What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[Dywyddyr]

You have been requested to demo this.

Your claim was:

A different conception means a different idea of God.
A different definition changes what God is.

How is an idea (that is different) expressed? If it's a different idea/ conception then they must have differing definitions. Whether that changes "what god is" is a separate question.

I looked at them, but they didn't answer the question.
You could have cleared this up right at the begining if you had an answer.
But you don't.

Again you fail to see the point. YOU asked ME what different definitions of god theists espouse. I linked you to various different definitions. What is there to "clear up"?

These concepts are all the same Personality, God.
Different religions does not mean different definitions of God.

I see you can't answer my questions.

No wonder you were reluctant to answer my question.

Except that I have answered your question.

Within these books, how does the definition of God change?

Did I say they did?
I didn't even imply that they did. I asked if YOU follow each and every one of those books, and if you do not, why do you not?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Let's make this simpler, since you seem to be having trouble over the word definition.
Your original claim was:
Believing we are God, is the last line of atheism.

Now, does that statement indicate (in any way) that the holder of that belief has a concept of god? Yes or no?
It must since the holder declares that there is a god (regardless of what "god" is).
Since that means that the holder DOES believe in god then, by definition, that person cannot be an atheist.

So we are back, once more, to the self-contradiction.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

How is an idea (that is different) expressed? If it's a different idea/ conception then they must have differing definitions. Whether that changes "what god is" is a separate question.

It doesn't follow.

Again you fail to see the point. YOU asked ME what different definitions of god theists espouse. I linked you to various different definitions.

Wrong. You linked me to different concepts.

I see you can't answer my questions.

You should be dissatisfied with your questions.

Except that I have answered your question.

If that is the case, then explain it yourself.

Did I say they did?
I didn't even imply that they did. I asked if YOU follow each and every one of those books, and if you do not, why do you not?

That's irrelevant to this discussion, namely the charge that one is a theist if one believes one is God.

I suppose when folks indiscriminantly say 'oh my god', they are theist.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr

Let's make this simpler, since you seem to be having trouble over the word definition.

yawn!

Your original claim was:
Believing we are God, is the last line of atheism.

Okay.

Now, does that statement indicate (in any way) that the holder of that belief has a concept of god? Yes or no?

Yes.

It must since the holder declares that there is a god (regardless of what "god" is).
Since that means that the holder DOES believe in god then, by definition, that person cannot be an atheist.

Who says the holder believes in God?
And what constitutes belief in God? Lip service?
What if the person is telling lies?
Or the person doesn't actually believe in God despite saying so.
An atheist is someone who does not actually believe in God, not necessarily someone who articulates non belief.

So we are back, once more, to the self-contradiction.

There's no self-contradiction on my part.
I understand what theism is.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It doesn't follow.

Wrong again.
Since the word "definition" means

a. A statement conveying fundamental character.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/definition
then any different concept MUST have a different definition. Otherwise it wouldn't be different.

Wrong. You linked me to different concepts.

That would be false.
I suggest you ACTUALLY read the links before making such a statement.
For example the final link is to google page with the search term "definition of god", and the second link goes directly to the Wiki article "definition of god"
Each and every link ALSO uses the word definition.
If you have any quibble whatsoever about this I suggest it is due to your persistent failure to understand what the word definition means and how it relates.

You should be dissatisfied with your questions.

Because you can't answer them with running into a paradox of your own making?

If that is the case, then explain it yourself.

You're not making sense. I have to explain something because I have already given you an answer?

That's irrelevant to this discussion, namely the charge that one is a theist if one believes one is God.

It's irrelevant to the main discussion, granted. But it relates DIRECTLY to a claim you have made during said discussion.

I suppose when folks indiscriminantly say 'oh my god', they are theist.

Absolutely. And whenever someone says "Fuck me" they really actually do want sex.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Who says the holder believes in God?

To make a specific claim about the nature of god, e.g. to declare oneself as such must include the belief in god.

What if the person is telling lies?

Did I not also say: "From that you would then have to explore further"?

There's no self-contradiction on my part.
I understand what theism is.

Apparently not. All you do appear to understand is your own blinkered personal perspective on it.

 

[glaucon]

Which would mean something like

"There is God."
vs.
"There is no God."

-?

Sure.
If and only if it was certain that such a disjunctive case applies.

Obviously... that's not the case here...

 

[glaucon]

What would be a "natural contrary" to "God"?

Couldn't tell you. I don't have access to the 'mind of 'god''...

Curious though: do you think god could even think logically?

For the record, I would have to say 'no'.
Perfect knowledge would eliminate the necessity...



... interesting....

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Wrong again.
Since the word "definition" means

Okay. As I cannot see the point you are making, give a few different definitions of God off the top of your head.

I suggest you ACTUALLY read the links before making such a statement.
For example the final link is to google page with the search term "definition of god", and the second link goes directly to the Wiki article "definition of god"
Each and every link ALSO uses the word definition.
If you have any quibble whatsoever about this I suggest it is due to your persistent failure to understand what the word definition means and how it relates.

The links gave definitions of different religions, and the different concepts of God in relation to classical theism. With the acception of buddhism, and taoism, the definition of God in classical theism, is consistent with the definition of God in all ancient religions.

Because you can't answer them with running into a paradox of your own making?

Have you read those link (apart from the last), it proves my point.

You're not making sense. I have to explain something because I have already given you an answer?

NO. You've given me links.
I would like an answer from you, as I have requested at the top of this post.

It's irrelevant to the main discussion, granted. But it relates DIRECTLY to a claim you have made during said discussion.

You have to show that believing we are God is a theistic position, within the definition of 'theism'.
It is the opposite of believing in God.

Absolutely. And whenever someone says "Fuck me" they really actually do want sex.

Why the rolleyes?

jan.

 

[glaucon]

What would be a "natural contrary" to "God"?

Couldn't tell you. I don't have access to the 'mind of 'god''...

Curious though: do you think god could even think logically?

For the record, I would have to say 'no'.
Perfect knowledge would eliminate the necessity...



... interesting....

 

[Dywyddyr]

Okay. As I cannot see the point you are making, give a few different definitions of God off the top of your head.

No.

The links gave definitions of different religions, and the different concepts of God in relation to classical theism. With the acception of buddhism, and taoism, the definition of God in classical theism, is consistent with the definition of God in all ancient religions.

The links discussed definitions of god.

Have you read those link (apart from the last), it proves my point.

Of course. And they don't.

NO. You've given me links.
I would like an answer from you, as I have requested at the top of this post.

I gave links because you asked for differing definitions. Simple.
Since I don't believe in god I don't (cannot) have a definition.

You have to show that believing we are God is a theistic position, within the definition of 'theism'.

Because stating "we are god" declares that you that holds god exists. Holding that god exists is in itself a statement of belief.

It is the opposite of believing in God.

According to you.

Why the rolleyes?

Because your question (that led to my statement and the eyes) was fatuous and redundant. Unless you believe that question/ comment to be factual, in which case I should have doubled the rolleyes.

 

[glaucon]

Because stating "we are god" declares that you that holds god exists. Holding that god exists is in itself a statement of belief.

Precisely.

This point is exactly where the theists get muddled in their 'thinking'.

The Theist would do well to ponder this point.....

 

[quadraphonics]

I basically agree with that. Maybe I'd define 'secularism' as a primary interest in, and concern with, the events of this world, and not with events supposedly taking place on higher planes of being or in transcendental heavens.

That would be something like "materialism" or "naturalism," as opposed to "secularism." Secularism is basically the perspective that social and political interactions between people of differing religious convictions should exclude considerations of religion (so that people of different faiths can interact as social/political peers, rather than on the basis of the supremacy of one sect or another).

The point being that secularism isn't fundamentally incompatible with whatever personal religious convictions somebody might have - you can be a committed believer in religion, and still be a committed secularist. Secularism only conflicts with religious supremacism, not religious worldviews as such. Note that the secular nature of the US republic was created by a bunch of committed believers in religion, for the exact purpose of protecting their respective sects from state interference.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

You have to show that believing we are God is a theistic position, within the definition of 'theism'. ”

Because stating "we are god" declares that you that holds god exists. Holding that god exists is in itself a statement of belief.

On the contrary, it holds that you don't believe God exists, but the definition can be applied ourself. It is no different to a person believing they are superman, or any character we may decide to choose.
We would have essentially rendered God a material/fictional being, not a real, supreme creator of the material world.

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I don't have access to the 'mind of 'god''...

hmm..

access = inability?

i would argue you have the ability, but not the desire..

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is no different to a person believing they are superman, or any character we may decide to choose.

And in each of those cases there is the implicit belief that "superman" or whoever is real.
Read Glaucon's post.

We would have essentially rendered God a material/fictional being, not a real, supreme creator of the material world.

Wrong again. In the case above the fictional character has been "rendered into the real world". (However fallaciously).

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

Curious though: do you think god could even think logically?

For the record, I would have to say 'no'.
Perfect knowledge would eliminate the necessity...

So, perfect knowledge prevents God from being able to think logically?


jan.

 

[glaucon]

hmm..

access = inability?

No. Lack of access = inability.

i would argue you have the ability, but not the desire..

Well, that would be another (very personal) topic entirely...

 

[glaucon]

glaucon,


So, perfect knowledge prevents God from being able to think logically?


jan.

Of course.

Logic can only obtain where there is unknown.

God's knowledge being perfect (purportedly) would necessitate the impossibility of unknowns...

ergo...

 

[spidergoat]

sourse please?

jan.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?

John 10:34