1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"God (Allah) does not exist" vs. "God" ("Allah") is meaningless.

Discussion in 'Non-Theistic/Non-Religious Beliefs DIR' started by Igtheism, Jun 8, 2020.

  1. Igtheism

    Igtheism Rdwin McCravy

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2020
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    None
    I can't conjure up any concept of anything labeled "God" (or "Allah"). But most atheists say "I don't believe in God". What are they saying they don't believe in? I certainly don't know. I also don't know of any god that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in.

    I look up "atheist" in the dictionary and find this:

    a·the·ist
    /ˈāTHēəst/

    noun
    noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
    1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
      "he is a committed atheist"
    Atheists say "I don't believe in any gods". Then I ask, Who does? And if they answer "Christians, Jews and Muslims do" I ask "Why do you claim that they do? Is it because they say they do? What god do you think they believe in? If they say "The Judeo-Christian god", I ask, "What god is that? Can you describe it?" They never can. Can you?

    So I can't consider myself "an atheist", because I don't believe that Christians, Jews or Muslims believe in any god at all. They just think they do. I also don't believe that atheists know of any god to not believe in. They just think they do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    16,035
    Ratings:
    +17,728
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I don't need to lack belief in any particular deity to lack beliefs in deities. i don't have to actively disbelieve to lack belief.

    On the other hand, I agree that most claims about deities are too loosely defined to be meaningful.
     
  3. Igtheism

    Igtheism Rdwin McCravy

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2020
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    None
    Polymath257<<I don't need to lack belief in any particular deity to lack beliefs in deities.

    Do you believe that Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in a deity? If so what deity do you believe that they believe in? Can you describe it?

    Polymath257<<i don't have to actively disbelieve to lack belief.

    Can you describe any deity that you lack belief in?

    Polymath257<<On the other hand, I agree that most claims about deities are too loosely defined to be meaningful.

    What claim about what deity are you talking about?
     
  4. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    22,861
    Ratings:
    +9,543
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    "I don't believe in God": An atheist would say that only in reply to a theist who says "I believe in existence of God / Allah."
     
  5. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15,511
    Ratings:
    +6,459
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    What I'm saying is I don't believe that man, in general, has any knowledge about a factual God. IOW, any claims made about a God are not based on fact.

    They are based on feelings, conjecture and imagination. So for me there is nothing there that is reliable enough to invest any belief in.

    There may or may not be a God, I don't think any reliable knowledge exits to make a claim either way. I don't think anyone has the knowledge to make claims about a God which includes myself. So I don't make any claims about God and I don't believe any claims about God made by others.
     
  6. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +6,662
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    Well, you could always ask a Christian, Jew or Muslim what God they believe in, or how they would describe or characterize that God. We atheists have, and have found every answer we've heard to be wanting, and therefore we reject them.

    There is, it would seem, some universal feeling in humans that there is some sort of "limit" to everything -- to everything the exists, let's call it "the All" (with the usual capital for the reason of form). I think that theists and atheists think about the All in different ways. Theists tend to think of it in terms of transendance (beyond us and what we can perceive), spiritual ("made up of" something that is immaterial) and personal (possesses the characteristic of having intention).

    Atheists in general don't deny the All (or we may call it the Absolute, if you like). What we deny is its transendance, spirituality and personality. The Absolute is not God, but to be not-God does not mean to not be!
     
    #6 Evangelicalhumanist, Jun 8, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
  7. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +6,662
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    That probably needs a little clarification, as I doubt everybody will get it.

    When I say we deny transcendance, what I mean is that we believe that we are part of the All, and the All is part of us. We are the same substance, although each of us exists in our own subset of the All -- though still connected by our kinship to the rest. To deny the "spirituality" of the All is to say nothing more than that there is no "separate stuff" that is not part of the All. And to deny the "personality" of the All is not to deny personality per se, but to insist that personality is merely a feature of some parts of the All, where the all permits it to emerge -- as, for example, in a brain. The All functions without guidance, with personality, but parts of the All can intentionally move the All.
     
    #7 Evangelicalhumanist, Jun 8, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
  8. Igtheism

    Igtheism Rdwin McCravy

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2020
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    None
    Atheists say they don't believe in any gods. I ask them "Were Zeus and Thor nonexistent gods that you don't believe in?" They say "yes". Then I say "What about the people who worshiped the sun? What about those who worshiped the earth?". They thought the sun had to be intelligent to move across the sky every day, and to make our crops possible and give us light and heat. So they worshiped it. Others worshiped the earth. Some worshiped the moon.

    If these atheists are going to label Zeus and Thor as "gods that don't exist", to be consistent they'd have to label the earth, sun and moon as gods that do exist, right? So they can't claim not to believe in any gods, right? If they drop that claim they can't be correctly labeled "atheists".
     
  9. Igtheism

    Igtheism Rdwin McCravy

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2020
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    None
    Evangelicalhumanist,<<>>That probably needs a little clarification, as I doubt everybody will get it.<<

    When I say we deny transcendance, what I mean is that we believe that we are part of the All, and the All is part of us.<<

    You've lost me already. Let's go back to "deny transcendence". I don't do anything that I know of called "deny transcendence". What the heck is transcendence anyway. OK I'll look it up in the online dictionary:

    tran·scend·ence
    /ˌtran(t)ˈsendəns/

    noun
    noun: transcendence; plural noun: transcendences; noun: transcendency
    existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level

    I can't get any sense out of that alleged definition of "transcendence". I say that because it's obvious to me that we could not have possibly learned to use the word "beyond" so that it could make any sense to say "beyond the normal or physical level". We could only have learned to use the preposition "beyond" from and only from hearing cases of usage by other people saying or writing "X is beyond Y" where X and Y were within the normal or physical level. So we can only interpret

    "X is beyond Y"

    as equivalent to

    "X, which is within the normal or physical level, is beyond Y, which is also within the normal or physical level".

    Therefore when they say

    "beyond the physical level"

    if one attempted to make any sense of that, you'd come up with:

    "X, which is within the normal or physical level, is beyond the normal or physical level, which is also within the normal or physical level".

    That's gobbledygook and contradictory. You can't use "beyond" in a way that it could not possibly have been learned to be used in. It may SEEM like you can, but if you'll put a little thought to it, you'll see that it can't make any sense. The lexicographers didn't pick up on that. But that alleged definition of "transcendence cannot make any sense.

    So what do you think you're claiming to deny when you speak of "denying transcendence"? I can't see that you're denying anything at all.

    Now when you say "part of the All, and the All is part of us", what the heck do you think that means? What do you think you mean by capitalized "All"? Back to the dictionary


    all
    /ôl/

    predeterminer · determiner · pronoun
    determiner: all; pronoun: all
    1. used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
    2. all (in games) used after a number to indicate an equal score.
      "after extra time it was still two all"
    Evangelicalhumanist,<<>>We are the same substance, although each of us exists in our own subset of the All -- though still connected by our kinship to the rest. To deny the "spirituality" of the All is to say nothing more than that there is no "separate stuff" that is not part of the All. And to deny the "personality" of the All is not to deny personality per se, but to insist that personality is merely a feature of some parts of the All, where the all permits it to emerge -- as, for example, in a brain. The All functions without guidance, with personality, but parts of the All can intentionally move the All.<<<

    My, oh, my! I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. You may think you're speaking of something but I am unable to believe you are.

    How can you say I "deny" what makes no sense to me? Tell me what you think I deny, and if you do, please speak so that I can understand, or else define your terms as you go. Thanks.
     
  10. Igtheism

    Igtheism Rdwin McCravy

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2020
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    None
    Aupmanyav<<I don't believe in God": An atheist would say that only in reply to a theist who says "I believe in existence of God / Allah."<<>>

    That's shows the big complaint I have with atheists who talk like that to theists. Saying "I don't believe in God" makes the theist believe that the atheist is just like himself in one way -- that he shares the faith that the sound "God" really does refer to something. But also, it shows the theist that the atheist has the further faith that the sound "God" is like the word "unicorn", and refers to something which the atheist has a concept of, but which does not exist. That's why theists keep saying "Atheists choose to reject God". They say "Atheists by their own admission know who God is but reject his existence". That's why theists hate atheists.

    But they can't hate me. That's because if a theist says to me "You choose to reject God", I say "'God'? But I don't know how to imagine anything that 'God' could refer to, so I can't possibly be choosing to reject anything if I don't know of anything that I could be choosing to be rejecting."

    That's the way to talk to theists. Only use "God" to refer to the only thing it can refer to -- the letters "G"-"o"-"d" in a row or the pronunciation of those letters in a row.

    [And for God's sake (lol), don't misspell "God" as "god" and go speaking it as though it referred to something nonexistent and think you're disrespecting something by decapitalizing a meaningless sound that theists babble and think they're talking about something. Disrespecting a meaningless sound by decapitalizing it? Can it become more meaningless if you do? What the heck!]
     
    #10 Igtheism, Jun 9, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2020
Loading...