What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
wynn:
Which atheists are you referring to?
And - just to clarify - a complete theory of what?
Which atheists are you referring to?
And - just to clarify - a complete theory of what?
The kind who believe that this follows:
All the things that matter to people.
Like issues of the meaning of life and happiness.
That bus ad doesn't look like a claim of a complete theory to me. The ad seems to be saying only that people shouldn't worry about a God who probably doesn't exist.
I'm not personally aware of any atheist who claims to have The Answer to all issues of the meaning of life and happiness.
I'm not personally aware of any atheist who claims to have The Answer to all issues of the meaning of life and happiness.
@wynn --
Why on Earth would you think that? Especially when people who actually do claim to have all the answers, such as christians, haven't even come close.
And, for the record, when it comes to things like meaning(why does there have to be only one meaning of life?) and happiness, atheists and agnostics do as well or better, on average, as theists do.
Why on Earth would you think that? Especially when people who actually do claim to have all the answers, such as christians, haven't even come close.
And, for the record, when it comes to things like meaning(why does there have to be only one meaning of life?) and happiness, atheists and agnostics do as well or better, on average, as theists do.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sorry Wynn. Most of the posters agreed to close that door. When you kicked it back open back in post 349, you forfeited the privilege of complaining if anyone else walks through it.
It says
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
It's an example of making a relativizing claim (ie. "There probably is no God"), but nevertheless basing a certain conclusion on it (ie. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"). That is faulty reasoning.
When pressed for answers, most indeed resort to a "we don't know for sure."
But on all other occasions, just like Dawkins above, they speak as if they had full certainty.
As measured by whom, by what standards?
Atheists dont have any theory. They just reject the claims of the theists. Of the world-view that that do hold, almost all of it is formed by the theories of science, and if you want them spelled out, you could not have chosen a better place [or worse, depends].
The spagetti monster did, the noodly lord, he boiled for your sins.
How can something that explicitly states a probable conclusion strike you as FULLY CERTAIN? Should I worry, cry or run away?
Practically, even an agnostic is a atheist, just as you are for Krishna. Yet, do you have full certainty that Krishna isnt real, seeing as how you completely disreguard his presence? We do the same, just for all Gods presented to us so far.
wynn:
Really?
Consider:
Your commercial airplane flight probably won't crash. So, stop worrying and enjoy your flight.
Are you saying that you should worry about your plane crashing every time you fly?
Note that I'm not talking about having at the back of your mind the small chance that your plane might actually crash, but rather taking every flight in fear that you might be in a crash.
I can't see how the advice not to worry is faulty advice. Can you explain?
The word "probably" is used on the bus ad, just like in the plane crash scenario.
Really?
Consider:
Your commercial airplane flight probably won't crash. So, stop worrying and enjoy your flight.
Are you saying that you should worry about your plane crashing every time you fly?
Note that I'm not talking about having at the back of your mind the small chance that your plane might actually crash, but rather taking every flight in fear that you might be in a crash.
I can't see how the advice not to worry is faulty advice. Can you explain?
The word "probably" is used on the bus ad, just like in the plane crash scenario.
@wynn --
Atheists and agnostics tend to report being happy, fulfilled, and with purpose at an equal or slightly higher rate than theists(who tend to have much more to worry about, what with having imaginary souls that will suffer imaginary torments for all of eternity if they don't do the right things at the right times and all that).
And I can't speak for other atheists but the only time I ever speak with certainty about god claims is when said claims are internally inconsistent and can thus be rejected solely on that basis. I've always said that there is a possibility that there's one or more gods out there, I just think that it's both unlikely and irrelevant.
Atheists and agnostics tend to report being happy, fulfilled, and with purpose at an equal or slightly higher rate than theists(who tend to have much more to worry about, what with having imaginary souls that will suffer imaginary torments for all of eternity if they don't do the right things at the right times and all that).
And I can't speak for other atheists but the only time I ever speak with certainty about god claims is when said claims are internally inconsistent and can thus be rejected solely on that basis. I've always said that there is a possibility that there's one or more gods out there, I just think that it's both unlikely and irrelevant.
Read the bus ad again, and then what I said.
Ha! This is too funny! Way too funny!
If you only knew.
If you picked Zeus, you might have a point, but as it is, you don't.
When talking to people, first actually check their stances before making definitive claims about what they believe or concern themselves with, and what not.
It doesn't follow.
From there being "probably no God" it does not automatically follow that one may "stop worrying and enjoy life."
There is quite a bit of thought involved there for that to follow (as well as in your airplane scenario) which Dawkins et al. yet need to explicate.
That, and it's not clear how they arrived at the conclusion that "there probably is no God" to begin with.
It is only meaningful to talk about probability as long as all the possibilities / permutations are known.
Only an omniscient entity could rightfully make claims about probability that concern the whole Universe.
So?
With the airplane, you would want to think that it is a good many people's job to worry whether or not the plane crashes or not.
In otherwords the agonies of flight (" worry about whether it crashes") has been delegated to many people we assume are responsible, well trained and thorough in their duties ... usually we have faith in all this due to the big motivating force behind all high standards of behaviour for the modern age - being financially liable.
With the case of "there probably is no god", all the contingent responsibilities of duty, care and liability the term entails is dissipated behind the cloud of the suggestion "there really is no god".
Suggesting all this opens the door for further enjoyment is kind of like suggesting you might as well crack open the in-flight champagne since the pilot has just bailed with the last parachute ("hell yeah, we really won't crash (edit - or maybe its "we were all going to crash anyway"), so we should really get down and enjoy this flight now that the pilot has bailed")
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Wynn said:
Wynn was just expressing her annoyance at the way that a certain sort of aggressive atheist writes with absolute assurance about matters that others find problematic and dismisses everyone who disagrees as complete fools. I share that annoyance.
Addressing your question, I'm certainly unclear as to the precise meaning of "real", "existence" and "God". I think that virtually all philosophers would say the same thing.
'God' is a terribly vague word. It's been associated with a whole variety of related ideas throughout history. Everything from mythical figures like the blustering Yahweh of the Old Testament and the dancing Krishna of sectarian theistic Hinduism, to the historical Jesus, to philosophical functions like first-cause or ground-of-being, to the ostensible objects of many religious experiences, even to Paul Tillich's 'object of ultimate concern'.
'Reality' and 'existence' appear to indicate some characteristic that seems totally obvious on its face, the characteristic that creates the distinction between real things and imaginary ones. But explaining precisely what that characteristic is, is notoriously difficult. For example, it's possible that different kinds of existent things exist in different ways (individual physical objects, universals, mathematical relationships, causal regularities, possibilities, the past and (maybe) the future, beauty and truth, God conceivably), even fictional entities seem to have some kind of shadow existence (Sherlock Holmes)... As we think about it, what initially seemed so simple and obvious starts to appear more and more mysterious.