What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

And in each of those cases there is the implicit belief that "superman" or whoever is real.
.

They believe they are God.
There cannot be two Gods', and if they think there are, then they aren't theist. Not by definition.

Read Glaucon's post

Why?
How's that going to help? (no disrespect to glaucon)

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

Yes, God is now materialised, brought into reality, the only reality
such a person can understand.
When you ask for scientific evidence of God, isn't that what you're asking for, material evidence, evidence that you can understand?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

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.

If someone believes A to be B then it is a truism that whatever they think of A they also think of B.
If one believes oneself to be God then as long as that person believes themself to exist then they believe God to exist.
Since theism is generally considered to be the belief that God exists then the person, by believing both themself to be God and themself to exist, is a theist.
This is inescapable logic.

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

Not prevents per se, but why take the car if you're always where you want to be?

 

[Sarkus]

They believe they are God.
There cannot be two Gods', and if they think there are, then they aren't theist. Not by definition.

??? Eh ???
Ever heard of polytheists?

Theism is not restricted to the monotheistic variety.

 

[Dywyddyr]

They believe they are God.

Correct. Therefore they MUST believe in god. That makes them theist.

There cannot be two Gods', and if they think there are, then they aren't theist. Not by definition.

Wrong again. If they believe they are god then they are denying YOUR god. Hence my earlier statements. They will claim that YOUR god is not real and that you are an atheists.

Why?
How's that going to help? (no disrespect to glaucon)

Because he's pointing out an error of yours: This point is exactly where the theists get muddled in their 'thinking'.

Yes, God is now materialised, brought into reality, the only reality
such a person can understand.
When you ask for scientific evidence of God, isn't that what you're asking for, material evidence, evidence that you can understand?

I think you're missing my point. I was referring to the Superman thing.
Regardless, so what if god has been "rendered into the material" In this case)? Since the person who claims we are god has no problem with this (it's his belief after all) the ACTUAL problem is that his "version" of god doesn't fit your definition. I.e it's not my problem (unless he tries dictating my behaviour to me) and only his problem if you refuse to accept his version. In which case I suppose you'd better hope he's a merciful god.
It does mean, however, that the person in question is a theist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

If someone believes A to be B then it is a truism that whatever they think of A they also think of B.

What are the representions for A&B?

If one believes oneself to be God then as long as that person believes themself to exist then they believe God to exist.

If they believe the definition of God (theistic) can be applied to themself then the are insane, unless they are omniscient, omnipotent, creator and maintaner of the universe, and non-material.
If they believe that God is a material being, and is non-different or inferior to themself and others, then they are not theistic according to the classic definition of 'theist'

Since theism is generally considered to be the belief that God exists then the person, by believing both themself to be God and themself to exist, is a theist.

If you don't mind I prefer to work with the classic definition rather than general ideas, so we have a point of reference. That being the case, your wrong.

This is inescapable logic.

Atheist logic.

Not prevents per se, but why take the car if you're always where you want to be?

Because you want to. Duh!!!

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

??? Eh ???
Ever heard of polytheists?

Theism is not restricted to the monotheistic variety.

There is a difference between God, and, god(s).
You'll find that polytheistic societies acknowledge a supreme being.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If they believe the definition of God (theistic) can be applied to themself then the are insane

Once again you attempt to confuse the issue.
Their sanity is nothing to do with the question.
The fact remains that they DO believe in god (even if he doesn't fit a definition that you are comfortable with).

Atheist logic.

Logic is neither theist nor atheist.

There is a difference between God, and, god(s).

So what. A belief in gods is still theistic.

You'll find that monotheistic societies acknowledge a supreme being.

Absolutely. A single supreme being. Like the Trinity.
Which still doesn't alter the fact that you are now shifting ground and referring solely to monotheistic religions. Are polytheists not theists?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Once again you attempt to confuse the issue.
Their sanity is nothing to do with the question.

Why not?
It is hard to believe or take seriously, anyone who claims to be omniscient, omnipotent, the creator of the material world, etc...
Such a person is not in control of their mind.

The fact remains that they DO believe in god (even if he doesn't fit a definition that you are comfortable with).

How do you know they believe in God?
Suppose they like the idea of being God, but don't believe in Him.
Suppose they get a kick out it. It doesn't follow that they actually believe in Him.

Logic is neither theist nor atheist.

I know.
But your kind of logic is atheist.

So what. A belief in gods is still theistic.

Maybe, but my point doesn't refer to gods.

Absolutely. A single supreme being. Like the Trinity.
Which still doesn't alter the fact that you are now shifting ground and referring solely to monotheistic religions. Are polytheists not theists?

I'm talking about God.
The idea of someone claiming to be a god, is different from the claim I am God, the Supreme Being.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why not?
It is hard to believe or take seriously, anyone who claims to be omniscient, omnipotent, the creator of the material world, etc...
Such a person is not in control of their mind.

Are you ignoring the fact that an atheist could (if pushed) say the same of theists - because of their claim that there does indeed exist such an entity? It's a small step from claiming that there does exist such a "person" to claiming that oneself IS that person.
As I have pointed out: regardless of his sanity he still has the belief. And belief (or not) is what distinguishes theist from atheist (among a few other things, but it's the basic difference).

How do you know they believe in God?

Already shown.

Suppose they like the idea of being God, but don't believe in Him.
Suppose they get a kick out it. It doesn't follow that they actually believe in Him.

This has also been addressed.

I know.
But your kind of logic is atheist.

The second sentence is evidence that you don't know.

Maybe, but my point doesn't refer to gods.

Pardon?
A belief in god(s) is what makes one a theist.

I'm talking about God.
The idea of someone claiming to be a god, is different from the claim I am God, the Supreme Being.

If they truly believe (as opposed to lying for the kicks) they are god then they believe in god. Sanity is not the issue.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Are you ignoring the fact that an atheist could (if pushed) say the same of theists -

I'm aware of atheist logic, and thinking, yes.
I even have a good idea why you felt the need to vent that.

...because of their claim that there does indeed exist such an entity? It's a small step from claiming that there does exist such a "person" to claiming that oneself IS that person.

And how do you work that ome out?

As I have pointed out: regardless of his sanity he still has the belief. And belief (or not) is what distinguishes theist from atheist (among a few other things, but it's the basic difference).

How could you know what he believed if he was insane?
How would you know he's not making it up?
You can't know what it is to believe in God, because you're an atheist.
Why else would you ask for evidence in a format of your understanding?
One is not a theist because one says he believes, unless he actually believes.
It's the "actually" that you cannot access.

Already shown.

No you haven't.

Pardon?
A belief in god(s) is what makes one a theist.

No. A belief in God is what makes one a theist, unless you believe that a god can save your soul. But even so, as that is the characteristic of the supreme being alone, one is ultimately serving God.

If they truly believe (as opposed to lying for the kicks) they are god then they believe in god. Sanity is not the issue.

You can't make that assumption rationally. The only rational assumption is the person thinks they are God, unless you are privy to more information, a step by step analasys.

What reason would a theist have to go from believing in God, to claiming to be God?
This is what you don't understand.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm aware of atheist logic, and thinking, yes.

There's no such thing as "atheist logic".

I even have a good idea why you felt the need to vent that.

No, you don't. You really really don't.

And how do you work that ome out?

Because there's no evidence to support the initial claim.

How could you know what he believed if he was insane?
How would you know he's not making it up?
You can't know what it is to believe in God, because you're an atheist.
Why else would you ask for evidence in a format of your understanding?
One is not a theist because one says he believes, unless he actually believes.
It's the "actually" that you cannot access.

So I would be correct if I claimed that you don't actually believe? After all we only have your word for it.

No you haven't.

Then you aren't actually reading my posts.

No. A belief in God is what makes one a theist

So somehow you're of the opinion that polytheists aren't theists?
The ONLY possible way to be a theist (in your opinion) is to believe in ONLY one god?

You can't make that assumption rationally. The only rational assumption is the person thinks they are God, unless you are privy to more information, a step by step analasys.

Have you tried making sense?
What evidence do we have of anyone's belief? Their word mostly. If someone (genuinely) claims to be god then he must hold a belief in god. The problem here is, as I previously pointed out, that your narrow little perspective rejects anything that doesn't fit.

What reason would a theist have to go from believing in God, to claiming to be God?
This is what you don't understand.

No, what you don't understand is that "process" isn't necessarily required. Someone could believe they are god from the start. Once more we're back to your failure to see anything but your own picture.

 

[wynn]

No. If there's a belief in god (in whatever form) then it cannot be atheist.

I have a relative who is a staunch atheist. He claims there is no God.
But he uses the word "God" more often than I do.

Recently, he has been sick and he swears and curses a lot. "Bloody God!" "Damn God!" "F***ing life!" are the most common curses.

Or consider how often Dawkins utters the word "God" (and usually part of what he means by it is "The One Who Is In Control").

Is such verbal behavior the mark of an actual atheist?

I mean, one has to have quite a belief in God in order to talk about God so much!


I suspect my relative is an atheist in denial, and so is Dawkins.

 

[wynn]

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

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

Why would we need access to the mind of God in order to know what the natural contrary to God is?

The natural contrary to "hot" is "cold", for example.
We are the ones deciding what we see as "natural contraries"; but an argument can be made that there is variation in this across cultures, which relativizes the notion of "natural". So I'm not so sure how useful that notion of "natural contraries" is.

What is the natural contrary to, say, Barack Obama?

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

You mean whether God can think of square circles, or make them and such?

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

Perfect knowledge would eliminate the necessity for inference, sure. But would it go into square circles ...

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...

Why not?

 

[wynn]

Since I don't believe in god I don't (cannot) have a definition.

Yes, you do. You cannot use a word in a sentence (other than in a question) without operating out of some definition of what that word means.

 

[wynn]

An atheist is someone who does not actually believe in God, not necessarily someone who articulates non belief.

I think the crucial concept to discuss here is "believe in".
Whether we mean "holding to be true" or "being favorably disposed toward".

Atheists are normally the ones who are characteristically unfavorably disposed toward God; so much so that they do not hold His existence to be true.

 

[Sarkus]

What are the representions for A&B?

A = the person himself.
B = God.

If they believe the definition of God (theistic) can be applied to themself then the are insane, unless they are omniscient, omnipotent, creator and maintaner of the universe, and non-material.

Sanity or otherwise is irrelevant, despite your protestations to the contrary.
An insane theist is still a theist.

Further, you fall into the trap of assuming that this person believes God to have the qualities that you believe God to have.

If they believe that God is a material being, and is non-different or inferior to themself and others, then they are not theistic according to the classic definition of 'theist'

They are still theist according to the definition of theism that is widely accepted and understood.

If you don't mind I prefer to work with the classic definition rather than general ideas, so we have a point of reference. That being the case, your wrong.

I do mind. At no point prior to this was it agreed that we would use the term as you wish.
That being the case, you're wrong. :shrug:

Because you want to.

"Want" implies a lack implies imperfection. You can have one or the other... :shrug:

 

[James R]

I have a relative who is a staunch atheist. He claims there is no God.
But he uses the word "God" more often than I do.

Recently, he has been sick and he swears and curses a lot. "Bloody God!" "Damn God!" "F***ing life!" are the most common curses.

Or consider how often Dawkins utters the word "God" (and usually part of what he means by it is "The One Who Is In Control").

Is such verbal behavior the mark of an actual atheist?

I mean, one has to have quite a belief in God in order to talk about God so much!

Just to compare, think about those who frequenty and habitually use the word "fuck". They must have quite an obsession with sex in order to talk about procreation so much. Right?

 

[phlogistician]

Let me put it another way.

What are the particular definitions of God?

jan.

That's a question I keep asking you as a believer.

One you always squirm away from.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Let me put it another way.

What are the particular definitions of God?

jan.

That's a question I keep asking you as a believer.

One you always squirm away from.

We cannot know God by definition as He cannot be quantifiied, encompassed, or limited. We can only know God by relationship. He is Love. He is forgiveness. He is slow to anger and long on patience. He is "...Father, . . . Son and . . . Holy Spririt, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be". He is "I AM". He is a burning bush that is not consumed. He is a pillar of fire above a tent in the desert. He is an engineer who designs arks and carves His words on stone. He creates gravity, which science knows exists, but cannot explain the actual cause. He sends the spark into the seed so it germinates, for which scientist, still cannot figure out where the "spark of life" in a seed starts or how. He feeds the world using a tiny little honey bee.
And every single day, perhaps 300,000 times a day, all across the world, He wishes to enter into each one of us in an intimate communion with Him, "if" we chose. If we chose, we can consume the living, breathing, loving, forgiving God who made us, and in turn beg Him to consume us as well. If you, Lemonbeam, chose to pursue a relationship with God, then you will grow to know God and realize the definition you seek is found in the connection between His Sacred Heart and your heart. Our salvation rests in our love, not our intellect.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr;,

There's no such thing as "atheist logic".

I can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist.

No, you don't. You really really don't.

Why.

Because there's no evidence to support the initial claim.

The first cause argument supports the initial claim.

So I would be correct if I claimed that you don't actually believe? After all we only have your word for it.

You'd just be proving my point.

Then you aren't actually reading my posts.

Stop wasting time.

So somehow you're of the opinion that polytheists aren't theists?
The ONLY possible way to be a theist (in your opinion) is to believe in ONLY one god?

Didn't you read my post?
Or did you just fail to understand it?

Have you tried making sense?

It is hard to make sense to the block-headed.

What evidence do we have of anyone's belief? Their word mostly.

How can someones word be counted as evidence?
You are talking about trusting someones word.
For you, there is no way to find out, so all your talk amounts to nothing.

If someone (genuinely) claims to be god then he must hold a belief in god. The problem here is, as I previously pointed out, that your narrow little perspective rejects anything that doesn't fit.

Don't be silly.
There is no way you can show this, plus, you do not know or understand what actual belief in God is, by your own admission.

No, what you don't understand is that "process" isn't necessarily required. Someone could believe they are god from the start. Once more we're back to your failure to see anything but your own picture.

Oh! So now you assert that belief in God = I am God.

Your stupidity know no bounds (regarding theism)

jan.

jan.