What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

[lightgigantic]

It is an analogy, designed to shine light on the absurdity of believing in Russell's teapot or Sagan's dragon.

The humor in FSM simply aids in the memetic propagation. The teapot and dragon are not nearly as well known, bereft of humor as they are.

And we note that you're still evading the valid point of FSM by picking at style of delivery.

whatever they may be, they are literacy tools that certainly require some clear comprehension of that they are seeking to draw parallels to

iow I think you have given yourself an extremely difficult task if you think you can start offering justifications for analogies bereft of any comprehension of what you are seeking to qualify (regardless whether it is merely for the sake of parody or not

 

[DaveC426913]

whatever they may be, they are literacy tools that certainly require some clear comprehension of that they are seeking to draw parallels to

iow I think you have given yourself an extremely difficult task if you think you can start offering justifications for analogies bereft of any comprehension of what you are seeking to qualify (regardless whether it is merely for the sake of parody or not

It is not my justification; it is well-established and fairly popular.

But we digress from the point.


No one (notably including wynn) has explained why the atheist is obligated to provide a definition for something they believe is ultimately in error, something they have not seen adequate evidence for.

The atheist's explanation for 'knowing God' is literally 'your question is flawed'.

 

[wynn]

No one (notably including wynn) has explained why the atheist is obligated to provide a definition for something they believe is ultimately in error, something they have not seen adequate evidence for.

The atheist's explanation for 'knowing God' is literally 'your question is flawed'.

If an atheist can do this -

then he surely must have some idea on what he means by "God" which he believes "probably does not exist" and that believing in this probability of God's non-existence somehow grants people the free pass to "stop worrying and enjoy life."


IOW, atheists talk too much about "God" - at least, they use the word "God" a lot, and they do so in assertive sentences -
for anyone to still believe that atheists really have no clue what they are talking about.

Oh yes, atheists sure have ideas about God, but they are rather reluctant to share them. Which is where I come in and try to get them to explicate those ideas.

 

[wynn]

wynn, it's not our term to define. It's a theist's term to define.


This is basic, basic logic!

When you say "I lack belief in God," surely you mean something by "God."

 

[lightgigantic]

It is not my justification; it is well-established and fairly popular.

But we digress from the point.


No one (notably including wynn) has explained why the atheist is obligated to provide a definition for something they believe is ultimately in error, something they have not seen adequate evidence for.

The atheist's explanation for 'knowing God' is literally 'your question is flawed'.

if you want to start talking about the error of something you begin by talking about value/quality/function of it (aka definition)
it doesn't matter whether the subject is mathematics, judicial proceedings, carpentary, philosohy or stock car racing

 

[DaveC426913]

for anyone to still believe that atheists really have no clue what they are talking about.

Oh yes, atheists sure have ideas about God, but they are rather reluctant to share them. Which is where I come in and try to get them to explicate those ideas.

I don't know how many times I can try to explain this.

I'll try something more obvious (Please forgive the absurdity, it is not meant to equate theism with mental illness)

You go interview an institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic. They tell you the government is beaming thoughts into their head, and they must wear a tinfoil hat.

The IPS (institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic) then asks you to describe these thoughts entering his head and telling him what to do.

And you say what? Are you obliged to correctly describe, to his satisfaction, how the thoughts are reaching him, what they mean and how the tinfoil hat helps? Or do acknowledge (at least to yourself) that his premise is flawed?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know how many times I can try to explain this.

I'll try something more obvious (Please forgive the absurdity, it is not meant to equate theism with insanity)

Go interview an institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic. They tell you the government is beaming thoughts into their head, and they must wear a tinfoil hat.

The ( institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic) IPS then asks you to describe these thoughts entering his head and telling him what to do.

And you tell him what?

so does the professional approach the problem completely dumbfounded, a complete blank slate of any working definitions to define or isolate or otherwise contextualize the problem in a uniform manner ..... or does the fact that there are professionals dictate how one would anticipate reacting (along with their concommitant plausibilities for justification.... especially if we he extra tidbits of info like what precise cultural/chronological era the scenario is occuring in)?

 

[wynn]

I don't know how many times I can try to explain this.

I'll try something more obvious (Please forgive the absurdity, it is not meant to equate theism with mental illness)

You go interview an institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic. They tell you the government is beaming thoughts into their head, and they must wear a tinfoil hat.

The IPS (institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic) then asks you to describe these thoughts entering his head and telling him what to do.

And you say what? Are you obliged to correctly describe, to his satisfaction, how the thoughts are reaching him, what they mean and how the tinfoil hat helps? Or do acknowledge (at least to yourself) that his premise is flawed?

What?

Atheists claim to "lack belief in God" or to "disbelieve in God."

Surely they have some idea about what it is they lack belief in, or disbelieve in.

 

[wynn]

I don't know how many times I can try to explain this.

I'll try something more obvious (Please forgive the absurdity, it is not meant to equate theism with mental illness)

You go interview an institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic. They tell you the government is beaming thoughts into their head, and they must wear a tinfoil hat.

The IPS (institutionalized paranoid schizophrenic) then asks you to describe these thoughts entering his head and telling him what to do.

And you say what? Are you obliged to correctly describe, to his satisfaction, how the thoughts are reaching him, what they mean and how the tinfoil hat helps? Or do acknowledge (at least to yourself) that his premise is flawed?

I've had some assertiveness training so I consider No to be a perfectly valid answer sometimes.


That said, the IPS you describe above is a good example of dependence gone awry.
On principle the same process takes place on a daily basis: when scientists/proponents of science want us to simply take as true what they tell us - we should take on faith that they are right. And when we do, we set on a course the end destination of which is the state of the IPS.

Many people who are in mental institutions are not crazy: they have merely earnestly made the effort to believe as they were told, they have taken science to its logical consequences, and it landed them in the trash of civilization.

 

[AlexG]

Many people who are in mental institutions are not crazy: they have merely earnestly made the effort to believe as they were told, they have taken science to its logical consequences, and it landed them in the trash of civilization.

It's really difficult to carry on a logical conversation with religious zealots.

 

[aaqucnaona]

so that makes sarcasm the highest form of wit for a certain class of person?

I didnt suggest that, did I? Sarcasm is often a sign of anger, hatred or egotism, but it can also be used positively in a witty retort. It is precisely that such an agent of derision can be used to make a valid logical point that makes it both witty and funny. That is what I was criticising you for missing.

 

[aaqucnaona]

but then I am not the one posting ample pages in criticism of persons and ideas in support of kugat (whatever that may be) .... if it was otherwise I would certainly hope that I have aclear idea what I am rejecting ... iow you can talk of there being a type of atheism that is simply unaware of issues of godhood just like you can talk of their being a type of existence where one is unaware of issues of history or even language (usually we would call it severe ignorance or mental retardation ) but that idea is automatically forfeited the moment one attempts an academic ( or even pseudo academic) criticism of a subject

Do you imagine us to accept that you are unaware of the fact that most atheists were theists for quite some time before a study of science or philosophy convinced them to change their mind?

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

That said, the IPS you describe above is a good example of dependence gone awry.
On principle the same process takes place on a daily basis: when scientists/proponents of science want us to simply take as true what they tell us - we should take on faith that they are right. And when we do, we set on a course the end destination of which is the state of the IPS.

Scientists never demand you believe what they say, they have evidence to back up what they say and will be happy to walk you through their reasoning and evidence. They will also tell you what it is they do not yet know. Too bad those who "know god" can't or won't do that, but then they would have to admit they know nothing at all about any god. Just like the Atheist is saying that they know nothing about any god. For the same reasons.

Grumpy

 

[DaveC426913]

so does the professional approach the problem completely dumbfounded, a complete blank slate of any working definitions to define or isolate or otherwise contextualize the problem in a uniform manner ..... or does the fact that there are professionals dictate how one would anticipate reacting (along with their concommitant plausibilities for justification.... especially if we he extra tidbits of info like what precise cultural/chronological era the scenario is occuring in)?

No. They get the definitions from theists. It is the theists making the claims; it is the theists upon whom the onus lies to produce evidence.

Atheists have been asking for centuries for evidence to back up these definitions that theists make. Until theists do so, there is no discussion to be had. Thus, the OP's question doesn't make sense.

 

[DaveC426913]

What?

Atheists claim to "lack belief in God" or to "disbelieve in God."

Surely they have some idea about what it is they lack belief in, or disbelieve in.

Any definition has a common element of overarching entity. How much it is sentient, how much of the universe was created, how much control it had over life, these are all hair-splitting. Even the God definitions that are no more that some culmination of human consciousness, this too is hair-splitting.

Atheists see no evidence of any such influence of any sort. Heck, even luck is a belief in a form of influence over our lives.

I do not need to get involved in the details of your particular flavor of belief - the very premise is flawed. A flawed premise need not have its subsequent points addressed.

 

[Balerion]

If an atheist can do this -

then he surely must have some idea on what he means by "God" which he believes "probably does not exist" and that believing in this probability of God's non-existence somehow grants people the free pass to "stop worrying and enjoy life."


IOW, atheists talk too much about "God" - at least, they use the word "God" a lot, and they do so in assertive sentences -
for anyone to still believe that atheists really have no clue what they are talking about.

Oh yes, atheists sure have ideas about God, but they are rather reluctant to share them. Which is where I come in and try to get them to explicate those ideas.

What do you mean they're reluctant? Atheism does not exist without theism. Atheism is a reaction to theism, so of course atheism knows the definition of the gods in which it does not believe.

We're all atheists in respect to Zeus or Athena or Osiris. But when we hang billboards up and talk about "God" we're clearly talking about the God of Abraham. It's the one relevant to the discussion.

Of course, that isn't to say that we aren't also saying there probably isn't any god at all, because we are. We just don't know.

 

[arauca]

It's really difficult to carry on a logical conversation with religious zealots.

Lets say my god, is the sun . So what does my god the sun means to the atheists ?
It gives life to the planet, I man comes close he will be vaporized .

 

[spidergoat]

Lets say my god, is the sun . So what does my god the sun means to the atheists ?
It gives life to the planet, I man comes close he will be vaporized .

With respect to your God, the sun, I'm a theist.

 

[DaveC426913]

Lets say my god, is the sun . So what does my god the sun means to the atheists ?
It gives life to the planet, I man comes close he will be vaporized .

I believe.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Lets say my god, is the sun . So what does my god the sun means to the atheists ?
It gives life to the planet, I man comes close he will be vaporized .

Of course the sun is there. For the existence of the sun, I would be a theist.
Whether the sun is a god is, however, questionable. As no indication exists that this is the case, I am an atheist in this regard.

So two things -
Interpretation is important for a stance to be formed.
The loaded concept of God should not be stuck on just anything mysterious or mystic.

Btw, what was the point of your question anyway?