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

aaqucnaona said:
Of course the sun is there. For the existence of the sun, I would be a theist.
Click to expand...
To be perfectly clear, and all kidding aside, none of us (me, arauca, aaqucnaona or spidergoat) would be theists.

There is evidence of the sun that each of us, independently, repeatably and under laboratory-controlled conditions can gather as much as we want and analyze it at our leisure.
 
aaqucnaona said:
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?
Click to expand...

The title of the post.
 
wynn said:
What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

Please discuss.
Click to expand...

means that " to know god " is to look into the past to find where god popped his head

and that means looking into the past back to the Sumerians and Akkadians of which neither called these being gods

the akkadians called them " ILu-lofty ones " from which the Hebrew , biblical EL stems
 
AlexG said:
It's really difficult to carry on a logical conversation with religious zealots.
Click to expand...

it is realy difficult to get an atheist to give a concise definition of reality or god yet they expect their criticisms that pivot on such terms to be taken seriously
 
aaqucnaona said:
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.
Click to expand...

the point of this discussion is lost on you if you think the lowest form of wit evades key issues of literacy that demand value be assigned to terms
 
Grumpy said:
wynn



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:cool:
Click to expand...
the fact that there are professional bodies engaged in weeding out fabrications made in the name of science (as opposed to mere laymen going along with whatever their limited powers of investigation grant them on the subject) and that in many fields there is aconflicting array on exactly what a specific set of data is required in order to solve ( or even what the data signifies ) a specific problems indicates you are simply talking about what you are imagining science to be.

But even then you are calling upon clear definitions for terms in order to air your imaginatons

:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
it is realy difficult to get an atheist to give a concise definition of reality or god yet they expect their criticisms that pivot on such terms to be taken seriously
Click to expand...

You still have it bass-ackwards. This is just not rational thinking.

I refer you back to the Institutionalized Paranoid Schizophrenic. By your logic, you can not address his issues without having a good knowledge of how tinfoil interferes with the propagation of government mind-rays.

Do you think that? Do you think that no one can address IPS's illness without a good understanding tinfoil and mind-rays? Or do you accept that perhaps IPS's premise of his illness is flawed?


P.S. What makes you think atheists don't have a good understanding of what theists call God? Atheists are probably quite well-versed in many aspect os theism. They are assaulted by it all the time. And most of them grew up with it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...

you are evading the question of the op

just like a call on the reason something is existing requires a working definition, so does the call on the criticism of the validity of the reasons (and as anyone who has come within ten feet of comparing the clash between theist and atheist ideologies can tell you, this schism begins at the point of differing definitions to the problem )

iow there is no way one can breach issues of ontology with an absence of value laden terms anymore then there is no way that one can breach a rock face with a nonexistant drill
 
I reiterate

“ Originally Posted by wynn
What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

Please discuss. ”
Click to expand...

means that " to know god " is to look into the past to find where god popped his head

and that means looking into the past back to the Sumerians and Akkadians of which neither called these being gods

the akkadians called them " ILu-lofty ones " from which the Hebrew , biblical EL stems
 
river said:
I reiterate



means that " to know god " is to look into the past to find where god popped his head

and that means looking into the past back to the Sumerians and Akkadians of which neither called these being gods

the akkadians called them " ILu-lofty ones " from which the Hebrew , biblical EL stems
Click to expand...


Now we start with UFOs, aliens, and woo-woos?
 
“ Originally Posted by DaveC426913
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.
Click to expand...




lightgigantic said:
you are evading the question of the op
Click to expand...

just like a call on the reason something is existing requires a working definition, so does the call on the criticism of the validity of the reasons (and as anyone who has come within ten feet of comparing the clash between theist and atheist ideologies can tell you, this schism begins at the point of differing definitions to the problem )
Click to expand...

actually no it doesn't

what the problem is , is the lack of Ancient History

iow there is no way one can breach issues of ontology with an absence of value laden terms anymore then there is no way that one can breach a rock face with a nonexistant drill
Click to expand...

Ancient History will breach this problem once and for all , if we would just read

about our past

all religion starts from the Sumerians and Akkadians , 6000yrs ago , if we just had the will to learn about this past
 
DaveC426913 said:
You still have it bass-ackwards. This is just not rational thinking.

I refer you back to the Institutionalized Paranoid Schizophrenic. By your logic, you can not address his issues without having a good knowledge of how tinfoil interferes with the propagation of government mind-rays.

Do you think that? Do you think that no one can address IPS's illness without a good understanding tinfoil and mind-rays? Or do you accept that perhaps IPS's premise of his illness is flawed?
Click to expand...
on the contrary, a good understanding of tin foil, energies emitted by the mind, systems of ideology propagation, values and powers pursuant with government systems and the unique challenges facing an ips provide a uniform framework through which to contextualize the scenario.

iow far from providing an example where one proceeds in an absence of definitions in order to contextualize an issue, I think you might now be beginning to understand that it is impossible to do so
P.S. What makes you think atheists don't have a good understanding of what theists call God? Atheists are probably quite well-versed in many aspect os theism. They are assaulted by it all the time. And most of them grew up with it.
Click to expand...

at this point of the discussion we are not looking at which definitions are better than others - we are looking at whether it is posible to venture an ontological claim (regardless whether it is a for or against ) in the absence of any definitions
 
aaqucnaona said:
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?
Click to expand...

no

but conceeding this I think you now have a problem if you want to start going on about such studies completely bypassed any working models for the term god in order to render their criticisms valid
 
river said:
lightgigantic

you are missing knowledge of the Ancient past ( 6000yrs ago )
Click to expand...

I filled out the form on the back of the comic book and my copy of the missing knowledge of the Ancients should arrive any day now in a plain brown wrapper.
 
DaveC426913

If you worshipped the sun as God, we could indeed all "know" your God.
Click to expand...

So arauca is using the word "god" to describe a big gasbag of great energy but vanishingly low IQ? Isn't that defining god into irrelivence? Does that make Rush Limbaugh a god?

lightgigantic

the fact that there are professional bodies engaged in weeding out fabrications made in the name of science (as opposed to mere laymen going along with whatever their limited powers of investigation grant them on the subject) and that in many fields there is aconflicting array on exactly what a specific set of data is required in order to solve ( or even what the data signifies ) a specific problems indicates you are simply talking about what you are imagining science to be.

But even then you are calling upon clear definitions for terms in order to air your imaginatons
Click to expand...

Your point? Scientists have never claimed to know "The Truth(tm)", unlike almost every theist I have ever known(including those here). Where there is conflict it is public(else how do you know of it), where there is uncertainty and insufficient knowledge the scientists admit such and suppressing pseudoscience calling itself science, good on them. I need no imagination to know these things, I have experience and study. It works much better at gaining knowledge than faith. You are using a computer, aren't you?

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
lightgigantic



Your point? Scientists have never claimed to know "The Truth(tm)", unlike almost every theist I have ever known(including those here). Where there is conflict it is public(else how do you know of it), where there is uncertainty and insufficient knowledge the scientists admit such and suppressing pseudoscience calling itself science, good on them. I need no imagination to know these things, I have experience and study. It works much better at gaining knowledge than faith. You are using a computer, aren't you?

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...
whatever study and experience you have I am sure it is not sufficient to span the length and breadth of science without calling upon some trade marked truth and I am sure whatever criticisms you have on religion operate out of defining god in order to appear plausible to your mind .......
 
Originally Posted by river
lightgigantic

you are missing knowledge of the Ancient past ( 6000yrs ago )
Click to expand...


AlexG said:
I filled out the form on the back of the comic book and my copy of the missing knowledge of the Ancients should arrive any day now in a plain brown wrapper.
Click to expand...

there is no missing knowledge of the Ancient past Alex , its just that you and many , many others are missing this knowledge

it will open your eyes and thinking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top