Can former atheists explain what atheism is?

[ForrestDean]

Well apparently it's powerful enough to prevent you supporting your claim with anything other than repetition.
And to let you ignore the rest of my post... (is that because your ego refuses to let you acknowledge that you were wrong?)

Could be. Oh, believe me, I haven't completely subjugated the ego just yet. That's not a challenge for the light-hearted. Climbing Mt. Everest might be easier. Letting go of all beliefs could be even more difficult.

Oh, and I'm not trying to ignore the rest of your posts. It's just that I'm at home where I'm way busier than I am at the office. Sometimes it may take several minutes of even a few hours before I can respond to all of them.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yeah, I've read the textbook definition and they say the same thing. But that's not the common perception of it by most people that I've seen.

Ah right.
Despite knowing the "text book definition" you decided to post the "common perception" (or at least that "common perception" as you see it) as if it were fact - and as if it were your perception.
Don't you consider making a claim that you can't back up (and has been contradicted by sources you're aware of) to be somewhat dishonest?

I haven't completely subjugated the ego just yet.

Or at all on the evidence available.

 

[ForrestDean]

.

 

[Write4U]

Thanks.

It's quite fascinating how people underestimate how incredibly powerful the human ego is. The collective human ego is actually the most powerful force on the planet right now. It would literally make the Christian's version of the anti-christ paralyze in fear at the site of it if he actually did exist.

Unfortunately you fail to understand that "ego" is what has caused a "false belief" in a magical sky-daddy. The human hubris of being "special" and "having been made in the image of an all-powerfull cosmic ranger named God" has clouded your objective senses.
It's the sin of "vanity". If I were a God I'd be insulted by your adoration.

The officers in the armies of spiritual warriors all have very nice costumes and titles to show their rank and file. Makes for a great TV spectacle. And all that over an "imaginary possibility" (idea) ... in science that's called a eureka moment but that is usually founded on solid mathematics.

Grow up.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Well to be honest, I had never looked at the evidence before. I was an atheist but really knew nothing. I probably could not have defended atheism but I did not know or believe in God. Weird.

(bold text is my emphasis, not in the original)

This is what I have been saying to our atheist chums. As far as God, or theism is concerned, they are in the dark. Even when they are in discussion about it.

Notice that BlueSky is telling you not only that he knew next to nothing about theism when he was an atheist, but also that he knew next to nothing about any possible justification for his atheism.

BlueSky is telling you that he was an atheist by default, just like we all are when we're born. He didn't know about God, and he says he could not have defended his atheism.

You take BlueSky's honest reply and try to use it to establish that atheists in general are "in the dark". The incorrect conclusion that you draw is that if BlueSky was ignorant when he was an atheist, then all atheists everywhere must be ignorant.

Sorry, Jan, but it's just not true. There are plenty of atheists who - unlike BlueSky - can and do defend atheism. There are also plenty who know all about your God and what it means to believe in it.

If you need any further evidence of BlueSky's position when he was an atheist, just read his other replies to your questions. For example, noting again that the bold text is my emphasis, not the author's:

Did you wear your atheism on your sleeve?
Or was it that you just never really gave thought to God?

Gave no thought at all. No, I did not proselytize for atheism like some do.

I note also that, for all of BlueSky's ignorance, his atheism was no less valid that any other atheist's. He didn't believe in God; that's baseline atheism right there.

Later on, it seems that he was searching for something to believe in, and he found something. Quizzing him now (or then) on the philosophy of atheism, or the various ways it can be defended as a rational position to take when one has all the applicable knowledge about religion and philosophy and science, is a pointless exercise since he has told you he didn't have any of that knowledge. He's about as informed about atheism as you are - probably less so, since you've had the advantage of expert tuition on the subject over the past few years.

Atheists are under the illusion that if a theist can provide evidence (preferable to atheists) of God, then they will, at the very least, accept that God exists.

But they don’t realise that is not how it works.

They realise it's not how it works for theists who have no qualms about claiming to know stuff they don't actually know.

Atheist always bang on about atheists not understanding atheism.

It's true that lots of atheists are like BlueSky was - uninterested in defending their atheism, and lacking in knowledge about how it can be defended. But, I emphasise, that doesn't make them any the less atheists.

It's little different for the theists, except that all theists must undergo an indoctrination process to get to the point of declaring their belief in a particular deity or religious system. It doesn't make you any less valid a theist if you can't recite the bible, or if you're not up with William Lane Craig's philosophical arguments for God. You can still write "theist" on the census form and not have it be a lie.

You asked BlueSky this:

So did anybody question why you didn’t believe in God. If so, what would your response be?

He didn't answer you, but if he had I'm sure that what we would have said something along the lines of how he didn't know much about the topic, so at that time he wasn't aware of any reason why he should believe in God.

It is what it is, I guess, but it doesn't really give you any useful insight into why sophisticated atheists do not share your God belief. You'd be better off asking them about that.

 

[James R]

Can I ask people who are posting to this thread to please stay on topic?

This is not supposed to be yet another "Evidence for God" thread. A specific question was asked about theists who were formerly atheists. So far, the answer to the topic question appears to be "not always".

My own perception is that the vast majority of ex-atheist "converts" to religion tend to be largely ignorant of many of the arguments for atheism.

 

[BlueSky]

What exactly are you trying to say Jan? Sum it up for me.

 

[BlueSky]

Can I ask people who are posting to this thread to please stay on topic?

This is not supposed to be yet another "Evidence for God" thread. A specific question was asked about theists who were formerly atheists. So far, the answer to the topic question appears to be "not always".

My own perception is that the vast majority of ex-atheist "converts" to religion tend to be largely ignorant of many of the arguments for atheism.

Way back then I hate no clue of the issues, but I do now. Both sides. What is the question,btw I can’t even find the OP for some reason.

 

[Jan Ardena]

BlueSky

You said...

There are many “scriptures” but since they all say diametrically opposing truth claims, they all cannot be true truth.

That is incorrect. But you will have to give some examples of what you mean, so we can go a little deeper.

But as a kickstart, I will say that the current state of Christ followers are limited to how they can know who and what God is, through being limited to the Bible. Which from a Christian perspective, makes no sense, and appears to be logically incoherent. I see no reason why God would not allow spiritual salvation to any one of His human beings, regardless of what scripture, or religion, or life style they may adopt, if the love God,
That would limit God, and the limitation would only be expressed by our understanding. God is not limited.

The only true scripture that describes what actually happened, ( big picture ) is the Bible. Yes I am sayin that.

Answer these question please;

What is God?
Who is God?
How do you determine that it is God?

Jan.

 

[BlueSky]

BlueSky

You said...



That is incorrect. But you will have to give some examples of what you mean, so we can go a little deeper.

But as a kickstart, I will say that the current state of Christ followers are limited to how they can know who and what God is, through being limited to the Bible. Which from a Christian perspective, makes no sense, and appears to be logically incoherent. I see no reason why God would not allow spiritual salvation to any one of His human beings, regardless of what scripture, or religion, or life style they may adopt, if the love God,
That would limit God, and the limitation would only be expressed by our understanding. God is not limited.



Answer these question please;

What is God?
Who is God?
How do you determine that it is God?

Jan.

What I meant was there are many world religions, ( I.e. different “scriptures”) they all cannot be simultaneously truth.

Judging by this post, you and I are light years apart as far a Christianity is concerned. From my perspective ( and all whom I know ) your position here is completely unChristian in nature.

 

[sculptor]

What I meant was there are many world religions, ( I.e. different “scriptures”) they all cannot be simultaneously truth.
........ .

Perhaps that assumption is inaccurate?
Perhaps each one shows a different window onto the "truth"?
And, by understanding all, a greater knowledge of "truth" will be achieved?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What I meant was there are many world religions, ( I.e. different “scriptures”) they all cannot be simultaneously truth.

Judging by this post, you and I are light years apart as far a Christianity is concerned. From my perspective ( and all whom I know ) your position here is completely unChristian in nature.

I can understand that. But as I stated before, and this purely my opinion, and am open to anything that can correct me if I’m mistaken. But Christianity does not teach who and what God is.
That is not to say that there aren’t Christians who do not know who and what God is.
But they have to go beyond the current Christian understanding of what God is.
In this way you recognise God in other scriptures.

Can you give an example of any scripture that contradicts the bible, in relation to God?

Can you answer the question I asked?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Perhaps that assumption is inaccurate?
Perhaps each one shows a different window onto the "truth"?
And, by understanding all, a greater knowledge of "truth" will be achieved?

Or merely greater confusion, each religion claims exclusive truth.

Sincerity is not in question, it's the fundamental flawed logic of truth behind all "exclusive" religions which needs be discussed.

IMO, the more secular a spiritual concept becomes, the closer it seems to come to the true metaphysical sciences. And metaphysical science does not claim exclusive truth. That's honest!

 

[sculptor]

<----------goyim

Or merely greater confusion.
Sincerety is not in question, it's the fundamental premise of truth behind all "exclusive" religions which needs be discussed.

I'm pretty certain that the "exclusive" part is a function of ego.
(exclusive is such an ugly word/concept)

Just because I would tell everyone around me that they should look east to Chicago, that is my truth.
someone in Memphis would have a different truth
someone in Toledo would have a different truth,
someone in green bay would have a different truth

combined, we may have greater knowledge about just where Chicago is located.

And Chicago is only separated from me by distance;
add in time, and the corruption of language and translations, and it gets a tad more complicated.

...........................
But, then again:
I could be wrong.

 

[BlueSky]

I can understand that. But as I stated before, and this purely my opinion, and am open to anything that can correct me if I’m mistaken. But Christianity does not teach who and what God is.
That is not to say that there aren’t Christians who do not know who and what God is.
But they have to go beyond the current Christian understanding of what God is.
In this way you recognise God in other scriptures.

Can you give an example of any scripture that contradicts the bible, in relation to God?

Can you answer the question I asked?

Jan.

What do you use as your baseline for knowing who God is, or what God is? Just an opinion? Those are dime a dozen, without a baseline, anything really goes, yes?

Of course the bible teaches who and what God is. Books have been written on these two issues alone. Tons of information on this in both Testaments.

I can and could answer those two questions, however, my answer would be scripturally based, not my opinion.

 

[BlueSky]

Perhaps that assumption is inaccurate?
Perhaps each one shows a different window onto the "truth"?
And, by understanding all, a greater knowledge of "truth" will be achieved?

Possible I suppose, except they are so far apart and say such completely different truth claims, usually contradictory, so I don’t think this is the reality. All are false or one is true. Which one stands out? Christianity/OT God, in my opinion has it all.

 

[BlueSky]

Or merely greater confusion, each religion claims exclusive truth.

Spot on

Sincerity is not in question, it's the fundamental flawed logic of truth behind all "exclusive" religions which needs be discussed.

Agree

IMO, the more secular a spiritual concept becomes, the closer it seems to come to the true metaphysical sciences. And metaphysical science does not claim exclusive truth. That's honest!

 

[Jan Ardena]

What do you use as your baseline for knowing who God is, or what God is? Just an opinion? Those are dime a dozen, without a baseline, anything really goes, yes?

In this discussion arena, I put it forward as an opinion. If you can correct me I will be happy to change my view. But I doubt that you can, given what you have said thus far.

My baseline for knowing what God is, aside from naturally believing in God, as opposed to not believing in God, is based in philosophy. If God is the creator of this material manifestation, then God must be outside of it. If God is outside of it, God is not under its control. God’s nature is referred to as “Spiritual”. So God is a Spiritual, Transcendental, Being, and from God, everything is made manifest. That is what God is.

All scriptures teaches that we are part God, insofar as, we have a spiritual component to us.
This spiritual component is, in quality, the same as God, because it comes from God.
The Bible says we are created in the image of God, which is the same thing.
It doesn’t mean we resemble God In looks. It means whereas God is infinite, Ansolute, and complete, we are finite. But we are essentially the same.
God is perfect, God is the greatest of all beings. God is the most powerful, the most intelligent, the wealthiest, the most beautiful, and so on. If God is not the Greatest, He is not God.
That’s who God is.

Of course the bible teaches who and what God is. Books have been written on these two issues alone. Tons of information on this in both Testaments.

Why don’t you tell me who and what God is, according to the bible, and I will show you the same description in any scripture

I can and could answer those two questions, however, my answer would be scripturally based, not my opinion.

As a theist you should be happy to discuss God, and if you are discussing God, you should know what and who God is, or at least what God is.
If you aren’t enthusiastic to talk about God, it begs the question. Why not?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Possible I suppose, except they are so far apart and say such completely different truth claims, usually contradictory, so I don’t think this is the reality. All are false or one is true. Which one stands out? Christianity/OT God, in my opinion has it all.

God is one.
When looking at other scriptures, you have to be able recognise God. God has innumerable aspects to His Character, and Personality.
These aspect are just as great as each other, but they are different in terms of the particular time, place, and circumstance. So if you are used to the aspect of God that is Yahweh, there may be slightly different to Allah. But the the Characteristic are unmistakably God.

If you think that God is limited to Yahweh, or Allah, or Vishnu, then it is up to you to show that Allah, and Vishnu, is not God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can I ask people who are posting to this thread to please stay on topic?

This is not supposed to be yet another "Evidence for God" thread. A specific question was asked about theists who were formerly atheists. So far, the answer to the topic question appears to be "not always".

My own perception is that the vast majority of ex-atheist "converts" to religion tend to be largely ignorant of many of the arguments for atheism.

Why do you think this?

Jan.