Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

[lightgigantic]

Well, some people consider a certain measurement of brain activity to be the only real evidence for consciousness. Does a god have a brain that we can measure?

If not, then we're left to philosophy. As I can't even provide robust evidentiary support that other minds exist aside from my own, I don't see how I could prove the existence of god's consciousness.

actually literature that promotes consciousness as an issue of brain activity (eg Dennet) is decked out to the neck in philosophy ...

 

[ashura]

I guess the first step is to realize how we are always in a state of dependence.

To do this we'd first have to define consciousness. If you mean the definition used by some as "particular brain activity," then we'd have to attribute that definition to god as well since you described him to be conscious. Where is god's brain?

If that is not what you refer to by consciousness, what then?

 

[ashura]

actually literature that promotes consciousness as an issue of brain activity (eg Dennet) is decked out to the neck in philosophy ...

Pardon my poor wording, by "left to philosophy" I meant that we have nothing to use but philosophy to continue the discussion, as anything else would be something we could measure. Not that brain activity as consciousness doesn't come up in philosophy.

 

[S.A.M.]

And I've heard lightgigantic's definition of god thus far, I haven't heard yours so I'm still winging it using his.

My notion of God is irrelevant here. I'm interested in what atheists are not believing in. Unless its like saying I don't believe in frmazulu. frmazulu being a random, undefined concept that means nothing.

 

[greenberg]

That's the problem, it's not so much that there is a lack of xyz evidence but that I honestly can't think of anything that would even qualify as xyz. I wouldn't even know where to begin looking, similar to how I wouldn't know where to begin looking for any invisible incorporeal being you describe to me.

Same here.

I can envision though that all this is a matter of which "conceptual grid one lays over reality", ie. what system of concepts one employs when interacting with reality (<--whereby I am aware that what I am writing here is yet another kind of such a "conceptual grid", system of concepts).

And there seem to be basically only two questions here:
1. Which system of concepts is the right one?
and
2. Why accept one system of concepts over another one?
- But to answer such questions, we need another system of concepts, which then only again begs the question(s).

 

[ashura]

My notion of God is irrelevant here. I'm interested in what atheists are not believing in. Unless its like saying I don't believe in frmazulu. frmazulu being a random, undefined concept that means nothing.

In general, that's exactly what atheism is until you happen to define which god you're referring to. Once your definition has been established, then we can point why we're atheist towards that particular god, similar to how a Hindu might be an atheist towards the monotheistic God.

It's also why, and I've said this before, that atheism as a term is pretty silly but it's one we've come to use. If I called myself a non-theist, wouldn't we still be having this same argument?

 

[S.A.M.]

In general, that's exactly what atheism is until you happen to define which god you're referring to. Once your definition has been established, then we can point why we're atheist towards that particular god, similar to how a Hindu might be an atheist towards the monotheistic God.

It's also why, and I've said this before, that atheism as a term is sort of silly but it's one we've come to use. If I called myself a non-theist, wouldn't we still be having this same argument?

So basically atheism is lack of belief in an undefined concept that means nothing unless some theist defines it.

Does this mean that athiests are absolutists?

 

[Pete]

What is the similar value that an atheist assigns to the postulate God?
What is the evidence that would define a God? What exactly is it that you do not believe or disbelieve?

Speaking for myself, the value that I assign God is a super-powerful, super-intelligent, omni-present being who cares about humans both collectively and individually.

I think that if such a being existed, there wouldn't be any question about it. If God were real, then questioning that would be akin to questioning whether the trees are real.
Does anyone doubt that trees are real? Why not?


Examples of evidence that would support the notion that God exists would be:

• Unambiguous and objectively recordable perceptual evidence.
  For example, if when people say "Hey God, are you there?", they got an unambiguous and objectively recordable response most of the time, that would qualify.
  We see rainbows, we smell farts, we feel heat, and nobody doubts the existence of those things, right?
  
  In my experience, the lack of direct perceptual evidence is trivially (childishly?) dismissed because God apparently chooses to be shy. God never responds unambiguously to prayers because... Well, no one knows. That's just part of God's mystery. I don't buy it, personally. It seems to me like believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden that always hide when you come poking around. The shyness of God is why he gets compared to the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, and Russell's teapot.
  
• God's good works. A world with God would be a world that has significantly more good in it than could be reasonably attributed to chance. There's enough written about the problem of evil that we don't need to go in depth here, I think.

 

[lightgigantic]

To do this we'd first have to define consciousness. If you mean the definition used by some as "particular brain activity," then we'd have to attribute that definition to god as well since you described him to be conscious. Where is god's brain?

If you have the notion that brain activity is the ultimate issue of consciousness then I guess thats where one is at the end of the road, at least as far as that definition of god is concerned. (and as a side point, one ends up there not by robust evidentiary support).

If that is not what you refer to by consciousness, what then?

quite simply - what distinguishes you, and even your cat or magnolias, from the chair that you might sit on (assuming that you don't use rhino's or large dogs as a chair)

 

[S.A.M.]

the value that I assign God is a super-powerful, super-intelligent, omni-present being who cares about humans both collectively and individually.

Hmm so for you, what would be evidence of such a God?

 

[ashura]

No, but I can see why you'd think that from my statement. The concept is only semi-defined via the dictionary definition of god. However, not all parts of the definition apply to god xyz and so when arguing against a theist of xyz, an atheist would only only use the definitions that apply. But in the broader sense, an atheist disbelieves in all the (supernatural) definitions. Metaphors, such as claiming a leader is a god amongst his people, obviously don't count.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?r=75

And I don't see why this would lead you to thin atheists are absolutists.

 

[greenberg]

I guess the first step is to realize how we are always in a state of dependence.

Agreed. All living beings subsist on nourishment of one kind or another - food (as in bread, water, fruits etc.) or concepts.

The next step involves seeing how all those states of dependency fall within the context of being dependent on god.

This is only if we already believe that God is the One Supreme Original Cause.
But then again, the One Supreme Original Cause is irrefutable, unassailable, and one cannot but believe it.

If I open the door before walking through it, this eventually implies that I believe in the One Supreme Original Cause:
Opening the door before walking through means I am employing reasoning about cause and effect (ie. "In order to safely walk through the door, I need to open it, lest I bump into it, hurt myself, and most likely not get through"). This means that I believe in the law of cause and effect.
Following down cause-effect chains eventually leads back to (the notion of) the One Supreme Original Cause - this cannot be denied.

However, I think the question -esp. for us in the so-called West- is What is the proper mode or way to show or acknowledge that one believes in the One Supreme Original Cause?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, but I can see why you'd think that from my statement. The concept is only semi-defined via the dictionary definition of god. However, not all parts of the definition apply to god xyz and so when arguing against a theist of xyz, an atheist would only only use the definitions that apply. But in the broader sense, an atheist disbelieves in all the (supernatural) definitions. Metaphors, such as claiming a leader is a god amongst his people, obviously don't count.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?r=75

And I don't see why this would lead you to thin atheists are absolutists.

So atheists disbelieve in anything which cannot be demonstrated by empirical observation? And believe in anything which can? Or is this restricted to the frmazulu?

 

[ashura]

If you have the notion that brain activity is the ultimate issue of consciousness then I guess thats where one is at the end of the road, at least as far as that definition of god is concerned. (and as a side point, one ends up there not by robust evidentiary support).

Exactly, which is why to not talk over each other and be on the same road, we first have to come to a common definition of consciousness.

quite simply - what distinguishes you, and even your cat or magnolias, from the chair that you might sit on (assuming that you don't use rhino's or large dogs as a chair)

This is circular.

Q. What is consciousness?

A. That which distinguishes you from the chair you might sit on.

Q. What distinguishes me from the chair I might sit on?

A. Your consciousness.

I need you to be more specific please.

 

[Pete]

Hmm so for you, what would be evidence of such a God?

Hi S.A.M.
Sorry, I hadn't finished that post (I have a bad habit of posting too quickly, then spending time editing while people respond to the first hasty post).

 

[ashura]

So atheists disbelieve in anything which cannot be demonstrated by empirical observation?

Care to explain to me how you got that conclusion from my post?

Perhaps from here?: "But in the broader sense, an atheist disbelieves in all the (supernatural) definitions."

If so, that should be read as "But in the broader sense, an atheist disbelieves in all the (supernatural) definitions [of "god"].

If not, then please explain because my answer to your question is a definite no.

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly, which is why to not talk over each other and be on the same road, we first have to come to a common definition of consciousness.

I need you to be more specific please.

Why? Don't you know what you don't believe in?

 

[ashura]

Why? Don't you know what you don't believe in?

If I believe in one concept of consciousness and lightgigantic believes a totally different concept, how can we possibly continue use the concept of "consciousness" in our conversation? Since he is the one who brought up the definition of god as a conscious being, I have to defer to his concept so I'd like to know what it is.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is only if we already believe that God is the One Supreme Original Cause.
But then again, the One Supreme Original Cause is irrefutable, unassailable, and one cannot but believe it.

I thought we were just talking about things on the conceptual basis at the moment

If I open the door before walking through it, this eventually implies that I believe in the One Supreme Original Cause:

if god wasn't the supreme original cause, what would distinguish him from just some mere powerful person (subject to the same issues of imperfection)

Opening the door before walking through means I am employing reasoning about cause and effect (ie. "In order to safely walk through the door, I need to open it, lest I bump into it, hurt myself, and most likely not get through"). This means that I believe in the law of cause and effect.
Following down cause-effect chains eventually leads back to (the notion of) the One Supreme Original Cause - this cannot be denied.

I am not sure why this is difficult - conceptual discussions have their place to play - even in simple issues of walking through a door (eg - what is a door, what are the general principles it operates on etc etc)

However, I think the question -esp. for us in the so-called West- is What is the proper mode or way to show or acknowledge that one believes in the One Supreme Original Cause?

if the original cause is not conscious, its not clear how that could run parallel with any sort of commonly held definition of god

 

[lightgigantic]

ashura
“

quite simply - what distinguishes you, and even your cat or magnolias, from the chair that you might sit on (assuming that you don't use rhino's or large dogs as a chair)
”
This is circular.

Q. What is consciousness?

A. That which distinguishes you from the chair you might sit on.

Q. What distinguishes me from the chair I might sit on?

A. Your consciousness.

I need you to be more specific please.

I would have thought a scientifically inclined person like yourself could quite easily draw up a few distinctions, aside from issues of having an embroidered cushion on it.

I mean what would be your response be to a person who sat on an animal, particularly if that animal started to exhibit signs of complaint?