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

[arauca]

DaveC426913



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

Grumpy

Sorry you are the second wise man mentioning IQ. Do you know what IQ mean , Is it applicable for an older person ? Perhaps it is applicable for you if you are below22 years old.
But I am dumb , please explain what do you mean by "

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

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

Name one. Nothing in science can be called certain. I am pretty darn sure that the sun will appear to rise in the East tommorrow(it has done so throughout human history), but could conceive of several reasons why that might not be true tommorrow. If our magnetic field reversed itself overnight the west would be east, north/south in the morning(it's happened before). Or our Earth could be buzzed by a small Black Hole and flipped on it's side so the sun became our North star and the sun would never appear to move at all. Not likely, but you can never be certain. The Truth(tm) is immutable and always true, I don't think it exists(but I'm not certain). And no sane or honest scientist ever claims what they know(based on current knowledge or evidence)to be The Truth(tm), but many theists do(based on no evidence at all).

I am sure whatever criticisms you have on religion operate out of defining god in order to appear plausible to your mind

I am an Atheist because NONE of the god concepts I have read or heard are plausable to my mind. I do not claim there is no god(but I am convinced that is probably the case), and I really have no idea what a real god would be, nor what his/her/it's attributes, powers or desires would be(but then, the probability that any theist does is vanishingly small as well). Man seems to have created gods(ten of thousands of them), not the other way around. And belief is a poor substitute for evidence and reason. The less reason and ability to gather evidence and experiment, the more gods are used as a substitute explanation of reality.

Grumpy

 

[river]

to 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

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



Name one. Nothing in science can be called certain. I am pretty darn sure that the sun will appear to rise in the East tommorrow(it has done so throughout human history), but could conceive of several reasons why that might not be true tommorrow. If our magnetic field reversed itself overnight the west would be east, north/south in the morning(it's happened before). Or our Earth could be buzzed by a small Black Hole and flipped on it's side so the sun became our North star and the sun would never appear to move at all. Not likely, but you can never be certain. The Truth(tm) is immutable and always true, I don't think it exists(but I'm not certain). And no sane or honest scientist ever claims what they know(based on current knowledge or evidence)to be The Truth(tm), but many theists do(based on no evidence at all).

if you are talking about black holes and are more or less bereft of a degree in astronomy and practical experience in the field you have just proved my point

Im an Atheist because NONE of the god concepts I have read or heard are plausable to my mind. I do not claim there is no god(but I am convinced that is probably the case), and I really have no idea what a real god would be, nor what his/her/it's attributes, powers or desires would be(but then, the probability that any theist does is vanishingly small as well). Man seems to have created gods(ten of thousands of them), not the other way around. And belief is a poor substitute for evidence and reason. The less reason and ability to gather evidence and experiment, the more gods are used as a substitute explanation of reality.

Grumpy

if you aren't running with some definition of god you can't begin to explain why the concept is not plausible

when one sets out to explain the error of a precept they begin by defining the value/quality/function of it - it does not matter whether the subject is mathematics, judicial proceedings, carpentary, philosophy or stock car racing

:shrug:

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

if you are talking about black holes and are more or less bereft of a degree in astronomy and practical experience in the field you have just proved my point

Weak, very, very weak. I taught physics for over 30 years. This included studying and teaching what was known about BHs.

if you aren't running with some definition of god you can't begin to explain why the concept is not plausible

The theists come up with the definitions, they don't pass my plausability filter. Got one in mind? Trot it out.

when one sets out to explain the error of a precept they begin by defining the value/quality/function of it - it does not matter whether the subject is mathematics, judicial proceedings, carpentary, philosophy or stock car racing

When someone claims ridiculous things about their god concept, it's actually pretty easy to pop those balloons. I have not heard a single plausable god concept yet except Spinoza's, though it's not fair to put your god in a gap science cannot know anything about. Believe whatever you like, just don't think your beliefs trump knowledge gained through reason and evidence if you don't want your beliefs dismantled.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

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.

With that kind of imprecision, there can indeed be no discussion.

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.

Of course they don't!

"Do you see any influence of any ill-defined entity?" - "No." - "Neither do I." - "So let's be atheists!"

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.

Your assumption that I believe in God - that assumption of yours is flawed too.
It would do good if you would actually engage in some of that "hair-splitting" - it would help with the communication enormously.

 

[wynn]

When someone claims ridiculous things about their god concept, it's actually pretty easy to pop those balloons. I have not heard a single plausable god concept yet except Spinoza's, though . Believe whatever you like, just don't think your beliefs trump knowledge gained through reason and evidence if you don't want your beliefs dismantled.

Not that anyone has "put" God into "a gap science cannot know anything about" - but why would it not be fair for God to be there?

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

It might help if the theists could give cogent definitions of what they mean by "god", and even if they could(because none ever have) you would very likely get as many different definitions as there are theists. So, since even the people who believe in god can't properly define what god is, how the hell do you expect atheists to do so?

 

[wynn]

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?

Scientists very much use the notion of "The Truth" - so much so that one of them called it "The two dogmas of empiricism."

Just google "Quine two dogmas" to see the amount of discussion on this topic.

Scientists never demand you believe what they say,

Given the sometimes severe consequences for not buying into mainstream science dogma, there is clearly an implicit demand to believe the scientists.

they have evidence to back up what they say and will be happy to walk you through their reasoning and evidence.

No, they do not.

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.

If the atheists admit they "know nothing about any god," how can they call themselves "atheists"?

 

[wynn]

@wynn --

It might help if the theists could give cogent definitions of what they mean by "god", and even if they could(because none ever have) you would very likely get as many different definitions as there are theists. So, since even the people who believe in god can't properly define what god is, how the hell do you expect atheists to do so?

Since atheists claim to be better, more moral, more rational people than theists,

then surely it is in place to expect that atheists would know full well the God they are atheistic about.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



Weak, very, very weak. I taught physics for over 30 years. This included studying and teaching what was known about BHs.[\quote]
if you never did any field work on black holes you were and are simply towing the line, rehashing theoretical components that you never had th opportunity to test, authenticate or investigate ........ rather these tasks were left to the real professionals in the field ( whose conclusions you take on good faith)

The theists come up with the definitions, they don't pass my plausability filter. Got one in mind? Trot it out.

no need
if you have ever offered a criticism of theism you would have aired one already (assuming you went to any exacting detail for your opinion)

hen someone claims ridiculous things about their god concept, it's actually pretty easy to pop those balloons. I have not heard a single plausable god concept yet except Spinoza's, though it's not fair to put your god in a gap science cannot know anything about. Believe whatever you like, just don't think your beliefs trump knowledge gained through reason and evidence if you don't want your beliefs dismantled.

Grumpy

this really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand - if you cant even offer a framework for the term you critiquing (like you are now with the confidence of having already dismantled more than one approach to the subject) its a bit hard to entertain the notion you have a critique at all

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

No, they do not.

Perhaps it's just you, because I've found that every scientist I know(several hundred) is more than willing to walk me through something I don't understand, and they've always had evidence to back up what they say.

 

[wynn]

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.

And you seem to conveniently ignore the specific ontology and epistemology that you implictly employ to evaluate that evidence.

 

[wynn]

Perhaps it's just you, because I've found that every scientist I know(several hundred) is more than willing to walk me through something I don't understand, and they've always had evidence to back up what they say.

Preaching to the converted ...

 

[Grumpy]

Theist: "Do you believe in god?"

Atheist: "Define god."

Theist: "Oh, you know who god is!"

Atheist: "Nope, never met a god, I've got a dog, will that do? I believe in dog."

Theist: "You're just avoiding discussing god!"

Atheist: "You still haven't even defined what the heck you're talking about!"

Theist: "Come on, you know what a god is."

Atheist: "I know that there are tens of thousands of gods man has created over the years, I'm waiting for you to specify exactly which one of these you're asking about."

Theist: "But you know what I'm talking about!"

Atheist: "Nope, and I'm beginning to think you don't either."

Theist: "But you must know what it is you are rejecting."

Atheist: "Well, so far all of the concepts and claims have been less than convincing(if not downright hilarious), got anything new? That Spinoza fellow was at least plausable, but still not convincing."

Theist: "But do you believe in god?"

Atheist: "Were you dropped often as a child?"

Theist: "What's that got to do with it?"

Atheist: "Well, it would explain a lot."

Grumpy

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Since atheists claim to be better, more moral, more rational people than theists,

then surely it is in place to expect that atheists would know full well the God they are atheistic about.

Really? Which atheists have claimed that? I know of several who have claimed that atheists may behave better on average than theists, but I've never spoken to a single one who won't admit that they make such claims on shaky grounds. Theists, on the other hand, have no grounds on which to claim that they behave better on average.

And I don't need to define god as anything to lack a belief in it. When you speak of atheism and atheists you always seem to be implicitly talking about strong atheism which represents a tiny minority of atheists(I've only ever met one, and I know that I know more atheists than you do). Perhaps if you didn't limit your view to only that which represents the smallest fraction of atheists you wouldn't have such a difficult time communicating.

And no, the onus of defining a thing is always with those who assert it's existence. Until theists can come up with cogent definitions of what god is then we atheists don't have to do a damn thing except poke holes in their definitions.

 

[lightgigantic]

Theist: "Do you believe in god?"

Atheist: "Define god."

Theist: "Oh, you know who god is!"

Atheist: "Nope, never met a god, I've got a dog, will that do? I believe in dog."

Theist: "You're just avoiding discussing god!"

Atheist: "You still haven't even defined what the heck you're talking about!"

Theist: "Come on, you know what a god is."

Atheist: "I know that there are tens of thousands of gods man has created over the years, I'm waiting for you to specify exactly which one of these you're asking about."

Theist: "But you know what I'm talking about!"

Atheist: "Nope, and I'm beginning to think you don't either."

Theist: "But you must know what it is you are rejecting."

Atheist: "Well, so far all of the concepts and claims have been less than convincing(if not downright hilarious), got anything new? That Spinoza fellow was at least plausable, but still not convincing."

Theist: "But do you believe in god?"

Atheist: "Were you dropped often as a child?"

Theist: "What's that got to do with it?"

Atheist: "Well, it would explain a lot."

Grumpy

atheist : the rational scientific conclusion is that there is no evidence for god's existence

theist: what definition of god are you working with to conclude thusly

atheist : an atheist per se does not have a definition of god

theist : then how can you ratilnally offer a criticism if the very subject you are critiquely is bereft of any value quality or function

atheist : well duuuuh if there was evidence of those things then we would have a definition for god wouldnt we

theist : errrrrr o........k........ (starts taking slow steps backwards remembering not to make eye contact)

 

[Balerion]

Lotta straw men in here...

 

[Arioch]

Where's my blowtorch?

 

[lightgigantic]

Where's my blowtorch?

careful you might burn yourself