider it a 'fact', and for sure it is a ''truth'' for them, as an individual. There are other reasons why you would use the word belief instead of fact, as well, concerning religious ideas. Traditionally, the adherence is what is being conveyed, not merely someones idea that they 'know' deity exists, or whatever. The use of 'belief', means that it is the same adherence for all believers, /you believe the same thing regardless of whether you consider it a fact or whatever. This means that the idea of ''knowing'' is not more important/ , etc, than the position.. which is always labeled a belief.

 

[ArtieE]

That's an argument, however a personal 'knowing' is fine

But if personal "knowing" is fine then there are people who "know" instead of just "believe" and your argument is moot isn't it?

 

[Desert Snake]

But if personal "knowing" is fine then there are people who "know" instead of just "believe" and your argument is moot isn't it?

The 'belief' part of theism, does not necessarily mean that the person does not believe that they ''know''.

 

[Desert Snake]

Where's the contradiction? I've never said you could believe or disbelieve in something you don't know about.

No that would be "gnostic theism".

You present the argument for ''gnostic theism''

Knowing for sure.There's no difference between "belief" and "knowledge"? Why do we have the word "atheist" for one who doesn't believe and the word "agnostic" for one who doesn't know then? I think you're just confused.

Nonsense. Don't know how you manage to draw that conclusion.Theists say "I believe" of course it doesn't indicate they know for sure, if they did they would be gnostic theists not just theists.Of course it doesn't. If they put gnostic in front of theist they indicate they know for sure.They can perfectly well have the agnostic theist position that they believe gods exist without going as far as to say they know just like they can have the agnostic (hard) atheist position believing gods don't exist without going as far as to say they know.Sorry I'm afraid the confusion only exists on your side.

Theist: Believes God exists.

Now, this is your definition of 'theist'. I'm ok with this definition.

Atheist: Doesn't believe God exists.
Strong Atheist: Doesn't believe God exists + actively believes God doesn't exist.

Gnostic theist: Believes God exists and goes as far as to say he knows God exists.
Gnostic strong atheist: Believes God doesn't exist and goes as far as to say he knows God doesn't exist.
Agnostic theist: Believes God exists but doesn't go as far as to say he knows God exists. Doesn't know.
Agnostic atheist: Doesn't believe God exists but doesn't go as far as to say he knows God doesn't exist. Doesn't know.

By the definition of ''Theism'', that you presented, putting ''gnostic'' in front of Theism, contradicts itself. /By your definitions, methodology.
Because, according to you, 'gnostic', is an inherent difference from the 'belief', in Theism. However you are combining 'gnostic', with 'Theism', /believes that one or more deity exists,,

Your methodology doesn't even work on a subjective level, it literally contradicts it's own definitions.

 

[ArtieE]

The 'belief' part of theism, does not necessarily mean that the person does not believe that they ''know''.

I have never heard a theist or any person for that matter say "I believe I know". If he did I would assume he was confused. There is only a belief part to theism. If there's a knowledge part too it's called gnostic theism not just theism.

 

[ArtieE]

You present the argument for ''gnostic theism''






Now, this is your definition of 'theist'. I'm ok with this definition.




By the definition of ''Theism'', that you presented, putting ''gnostic'' in front of Theism, contradicts itself. /By your definitions, methodology.
Because, according to you, 'gnostic', is an inherent difference from the 'belief', in Theism. However you are combining 'gnostic', with 'Theism', /believes that one or more deity exists,,

Your methodology doesn't even work on a subjective level, it literally contradicts it's own definitions.

Let's take a different approach and start with gnostic instead. A gnostic is a person who knows and when you put theist behind it means he knows God exists and if you put atheist behind he knows God doesn't exist. It's just a way to say the person doesn't just believes but knows and putting theist or atheist behind gnostic just helps us to understand what it is the person knows. Apply some common sense instead of interpreting everything literally.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I call myself an atheist, though I never state that "there definitively is no such thing as god."

First, I don't know what is meant by "god," and I've no doubt that there are close to as many definitions of that as there are humans -- though to be reasonable we could boil that down to some finite number of candidates.

I suppose that if there is anything that is real, that reality will leave some sort of "mark," some evidence of itself. Dinosaurs were real, though they're all gone -- we have their skeletons and fossil evidence of every kind, including footprints and copralites (poop). Gravity exists, and a single step off your balcony will provide (just the once) all the evidence you need.

But God? What evidence? Sustainer of the universe? Unnecessary, as it sustains itself. Nothing keeps the Earth orbiting the sun except physics. Chemical, biochemical and biological reactions occur with no need for outside interference. Humans exist because creatures before them bore offspring with minor variations, and so on backward in time. Science fills in literally millions of what a lot of people, even today, think are gaps in our knowledge, and therefore fill with "God." Their ignorance, unfortunately, does not necessitate the existence of a god to fill those gaps.

I've seen "god" proposed as necessary for morality -- but any study of human nature will show the vacuity of that claim. Our morality (and our lack of it) is as much defined by our evolved nature as is our diet. In fact, many things that we humans consider immoral are perfectly acceptable to nature (god). Nature enables, culture forbids. And different human cultures either demand or forbid (to taste) many of the things that nature enables.

So I'm an atheist because I can't find a place for anything that I would call a "god" in the universe that I see. Not because it's not there, but because it leaves no discernable, unequivocal evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, wonderful. An about.com article, written by Austin Cline, the in-house Agnosticism & Atheism Expert. He has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania, and a Master of Arts from Princeton University. He has also studied both religion and philosophy in three separate countries.

I'm actually more interested in how this all developed into what it has become.

Here's a question. Why does he back up the agnostic definition with dictionary citations, but when it comes to the agnostic definition he references only one George H. Smith?

I will have to delve further to really see what the other links provide (I know they are just articles but maybe they are actually good ones).

For now, my question is why George H. Smith and no one else?

I just posted the article to give you an idea about the differences between belief and knowledge because you seemed to be confused.

Go ahead and read further on your own.

 

[Acim]

"Spiritual knowledge"? It's good to be familiar with different religious beliefs and practices, but that's different to taking on beliefs and attaching to them.

The problem with beliefs is that they warp perception and lead to confirmation bias.

Hence the belief that the physical world is reality is warped perception leading to confirmation bias. And why it cannot be established to (objectively) exist other than utilizing logic that assumes that bias is not based on faith. Which, of course, it is.

 

[TruthEnder]

you seemed to be confused.

I don't know what to say. I'm not confused about what belief and knowledge are. I thought you posted it because I asked how you class a "lack of belief," being that it is not a position.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> sometime its not a matter of belief but reasoning
a child could reason out without having any belief from its surroundings
but from what he/she had have experienced from his/her surroundings they could reason out
to assume as real or conceded

would anyone believe that a child can do that . ...
... . ask one child as anyone may do so
for its free to ask as they say

by the way
if someone would ask for a change
then its up to this generation to take the first step


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[ArtieE]

Hence the belief that the physical world is reality is warped perception leading to confirmation bias. And why it cannot be established to (objectively) exist other than utilizing logic that assumes that bias is not based on faith. Which, of course, it is.

I'm sure my car is real since we can see it touch it take pictures of it etc. Saying "the car I just took a picture of doesn't objectively exist" makes no sense to me. I used my not objectively existing camera to take a picture of my not objectively existing car? No. Sorry.

 

[Desert Snake]

It depends on a couple of things. I rarely meet atheists that say they know god-any god-doesn't exist. A lot of atheist focus on the abrahamic god or, if broader, an entity god. However, there is some sense of "god" there but it's not referred to as a noun.

They aren't atheists then. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, /in any form.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hence the belief that the physical world is reality is warped perception leading to confirmation bias. And why it cannot be established to (objectively) exist other than utilizing logic that assumes that bias is not based on faith. Which, of course, it is.

Have you ever dropped a brick on your foot? Was the pain "real"? Was it more "real" than the religious beliefs in your mind, unsubstantiated beliefs which might well change?

 

[ArtieE]

Have you ever dropped a brick on your foot? Was the pain "real"? Was it more "real" than the religious beliefs in your mind, unsubstantiated beliefs which might well change?

In my mind I just let an imaginary brick drop on my foot. I felt no pain. Must be a difference between a real brick dropping on my foot as opposed to an imaginary one.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In my mind I just let an imaginary brick drop on my foot. I felt no pain. Must be a difference between a real brick dropping on my foot as opposed to an imaginary one.

Indeed. All we really have to go on is empirical experience and the stuff we create in our minds, like imaginings and beliefs.

 

[Jumi]

No it doesn't, but it does say that a God exist. Now which God you choose to believe in is a choice only you can make. But to say there is no God is just silly to me.

To say there must be a god is the same. Either you believe in the gods or you don't.