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

[DaveC426913]

@LG --

I wouldn't call such hopelessly irrational and flawed concepts "working models" since they obviously don't work. So far the only models of god which are even remotely plausible(of the tens of thousands out there) are the deistic models, and those suffer the problem of irrelevance.

I wouldn't go that far.

The models do work; they explain a lot. It's just that they don't do it as well as the a- theistic model. The theistic models raise more questions than they answer.

And it is wrong to suggest irrelevance. It is certainly relevant to the lion's share of the human race.

 

[Grumpy]

JDawg

Aw, shucks:shy: But what I said is not any different than what has been said, in different ways, by many others in this thread.

DaveC426913

The models do work; they explain a lot.

I agree, to a point. Man has always sought explanations of the world and those who have no means to investigate will create models that seem to explain it. Such as lightning being Odin's spear and thunder Thor's hammer. To the limited world of the Vikings it made perfect sense. Simularly, the flat Earth, man centered Universe of the Catholic Church served the same purpose and worked fairly well before some smart a__ named Bruno questioned it(and they burned him alive). But what served a purpose in an ignorant, authoritarian, dictatorial world fails in an inquisitive and informed one.

aaqucnaona

No rational atheist can ever be an atheist to ALL gods. I am a spinozist myself and an agnostic for deism. A working definition of God as a person creator being who has created the universe as well as the individual and helps and intervenes in their life is the definition that most atheist think of since that is the most relevant in our life. The concept must be provided by the theist, since the specific stance on a God can only be given once the one making the assertion defines his God. For example, everyone is an atheist to Zeus, but it is logically impossible to be an atheist to the Spagetti monster.

While I disagree that a rational atheist cannot be an atheist regarding all gods(though, if they are rational, they can only say they are atheistic to all gods so far presented), I would not argue with someone who accepts Spinoza's concept first because neither of us can ever know whether he exists or not and second because it is at least plausable(though unnecessary). But saying you are agnostic about the Deist's god is a bit redundant, as one of the main tenets of Deism is that nothing can be known about god, he created the Universe and went on permanent vacation long before man even existed, having created Nature as an intern to take care of the details. As to the FSM, I know for a fact that spaghetti actually exists and am a dedicated Pastafarian(may he ladle his Sacred Sauce down upon your head and cover you with Parmesian and Romano with a side of Garlic bread).

Grumpy

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes. It is.

no its not ...... a great deal of henological debate exists on the subject .....

Again. No matter how you dress it up, in a million myriad ways, God has, at its core, an initial premise that atheists do not accept, absent evidence.

and how?
by dresssing up in a million myriad ways the quality/value /function ( aka... definition ... definition quite opposed to what might be generally offerred by a theist I might add ...) of god and also the epistemoloical frameworks that surround it ....eg. if something existed beyond the mind and senses an investigation with the mind and senses would have revealed it by now

God, by any definition that has ever been posited to any atheist anywhere, ever, is beyond matter, beyond the 4 fundamental forces, beyond time as we know it.

which is slightly different than the theistic version that has no requirement for placing god dichotomatically beyond it, but rather holistically as the cause of it ...... a difference not so subtle to hve immense ramificatios when elucidating details of knowing and evidencong the claim

Atheists see no evidence that the universe has - or requires - any but those things.

hence the metaphysical prequisites of the atheistic world view practically prohibit investigation of subject .... supplementing the divine aspect of this world with a belief that matter does it and the hope that empiricism will show us how ( a claim that is not proven and serves no other requirement than justifying the atheist ideology)

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

I wouldn't call such hopelessly irrational and flawed concepts "working models" since they obviously don't work. So far the only models of god which are even remotely plausible(of the tens of thousands out there) are the deistic models, and those suffer the problem of irrelevance.

wellduuuh thats the atheists job description isnt it .....

the point still stands that atheists still require working models to launch their criticisms
from and thatyou have offerred nothing to even acknowledge how many of these models are uniquely atheist since they are not supported by theisyic models

technically its called dumbing down the argument or offering strawmen

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

the point still stands that atheists still require working models to launch their criticisms

We've covered that ad nauseum, and you lost. The working models must come from those who create them, theists.

technically its called dumbing down the argument or offering strawmen

We've dumbed down the facts as far as we can(even my dog is looking at me with a thoughtful expression). That you can't or won't accept the facts is not our fault. If we are talking about god concepts it is up to the theist to provide definitions, THEN we can tell you why you are wrong.

Grumpy

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



We've covered that ad nauseum, and you lost. The working models must come from those who create them, theists.

then I guess you have to explain why the god and the relationships he has the phenomenal world as explained by theists is substantially different from the god and the relationships he has with the phenomenal world as explained by atheists (even if atheists only call upon such a theoretical concept purely for the sake of trying to explain why claims of his existence are not valid)
:shrug:

If you want to manufacture a valid criticism of god you have to do a lot more than simply throw the word "god" amongst it all ... much like adding "quantum" in any discussion doesn't somehow magically render it somehow a valid scientific discourse

We've dumbed down the facts as far as we can(even my dog is looking at me with a thoughtful expression). That you can't or won't accept the facts is not our fault. If we are talking about god concepts it is up to the theist to provide definitions, THEN we can tell you why you are wrong.

Grumpy

I guess an important aspect of offering a strawman and trying to get a way with it is to fabricate a definition for a key term and then claim that it belongs to the opposing party ..... by all means proceed

 

[Arioch]

We've covered that ad nauseum, and you lost. The working models must come from those who create them, theists.

And if we find the models to be lacking then we reject them, it's as simple as that. We, as atheists, are by no means required to know every permutation of the concept of god to reject the ones that are being presented been presented.

 

[lightgigantic]

And if we find the models to be lacking then we reject them, it's as simple as that. We, as atheists, are by no means required to know every permutation of the concept of god to reject the ones that are being presented been presented.

correction : you take the models, reconstruct the values (such as by placing god in a dichotomy opposed to the phenomenal world) , reject them as lacking (never mind that its not to difficult to even encounter commentaries by theists who openly reject notions of god valued in such a lop-sided manner) and then claim the said definitions are the exclusive property of the opposing party.

Strawman 101

:shrug:

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

the metaphysical prequisites of the atheistic world view practically prohibit investigation of subject

Atheism is not a world view, it is simply not accepting a theist's world view as valid. And if it is real(your god)it will be evident for all, if it is not evident it is irrelivant and most likely a delusion or mental construct having no reality outside your own mind.

Atheism is a philosophy or world view like not collecting stamps is a hobby. If it is my world view you wish to discuss we would be talking about Humanism and Christianity(Jesus's philosophy, not the religion), not Atheism. Theist scientists and Atheists ones examine the same reality and(if they are honest)come to the same conclusions.

supplementing the divine aspect of this world

And what is the divine aspect of this world, other than your own personal opinion. Got any evidence it exists outside your fevered mind?

Grumpy

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



Atheism is not a world view, it is simply not accepting a theist's world view as valid.

so a world view is not a world view when it rejects a world view ?
Is this an attempt at comedy?

And if it is real(your god)it will be evident for all, if it is not evident it is irrelivant and most likely a delusion or mental construct having no reality outside your own mind.

Knowing a claim is entirely dependent on fulfilling the epistemological requirements - it has no need to be democratic .....to suggest otherwise is simply the rambling of imagination

Atheism is a philosophy or world view like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

there is a branch of atheism that is like that - if you want to start labeling chairs and tables as atheist ... the moment you start offering a academic (or even pseudo-academic) criticism of theism is the moment you are heading in the direction of philosophy

If it is my world view you wish to discuss we would be talking about Humanism and Christianity(Jesus's philosophy, not the religion), not Atheism. Theist scientists and Atheists ones examine the same reality and(if they are honest)come to the same conclusions.

That says nothing about your need to place god diametrically opposed to the phenomenal world in order to lend credibility to your criticism of theism.

And what is the devine aspect of this world, other than your own personal opinion. Got any evidence it exists outside your fevered mind?

Grumpy

Just try talking about how life is a materially reducible phenomena without the hope that empiricism will someday evidence the claim if you want evidence of a fevered mind

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

You're just too much sometimes, I almost find myself thinking you're a Poe.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

You're just too much sometimes, I almost find myself thinking you're a Poe.

I find that when the topic becomes too academically foreboding for your wrath to negotiate you slide into ad homs

:shrug:

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

you take the models, reconstruct the values (such as by placing god in a dichotomy opposed to the phenomenal world)

How can you say this with a straight face when every Atheist here has told you to go ahead and define your god(present your model in your own terms)so we can discuss it? We don't seperate god from reality, nor do we offer any definition of god whatsoever. And if your god exists it will be evident within that reality(one whole thing). It is the theist who claims god exists seperately from that reality(unseen things)in some sort of supernatural plane beyond the reach of reason, not the Atheist. The Atheist says if god exists there will be evidence of that existence in the real world, he will define himself. Since we see no evidence, we conclude that in all likelyhood he doesn't exist.

never mind that its not to difficult to even encounter commentaries by theists who openly reject notions of god valued in such a lop-sided manner

So, commentaries that say Angels don't wear dancing shoes? And what values are you talking about, we have presented none. We can't even start a discussion about god until the creators of the concept(theists)present what it is they are talking about. I think you are having a one sided argument with the strawman you yourself constructed.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

so a world view is not a world view when it rejects a world view ?
Is this an attempt at comedy?

It's an attempt to reason with one who simply has none, evidently. So, not collecting stamps is a hobby to you?

Knowing a claim is entirely dependent on fulfilling the epistemological requirements - it has no need to be democratic .....to suggest otherwise is simply the rambling of imagination

Throwing the word epistemological into a sentence doesn't make it contain less gibberish, you know.

there is a branch of atheism that is like that - if you want to start labeling chairs and tables as atheist ... the moment you start offering a academic (or even pseudo-academic) criticism of theism is the moment you are heading in the direction of philosophy

Actually, criticizing non-sense does not a philosophical statement make. A(without)theism(religious belief)only tells you what my philosophy does not entail, nothing else. Just like being a non-stamp collector tells you nothing about hobbies I do have, it just tells you that I do not collect stamps.

That says nothing about your need to place god diametrically opposed to the phenomenal world in order to lend credibility to your criticism of theism.

I'll type this slower so you can follow along. If your(or any other)god exists, he exists within reality(within the phenominal world)and there will be real evidence in that phenominal world that shows his/her/it's existence and he will define himself by that evidence(exactly the opposite of your quote and accusation above).

Just try talking about how life is a materially reducible phenomena

You mean biology? Organic Chemistry? Evolution? Abiogenesis? Prebiotic chemistry? Nucleosynthesis? Life is a chemical reaction that started with hydrogen and helium 13.7 billion years ago, became carbon and oxygen, iron and nitrogen in the hearts of stars long gone supernova, leading to the birth of our solar system about 4.5 billion years ago and the chemical evolution that led to the first self replicating molecules, then to us. Amino acids(the building blocks of proteins)exist in abundance in the dust clouds in interstellar space, it's just primed to seed life everywhere that the conditions are right. Life is materially reducable to the laws of the Universe acting on the matter within it, even though our Universe is better at creating Black Holes.

Grumpy

 

[aaqucnaona]

I would not argue with someone who accepts Spinoza's concept first because neither of us can ever know whether he exists or not and second because it is at least plausable(though unnecessary).

I dont accept the entire spinozist philosophy like the personal relationship part or the waves in the cosmic ocean and so on. My spinozism is a blanket term for a quasideistic natural order in the world - the beauty and wonder of the workings of the cosmos and our ability to understand it through physics and mathematics is what I really refer to. It is extremely vague and isnt more of an appreciatory view on the universe than some cosmic theism.

As to the FSM, I know for a fact that spaghetti actually exists and am a dedicated Pastafarian(may he ladle his Sacred Sauce down upon your head and cover you with Parmesian and Romano with a side of Garlic bread).

Grumpy

Lol. But the creator of the FSM had indeed made the concept as such that it cannot be really refuted. That is the central point of the parody, that even a ridiculous and man-made creation myth/religion does a better job than all 'real' religions.

 

[Yazata]

the point still stands that atheists still require working models to launch their criticisms

We've covered that ad nauseum, and you lost. The working models must come from those who create them, theists.

It seems to me that anyone, whether atheist or theist, who intends the noises they make to mean something, to be words in other words, will have to have some idea in mind of what their words mean. That meaning might be some sort of definition, or perhaps some way of fixing the reference of a word by ostension (such as fixing the reference of proper names by pointing -- "That's John Jones over there"). And if a person's use of words is going to have any hope of communicative success, the people hearing the words are going to have to share a suitably similar understanding of what the words mean.

I'm not convinced that use of the word 'God' always succeeds in communicating any clear-and-distinct meaning. The various historical uses of the word 'God' have been too various. At times the word seems to communicate a mood more than an idea. At best it's what philosophers sometimes call a family-resemblance concept. Different people have used the word to mean a whole variety of things, but those things tend to bear a family resemblance to each other that arguably justifies use of the same word.

My own view is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make positive or negative statements about God, or to say that one believes or doesn't believe in God, unless some additional information is provided about how the word is being employed on that particular occasion.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



How can you say this with a straight face when every Atheist here has told you to go ahead and define your god(present your model in your own terms)so we can discuss it? We don't seperate god from reality, nor do we offer any definition of god whatsoever. And if your god exists it will be evident within that reality(one whole thing). It is the theist who claims god exists seperately from that reality(unseen things)in some sort of supernatural plane beyond the reach of reason, not the Atheist. The Atheist says if god exists there will be evidence of that existence in the real world, he will define himself. Since we see no evidence, we conclude that in all likelyhood he doesn't exist.



So, commentaries that say Angels don't wear dancing shoes? And what values are you talking about, we have presented none. We can't even start a discussion about god until the creators of the concept(theists)present what it is they are talking about. I think you are having a one sided argument with the strawman you yourself constructed.

Grumpy

It appears that you have given up reading responses and are simply going on a type of tirade .

There doesn't seem to be much point continuing dialogue with you since you just come back to repeating the same monologues oblivious to the pokings and proddings that most would warrant as invitations to progress or sustain discussion.

:shrug:

You haven't addressed any points in this post or the one before, other to somehow suggest that topics of philosophy are somehow ignoble to your imaginative rants about science and religion.

You haven't explained how one can enter into an antithesis without calling upon a defined term.

You haven't explained why the defined term offered by atheists in their critiques appears vastly different from theists (your reluctance to start venturing into offering a discussion of an atheist critique doesn't parlay this issue - There are several popular atheist options to choose from)

You haven't explained why your ideas of reality are somehow exempt from the same failings you attribute to religion (even though marrying empiricism to post dated rain cheques is an obvious failure in anyone's books)

And the final irony is that you supplement all these short comings with an upfront refusal to concede philosophy its due in all your wild, whacky and unsubstantiated conclusions.

:shrug:

 

[Yazata]

Atheism is not a world view

I think that it is. Or at least one fundamental premise of a worldview. (The rest of the worldview would then have to be fleshed out in various ways.)

it is simply not accepting a theist's world view as valid.

Which in turn can have big-time implications about how and what one thinks the world is (and isn't). For example, being an atheist might make it difficult to read worldly events as material images of divine purposes, as people in late-antiquity and early medieval times sometimes did.

And if it is real(your god)it will be evident for all, if it is not evident it is irrelivant and most likely a delusion or mental construct having no reality outside your own mind.

You've just defined a hurdle that you believe a proper god must clear.

Atheism is a philosophy or world view like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If somebody who doesn't collect stamps expresses ideas, whether positive or negative, about collecting stamps, then that person obviously has ideas about collecting stamps.

It's kind of disingenuous for atheists to forcefully express all kinds of opinions about "religion", "theism", "God", or whatever the target of the day is, then run for the protective cover of their 'atheism is simply lack of thesm' redoubt whenever they receive incoming fire.

The only way that the weak-atheist 'we hold no views of our own' position can succeed in providing immunity from the need to defend one's views is if atheists remain as silent and void of ideas about religion as the stones that they claim as their atheist brothers.

 

[Arioch]

@Yazata --

You've just defined a hurdle that you believe a proper god must clear.

It's not just a hurtle that god claims must clear, but one that all existence claims must overcome. This isn't defining a god so much as it is setting standards of evidence for various claims of various sorts.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



It's an attempt to reason with one who simply has none, evidently.

Then you had better start quickly providing reasons to explain how one can contextualize, invalidate or otherwise impair an existing world view without somehow calling upon some other world view

So, not collecting stamps is a hobby to you?

If they go to the extent of posting on forums, writing books and forming groups solely about the follies, inadequacies, shortcomings,small mindedness and intellectual misdemeanors of persons who collect stamps, then it can quite easily become one, yes.

Throwing the word epistemological into a sentence doesn't make it contain less gibberish, you know.

you 're right
It depends entirely on whether a person understands what the word means ... the sentence "there is no evidence for god's existence" calls upon the same prerequisites

Actually, criticizing non-sense does not a philosophical statement make.

Now that is nonsense

A(without)theism(religious belief)only tells you what my philosophy does not entail, nothing else. Just like being a non-stamp collector tells you nothing about hobbies I do have, it just tells you that I do not collect stamps.

As mentioned before that depends on the type of atheism - if its the atheism of tables and chairs so be it - go sulk in the corner with them and we will hear nothing of it . If it involves going on for pages on tirades about how god is a crock and the notion subverts ideas of reality for reasons A B and C I'm afraid you have blown your chance to play that card
:shrug:

I'll type this slower so you can follow along. If your(or any other)god exists, he exists within reality(within the phenominal world)and there will be real evidence in that phenominal world that shows his/her/it's existence and he will define himself by that evidence(exactly the opposite of your quote and accusation above).

lol

So rather than talk about an atheism that requires god and the phenomenal world to be diametrically opposed you would rather talk about an atheism that requires god to be contingent on the phenomenal world --- fine. I'm not sure how this helps you in your quest to establish that the definitions of god are exclusively the property of theists.

Let me know when you get around to discussing the version with the phenomenal world as contingent on god, k?

You mean biology? Organic Chemistry? Evolution? Abiogenesis? Prebiotic chemistry? Nucleosynthesis? Life is a chemical reaction that started with hydrogen and helium 13.7 billion years ago, became carbon and oxygen, iron and nitrogen in the hearts of stars long gone supernova, leading to the birth of our solar system about 4.5 billion years ago and the chemical evolution that led to the first self replicating molecules, then to us. Amino acids(the building blocks of proteins)exist in abundance in the dust clouds in interstellar space, it's just primed to seed life everywhere that the conditions are right. Life is materially reducable to the laws of the Universe acting on the matter within it, even though our Universe is better at creating Black Holes.

Grumpy

I guess you forgot to add the bits for evidencing this (without feverish promises of how "'nless science do sumtin bout it ... 'n I kno dey workin onnit" mind you)