Do atheists have a God complex?

[noodler]

The notion that "God" is something that must be believed or disbelieved is a "natural" one; however in the case of the subject in question, belief or disbelief is actually an aberration or a discontinuity in one's "relationship" to the subject.

That is to say, the requirement is itself an illusion: God does not "require" any such thing. The idea that we are required to believe our own notion is anathema. You are not, and God is not an idea. You can believe ideas are ideas, sure; the idea that an idea is required, is not something I tend to believe can ever be true, since I have no idea what God really is and nor do I expect to have such an idea.

 

[phlogistician]

The notion that "God" is something that must be believed or disbelieved is a "natural" one; however in the case of the subject in question, belief or disbelief is actually an aberration or a discontinuity in one's "relationship" to the subject.

That is to say, the requirement is itself an illusion: God does not "require" any such thing. The idea that we are required to believe our own notion is anathema. You are not, and God is not an idea. You can believe ideas are ideas, sure; the idea that an idea is required, is not something I tend to believe can ever be true, since I have no idea what God really is and nor do I expect to have such an idea.

Word salad dude. That's a long winded way of declaring your self agnostic.

 

[one_raven]

Word salad dude. That's a long winded way of declaring your self agnostic.

I thought one MUST be an atheist or theist!

There is no 'subtlety'. It's a BINARY proposition. You either believe in God, or you don't.

Interesting.

 

[one_raven]

I suppose agnostic is 0.1 in your binary opposition, then?

 

[(Q)]

Well, it was a clear yup. You said she was insane. She is not.

Totally insane.

Not for being religious believers, no Catholic, for example, will be labeled insane by a psychiatrist for attending and believing in the Catholic Mass. You are quite incorrect. It is clever to word it that way, since of course religious people can be diagnosed as having a variety of disorders. But that proves nothing.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth and making conclusions.

(Please avoid ad homs: iow don't focus on the person.)

Shove it.

Sure, the dictionary includes lay meanings of the word. But in a science forum I expect better.

Then, you should live up to your own expectations.

You are using an ad hom and throwing in a sloppy, everday use of a very charged word. You say above that religious believers are diagnosed to be insane, implying that you are using the word in a more correct sense. Now you refer to dictionaries which have everyday usage in them: iow mistaken use of the word.

Not at all.

And, even in dictionaries, the word insanity is used as a global description of a person. It is not refering to single beliefs. This is also how it is used in the law.

That's nice.

If you referred to a belief as insane, that might pass muster. But referring to people, the way you have, is incorrect usage.

No, it isn't. Are you done nitpicking this to death and still being wrong?

 

[phlogistician]

I thought one MUST be an atheist or theist!

Theism and atheism are about belief.

Gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowing.

The two are not exclusive terms. Demonstrate a grip of the terminology, eh?

 

[one_raven]

Theism and atheism are about belief.

Gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowing.

The two are not exclusive terms. Demonstrate a grip of the terminology, eh?

Really??
Thanks for the education.

So quote me where Einstein said that he "knows" God does not exist.

 

[phlogistician]

Really??
Thanks for the education.

So quote me where Einstein said that he "knows" God does not exist.

Why would I do that? The discussion was whether he was an atheist, not if he was an agnostic, and agnosticism is a belief that knowledge of this subject is unattainable anyway.

So please, try to lose just the one debate at a time, eh?