Jealousy..

[everneo]

In order to be an atheist, I presume you have some idea what "theos" you are "a" about. As such, you have to have some picture of what God is like in your mind, and from this picture you derive your atheism from. SnakeLord has a "bad parent" picture in his mind (vs. "good parenting"), and therefore interprets everything he hears about God in the most uncharitable sense possible. Your idea of God shapes your atheism (otherwise "atheism" might as well have referred to your stance on Ancient Egyptian ice-hockey) - it is "relative" to that idea.

Athiesm - lack of belief in any God(s).

Perhaps, the term 'relative atheists' is an exact description of christians as for as God(s) of other religions (except Judaism) are concerned.

 

[water]

Athiesm - lack of belief in any God(s).

Atheists should then choose a new term for themselves.

I could call myself A-German, or non-German. And it would be true. But it would only make sense as long as Germans are around and the way my identity is defined has something to do with Germans -- as opposed to them.


The terms "atheism", "atheist" makes sense only in a specific relation to "theism", "theist".

Without theism, it would be odd to speak of "atheism"; atheism depends on theism to give it meaning -- even if it is by means of opposition.

 

[everneo]

Semantics.

Atheism does not need a name if no theism is around. Every one will be non-theist. Still, it will indicate absence of belief in any God(s). What is the difference between athiest and non-theist?

 

[Jenyar]

Atheism does not need a name if no theism is around. Every one will be non-theist. Still, it will indicate absence of belief in any God(s). What is the difference between athiest and non-theist?

Then on what evidence does an atheist justify this lack of belief, if it has nothing to do with a particular conception of who God is?

Atheism is usually taken to be belief that god does not exist. More recently, however, some atheists have attempted to define atheism in more cautious terms, as nothing more than the absence of belief in God. This has complicated matters, introducing an ambiguity into the definition of “atheism”. One solution to this ambiguity is to distinguish between “weak atheism” and “strong atheism”.

...A weak atheist is therefore someone who both lacks belief that God does exist and lacks belief that God does not exist. Weak atheists are thus what people often refer to as “agnostics”.

-- Philosophy of religion​

 

[water]

Theoretical example: Say there would be some foreign civilisation that had no notions of gods. Would it be meaningful to call them "atheists"?

 

[everneo]

Jenyar,

I never met an atheist or agnostic who lacks belief in one God but belives in another God. If he/she does so, he/she is very much a theist. But water claims otherwise, you agree with that.

You two are fast transforming into nuts.

Let the atheists break your imaginary shell.

 

[water]

I never met an atheist or agnostic who lacks belief in one God but belives in another God.

Noone is saying that here.

Please answer my and Jenyar's questions. It's simply a matter of logical consistency.

 

[Jenyar]

I never met an atheist or agnostic who lacks belief in one God but believes in another God.

This still does not invalidate the point: there is some concept of god in mind, a concept that makes all gods seem equally unlikely - this is still a statement of belief about the nature of "gods", just a generalized and even less defensible one. A "sweeping" agnosticism/atheism doesn't make it any more reasonable than sweeping theism (believing in a philosophical god that somehow includes all concepts of god, as if there would be no contradictions and inconsistencies).

 

[everneo]

Theoretical example: Say there would be some foreign civilisation that had no notions of gods. Would it be meaningful to call them "atheists"?

Meaningful to whom?

They would be offended by your abuse with unknown term. And you pacify them, explaining God and tell them since they do not know God they are atheists. If they say that they don't want to know or show no interest in God, then you be sure that they are atheists or agnostics. - everneo 1:99

 

[everneo]

Noone is saying that here.

Please answer my and Jenyar's questions. It's simply a matter of logical consistency.

good, good, who is talking about logical consistency ?!!

 

[everneo]

This still does not invalidate the point: there is some concept of god in mind, a concept that makes all gods seem equally unlikely - this is still a statement of belief about the nature of "gods", just a generalized and even less defensible one. A "sweeping" agnosticism/atheism doesn't make it any more reasonable than sweeping theism (believing in a philosophical god that somehow includes all concepts of god, as if there would be no contradictions and inconsistencies).

If i fight against or avoid evil will you call me an evil devil since i have a concept of evil in my mind, Jenyar ?

 

[Jenyar]

If i fight against or avoid evil will you call me an evil devil since i have a concept of evil in my mind, Jenyar ?

Of course not. I would say you have a concept of evil in mind, and we could find out if we're talking about the same thing. If you called yourself 'amoral' and tried to avoid evil, it would also be inconsistent.

 

[water]

Meaningful to whom?
They would be offended by your abuse with unknown term.

Do you feel offended if someone calls you an atheist?

And you pacify them, explaining God and tell them since they do not know God they are atheists.

No, I tell them nothing anyway. It is them who come ask me questions.

If they say that they don't want to know or show no interest in God, then you be sure that they are atheists or agnostics. [/I] - everneo 1:99

So the essence of atheism and agnosticism is

1. the refusal to know God
or
2. having no interest in God

?


Why then do atheists talk about God, participate in discussions about God? When they refuse to know God, or have no interest in God??


:bugeye:

 

[everneo]

I would say you have a concept of evil in mind, and we could find out if we're talking about the same thing.

We are talking about the same thing very much. There ends the similarity.

If you called yourself 'amoral' and tried to avoid evil, it would also be inconsistent.

If i call myself 'amoral' then still i am free to avoid evil not because it is evil but it looks to me un-necessary to go with that.

 

[everneo]

Do you feel offended if someone calls you an atheist?

Why do you think i am from a civilization that has no notion of God ??

If i call you 'xcvkj' (from my own dictionary) will you be happy ??

No, I tell them nothing anyway. It is them who come ask me questions.

Whatever.

So the essence of atheism and agnosticism is

1. the refusal to know God
or
2. having no interest in God

?


Why then do atheists talk about God, participate in discussions about God? When they refuse to know God, or have no interest in God??

Because all the time atheist are hearing about God and other things which they don't want to hear or don't want to believe in or not interest in ; but still forced to hear, they shoot back wherever they get a chance. ( Am i right, any of you atheist infidels here ??!!)

So how come an atheist is a theist ??

 

[Jenyar]

So how come an atheist is a theist ??

He is not, that would just be compounding the contradiction further. The point is that an atheist has a belief about God just as a theist does, but that he rejects the god of his belief, while the theist accepts his. The question is then what those concepts correspond to, and it becomes a phenomonological discussion.

Strong atheism rejects any evidence for God out of principle. That principle can only come from a previous conclusion about the universe we live in, and has very little to do with religion or the Bible.

 

[water]

Why do you think i am from a civilization that has no notion of God ??

I don't think so at all.
I posited my question thus:

"Theoretical example: Say there would be some foreign civilisation that had no notions of gods. Would it be meaningful to call them "atheists"?"

I wondered how meaningful it is to apply a negating concept to someone who does not possess a positive concept.

If i call you 'xcvkj' (from my own dictionary) will you be happy ??

Since I don't understand what 'xcvkj' means, I don't know what to do with it.
But if you go at me for being 'xcvkj', then I will view you as my enemy, who is out to hurt me, and 'xcvkj' will mean somehting bad for me. But only if you go at me. Otherwise, I won't know what to do with it.

Whatever.

How little you think of humanity.

Because all the time atheist are hearing about God and other things which they don't want to hear or don't want to believe in or not interest in ; but still forced to hear, they shoot back wherever they get a chance. ( Am i right, any of you atheist infidels here ??!!)

Who is forcing you to hear about God?!?

Who is forcing you??

Who is pointing a gun to your head and a knife to your throat -- and thereby FORCING you to hear about God?

So how come an atheist is a theist ??

Jenyar has already explained this.

 

[davewhite04]

She understands the difference between real and fictional. When she watches Tom and Jerry she knows they're not real animals. If she watches, for example, Lethal Weapon, she knows it's just make up and "tomato ketchup". She's not an idiot.. some people assume we should treat children as if they're simpletons, I disagree.

What I do find serious distaste with are those parents who think they're in a position to force their personal religious beliefs upon their children. This is a prime example of how people do not treat their children as equals, and do not allow their child the right to form their own opinions and beliefs. I treat my dog better than most people treat their kids.

As I mentioned earlier, you will eventually find that the child will rebel regardless to what you tell them. You can say "don't smoke", and the more you tell them not to, the more likely they are to become an addict.

There's a vast difference between telling them something is bad for them and outright denying them their choices in life.

I am fully confident in my daughters ability to make her own judgements on what is "right and wrong" or "beneficial and non-beneficial". She doesn't drink beer not because I tell her she can't through fear of pain and punishment, but because she chooses not to for her own benefit.

If she chooses to watch a movie with me, it is because she knows she can handle it. If she chooses not to watch a movie with me, it's because she knows she can't.

Just because they're small does not mean they're stupid.

It was kind of a roundabout way of doing it, but did that answer the question sufficiently?

Regards.

Hello again,

Ok. Now, it seems to me that your daughter is mature and has her head screwed on at a very early age. Think about my analogy, and let’s say you’re god and your daughter is Abraham, and all the troubled kids are the Israelites, now some if not most kids need discipline or guidelines as they are simply rule breakers(don’t blame God as free will is simply what it says on the tin), I was one when I was younger and I have great parents.

Now let’s look at another example, which is pretty realistic in today’s world (teenage pregnancies), albeit with maybe different media planting the seed of curiosity. A couple decides to let their 14 year old daughter watch a romantic movie, with steamy sex scenes in it. The young girl thinks about the movie and it makes her curious about this sex lark. She falls pregnant at 14. Now who is responsible? I personally think it is the parents in this example (today we are surrounded by sex related magazines, the internet, peer pressure etc. so the parents aren’t to blame for everything in my opinion). Do you think it is beneficial for the child of 14 to fall pregnant and have to raise a child at 14/15 in this day and age?

What I’m trying to get across is that while something’s are harmless to the well being of responsible adults, these things most likely are destructive to a child. So, while jealousy in the hands of God is safe, in the hands of us it is damaging, and I can not think of an advantage of being jealous personally. When God told us not to be jealous he was doing it for our benefit, when he told us He is a jealous God, again He was doing it for our benefit.

Time for my fishcake and chips.

Later

Dave

 

[cole grey]

That's like saying also that one cannot argue that verses depicting god's love are describing the same emotion that we have.

That is what I'm saying.

This is attested to given that with the human emotion of love a person would never doom his child to an eternity of fire.

Granted.

Clearly god's love is on it's own level, and entirely incompatible with our own.

Exactly.

What we are left to argue with are the actions caused by those emotions. We then relate those actions to our own understanding of the word and see if they match up. So you would look at the times when the verses use love and see if god's actions of love are similar to our own. In that way we can make an educated guess at what god love is like. The same is true of other emotions such as jealousy, wrath etc.

Right, but for you all of this is meaningless. God doesn't exist. Therefore God can't have actions. You are saying that X type of God cannot exist, and I fully agree that X type of God cannot exist, or if it does, is nothing more than an egotistical tyrant. The X God is a bad parent, and we don't like him. But the X God you describe in your understanding of the bible, is not the God of THE WHOLE BIBLE. X God exists only in a piecemeal "understanding" of the text.
Why are you arguing about God's qualities except to show that X god can't exist? Fine, your X God does not exist. I am a fully committed "a-xgodtheist".

What difference is that? So because he's invisible and lives in the sky it instantly means he doesn't have emotions, or if he does that they are completely unlike our own, (even though we're made in his image/likeness)?

To what extent are we made in God's image? We are obviously, without a doubt, much different than God is. We don't live in the "sky". We aren't "invisible". But when we describe God's emotions, then we should be able to attribute the exact specifications of them... that is silly.

It's also odd to see "god cannot have", from a man whom I assume believes god can do anything and have anything he wants to.

An entity cannot fully love itself, and also hate itself. It has nothing to do with the entity's power, but rather with our inability to understand paradoxes.

And what was your explanation? Ah yes, "god cannot have that". You expect me just to say: "well done Mr Cole, that's logical"? Get real. It's utter hypocricy. Eventually in a thread in the near future you'll probably find the time to say god is loving, cares about us etc. I will then turn round and say: "But Cole, god cannot have that". I'm certain you'll then argue against the very thing you're trying to promote right now and yet there is no difference between the two, other than one sounds nice to you while the other doesn't.

I will never say God loves us in the way we love each other, unless I use a metaphor to approximate my understanding of God, (which is far from a definitive explantation of God.)

Mr Cole: I ask questions and give ideas to promote debate - to aid everyone's understanding, (mine and others). I try to remain bias free, (and am only ever called bias when I say something that a christian personally objects to). Who is really being bias? The man that will explore all angles, or the man who says: "god cannot have that/do that" the minute it entails something that sounds anti-your belief.

God cannot do something that entails a paradox, according to human logic, this has nothing to do with my feelings about God. I could say, for example, that "my" God can do something that entails a paradox, but that would be empty talk, "my dad can do anything", child's talk.

Since you are bias free, I demand that you bring forth some good arguments for religion, God's existence, or some other value that you have found in the opposite view from that which you hold.

I have many questions and problems with religion, and God, and God's existence, that have been brought out by my own thought processes, and by listening to others. This allows me to approach the given information from both a theist and atheist viewpoint, and analyze the information in a less biased way.

I want to hear the problems you have with your own ideological system which requires God be interpreted a certain way, OR I MUST INSIST that you are biased against an even-handed interpretation, i.e., based in common sense and logic.

 

[Yorda]

To what extent are we made in God's image?

We are aware of right and wrong and we rule over nature (a little)

We don't live in the "sky".

Neither does God, he lives in himself.

We aren't "invisible".

Not our bodies, but what about the ME, am "I" not quite invisible?