What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
I haven't read the thread. It is obvious that wynn is just trying to provoke us. Surely wynn understands that atheism is the belief that there is no god/ there are no gods. Hence his question is pointless. What do you think of the tooth fairy, wynn?
I don't need a refresher, thanks. Nor further obfuscation from you.
I merely want clarity from you on your implication that material existence itself has inherent problems.
If, as previously stated, your argument is that there are problems inherent in the interaction between "life" and the (rest of the) material world then you may be correct.
But again I will chip in: the material world itself has no inherent problems: problems are a subjective interpretation of a situation, and are from the perspective of an aware life-form (i.e. require material to interact with "life") and not the material world per se.
So please be more precise in your wording, as the implication of your current wording suggests you hold material itself to have inherent problems.
Unless, of course, this is what you meant - in which case please describe the problem inherent in a universe that is devoid of life?
And if it becomes evident that it is not material per se that has problems, one is left to conclude that it is either life that has inherent problems (is there a place devoid of matter but with life with which to test this scenario?) or it is the interactions between life and (the rest of) matter that have inherent problems.
It's also clear that you have a different understanding to many other atheists of what exactly atheism is.
Atheism, to the majority on this site, is merely a lack of belief in God.
Some atheists certainly hold the belief that there is no god, but most don't.
They may hold that specific definitions of God do not exist... but few go so far as to say that no god exists.
There are many topics discussing the nature of atheism, and what it is or isn't, on this site.
They are always worth trawling through to get an idea of the differing views etc.
It would behoove you to do so.
You may gain many an insight that way, and avoid repeating already discussed points.
Surely if an atheist believes that "there is no god(s)", then surely the atheist must also have an idea of what "god" means, or how could he otherwise make any claims, positive or negative, about said "god"?
In one sense, to say "material existence" is redundant - if we believe that all existence is material anyway, then to say "existence" suffices.
LG seems to be coming from the perspective of the dichotomy between material existence and spiritual existence; whereby an individual person can inhabit either, or be shifting inbetween, with both of them mingled; while spiritual existence is the one true existence, and the material existence is an excursion of the living entity into seeming independence.
But I am trying to make a point that covers both positions - i.e. whether we believe all existence is material or not. Thus the qualifier is needed.
Whether one comes from the perspective of dualism or not, the question/issue/point still stands:
- If one holds that life is material (or a pattern of activity of matter etc, or some other wholly material concept) then it is still not "material existence" per se that is the problem but the interaction of a certain structure of that material (that we call "I" or life) and the rest of matter that causes problem.
- On the other hand, if one holds that life is non-material then it is still not material existence per se that is a problem but the interaction of that non-material "life" with matter that causes problem.
A universe devoid of life (whether you consider life to be non-material or a pattern of activity of a certain structure of matter etc) would still exist... and would still have a material existence.
It would have no problems.
Thus problems are evidently not inherent in material existence per se.
The common denominator of "problems" is life - however you define life, or whatever you regard life to be: material or non-material - and the interaction of that life with (other) matter.
LG is claiming that material existence itself is inherently problematic.
I am asking him to clarify his claim, given the argument above, as I simply can't agree with him on this.
He obfuscates by saying it's been addressed, or that I know what he means.
Yet he doesn't point out any issue with the argument itself.
If he means "material life" then he needs to be so clear... because more things have existence than those that have life.
Which is why I suggested you go back to the thread where we discussed precisely all these points
:shrug:
You seem to think merely being discussed equates to satisfactory resolution?
Perhaps you can summarise your position - for the sake of clarity within this thread - so that others won't have to read through the 30+ pages of the other one (possibly concluding, as Wynn did, that it was indeed inconclusive on the matter).
Perhaps you can summarise your position - for the sake of clarity within this thread - so that others won't have to read through the 30+ pages of the other one (possibly concluding, as Wynn did, that it was indeed inconclusive on the matter).
I guess you should just take it from my last post there ... and if you want to add something you should also add it there too
You raised the claim again in this thread, LG.
It behooves you to respond to criticism of that claim in this thread.
Surely if your position was clearly stated in that other thread, it should be no trouble for you to provide clarity here?
It behooves you to respond to criticism of that claim in this thread.
Surely if your position was clearly stated in that other thread, it should be no trouble for you to provide clarity here?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
No sane person could possibly read the whole thing from beginning to end. (Ability to do so would be proof that the reader wasn't sane.) One of the lesser-known laws of nature says that as Sciforums threads advance past 100 posts, their signal-to-noise ratio approaches zero. (Calculus stuff.)
"Us"? I think that this thread started in the context of some argument that was taking place on a different thread at the time. My guess is that some of the board's louder and more combative atheists had been pontificating with seeming-authority about theists' claims to 'know God'.
That's how I, and probably most philosophers of religion along with me, would define the word 'atheist'. But that definition is controversial on Sciforums and on some of the other internet venues where atheists gather. They prefer to define 'atheist' as something like 'somebody who lacks belief in God'. The motivation for that move is twofold: First, they like to argue that everyone was originally a default atheist when they were born. And second, they believe that defining 'atheist' that way makes them immune from the kind of "prove it!" challenges that they are always hurling at theists.
Atheists will typically dismiss theists' claims to 'know God', so they must have some idea about what the phrase means.
That intentionally aggressive question kind of presupposes that not only do you know what theists mean when they say that they 'know God', you also possess some slam-dunk justification for dismissing whtever-that-is and equating it with belief in things like the tooth-fairy. That probably calls for some elaboration, which in turn kind of justifies the original question in this thread, doesn't it? We've come full-circle.
Perhaps we're still trying to get to the root of this very question, but what exactly constitutes a problem? Suffering? Well, okay, that certainly is a problem to those who are experiencing it, but how does that then translate to the idea of existence having inherent problems?
Make that three-fold: That's the actual definition of the term.
Okay, now that that little (apparently inconvenient) matter is out of the way, I have to ask...do you believe that people are born as default theists?
It's interesting that you constantly harass posters who get fed up with Wynn's trolling nonsense, but never chastise Wynn when she goes into full tantrum mode. I wonder why that is...
Yazata
We perfer that definition because it is the only rational one if no evidence is available one way or the other about god's existence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The claim that god does not exist is just as irrational and indefensable as any claim that he does. The absence does lead to the conclusion that god probably does not exist for the atheist, the same could be said of most people regarding Unicorns as well. A(without)theism(belief in a god)means only that. Saying god does not exist is a step beyond what atheism is defined as and is a religious belief of it's own.
Not until the theist defines what he means about his particular idea of god. To repeat a good example is Spinoza's god. While I do not accept it, I can also not refute it either. Now, if they claim Thor causes thunder, that's easy to refute. While atheists may have a very vague idea of what a theist means by the term "know god"(knowing Spinoza's god means knowing nature, knowing Thor means something else entirely)without knowing more about what the theist asking the question means the question is unanswerable.
Sarkus
Yeah, that's what passes for rational debate for LG.
Grumpy
We perfer that definition because it is the only rational one if no evidence is available one way or the other about god's existence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The claim that god does not exist is just as irrational and indefensable as any claim that he does. The absence does lead to the conclusion that god probably does not exist for the atheist, the same could be said of most people regarding Unicorns as well. A(without)theism(belief in a god)means only that. Saying god does not exist is a step beyond what atheism is defined as and is a religious belief of it's own.
Not until the theist defines what he means about his particular idea of god. To repeat a good example is Spinoza's god. While I do not accept it, I can also not refute it either. Now, if they claim Thor causes thunder, that's easy to refute. While atheists may have a very vague idea of what a theist means by the term "know god"(knowing Spinoza's god means knowing nature, knowing Thor means something else entirely)without knowing more about what the theist asking the question means the question is unanswerable.
Sarkus
Yeah, that's what passes for rational debate for LG.
Grumpy
If humans exist, and humans have problems, then existence (that which exists) has problems.
And I'm sure homicide detectives are similarly content with just saying "there is a murder" without investigating possible causes.
E.g. Is the suffering inherent in matter / material existence (if so does a rock suffer?); or is it in interactions between certain forms of matter?
Having established (or perhaps we haven't?) that it is not matter per se that has problems... does all "life" (regardless of, or specific to a, definition) suffer?
Does a flower suffer?
Or are such problems only pertinent to a certain level of complexity of life... i.e. limiting it's applicability still further - not inherent in mere matter, and possibly not even inherent in all of life?
That doesn't follow. Suffering and death are problems to an individual, but they aren't problems to the whole, and they certainly aren't problems to existence itself. When my grandfather died, that was a problem for him. But his death made room for his progeny, thus serving a purpose greater than himself.
So how can it be a problem if it is a completely natural part of the cycle, and indeed helps that cycle continue?