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

[Grumpy]

 

[DaveC426913]

Its the nature of a world view to contextualize a (practically) infinite set of things - such as a world with divine influence and a world without divine influence

No. Again, you make this same error. Theism and atheism are not two sides of the same coin.

Theism is one side of the coin. Atheism is no coin at all.

Theists have a world view with divine influence.

The rest of us have a "world view" wherein a bunch of people are deluded about one thing or another - be it about God, teapots or Planet X, they are the same to us. They believe in things without adequate evidence.


P.S. Atheists did not invent the term atheism. A theist did.

Atheists accept the term because labeling doesn't really bother them. While you claim they are atheistic, they see themselves as having merely rational.

 

[ashpwner]

Something akin to what you tell a child to help sleep at night. A reverse boogy man for us mortals facing death if you will.

 

[Yazata]

If atheism is a world view, then everything ever defined that someone doesn't believe is as well. Not believing in Russell's Teapot is a "worldview", as is not believing in ghosts, as is not believing in push gravity, chemtrails, perpetual motion machines, bugblatter beasts and planet X.

A great deal will depend on precisely what it is that somebody believes doesn't exist, or has no ideas about at all, and on what implications the exclusion of that thing would have for other beliefs about the world.

God has historically been a central pillar in worldviews. The existence, nature and activity of God impact how people imagine the ontology of the universe, the direction, goal and meaning of history, how people should behave ethically, the goal of human life, and on and on.

And it was always a tenet of cosmological views that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Ancient men were wrong on this one, why is it not possible they were wrong about god(s) as well?

Of course. I think that it's highly probable that they were wrong.

But that's not the issue that I was addressing. I was arguing against Dave's idea that not believing in things doesn't contribute to shaping worldviews. It often does. The impact depends on what implications that not believing in something has for other fundamental aspects of the worldview. There are few if any global implications associated with not believing in Dave's intentionally frivolous examples, but there are tremendous implications in rejecting or ignoring some of the varieties of God-belief.

The issue I'm interested in here isn't whether or not God-beliefs are true. It's a more philosophical point about the wider implicatins of not believing particular things.

Superstition is the handmaiden of ignorance about reality and the ancient men who created those god(s) concept(s) were profoundly ignorant of reality and the Universe, thus they explained the world in superstitious and supernatural terms with miracles and magical events and entities.

That's likely true. (But see below.)

In other words, by expressing their lack of theistic belief, an atheist is simultaneously suggesting a host of more positive implications about the scope and parameters of how their own worldview is likely to fill out, about how their view of a Godless universe will look once the details are filled in.

More non-sense. My lack of belief in your god concept means I don't believe in your god concept, nothing else.

My god concept? When have I ever defined a god-concept, let alone espoused one?

My point was that your not believing in any of the more common theistic god concepts implies that you are unlikely to believe that there's any divine purpose, direction or goal to history. You're unlikely to believe that there's any inner affinity between man and the divine. You won't be apt to interpret historical events as this-worldly images of divine purposes. You're unlikely to interpret mathematics, natural law and universals generally as reflections of ideas in the mind of God. You are probably less apt to explain natural events teleologically in terms of their supposed purposes. You won't be a proponent of some varieties of religious art. Your ethics will probably be stoutly naturalistic. Your vision of human flourishing will be this-worldly. You probably won't be fearing postmortem judgement or looking forward to the beatific vision.

The point is simply that lack of belief in God can make a tremendous difference in how people conceive of the world around them. It's hard to imagine any single belief whose absence would make more difference.

But it's nevertheless true that not believing in things whose existence we may have no suspicion of and have no way of knowing about is still a big part of what defines the nature of our worldviews at any particular time.

It's irrelivant to your world view and plays no part in it.

So not knowing/believing that the world is round has nothing to do with thinking the world is flat? Not knowing/believing that stars are distant suns has nothing to do with thinking that stars are little lights up on the dome of the sky?

Using the history of science as an example, the ancients held views about biology that didn't include what we know today about biochemistry, physiology, evolution and genomics. They held views about the larger universe weren't built around local heliocentrism, orbital mechanics, or any knowledge of what lies beyond our solar system. So doing the best they could in the circumstances, they advocated vitalistic biology, medical theory that involved balancing 'humors', and cosmologies filled with perfect circles, crystalline spheres and quintescence.

And due to the lack of Dogma in science, we now know better. But because of Dogma in religion such error remains mired within the concepts. This REALLY doesn't help your case at all.

Once again, the point was that the things that we lack knowledge of or belief in can and often do have bigtime effects on how we conceive of the world around us and on the adaquacy of our views of that world.

What we are ignorant of cannot be an influence on our world view. It is only as we become aware of these things that they can be incorporated into that world view. Finding out the Earth went around the sun rather than vice versa CHANGED our world view(in ways the Catholic Church killed to try to prevent)from a man centered one to one not centered on man, a profound change indeed.

Ok, so what about your own words from up above:

"Superstition is the handmaiden of ignorance about reality and the ancient men who created those god(s) concept(s) were profoundly ignorant of reality and the Universe, thus they explained the world in superstitious and supernatural terms with miracles and magical events and entities."​

You seemed to be asserting the same view that you're now denying.

 

[Arioch]

@Yazata --

I was arguing against Dave's idea that not believing in things doesn't contribute to shaping worldviews. It often does.

But that still doesn't make it, itself, a world view.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

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

If atheist " knew god" then why would they be atheist to begin with?:shrug:

 

[DaveC426913]

There are few if any global implications associated with not believing in Dave's intentionally frivolous examples,

They were not intentionally frivolous, though I grant it looks that way. I tried to think of a dozen examples of things that are false yet a significant number of people believe in them.

but there are tremendous implications in rejecting or ignoring some of the varieties of God-belief.

Such as?

There are tremendous implications in not having a bomb shelter in your backyard. Do you have one? Can you afford to take the chance?

 

[Arioch]

@Dave --

I tried to think of a dozen examples of things that are false yet a significant number of people believe in them.

You could have always drudged up the old YEC thing, though Yazata definitely would have gotten defensive and claimed that those views don't represent the majority of believers(which is true but irrelevant because it's still believed by a significant number of people in various forms across many beliefs). Failing that you could use a past false belief as an example, like the incredibly widespread belief that science would never be able to tell us the difference between living matter and non-living matter(which it has done so). That's always a good example of that sort of thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

If atheist " knew god" then why would they be atheist to begin with?:shrug:

That's not what the question is asking. The question is asking what a non-believer thinks a believer is experiencing.

Q: "What do you think having a phantom limb feels like?"
A: "I've never had a phantom limb, but I am certainly able to tell you it is an illusion of the mind."

 

[Grumpy]

Yazata

I was arguing against Dave's idea that not believing in things doesn't contribute to shaping worldviews.

But Dave was correct, what you don't know about does not shape your world view. It makes no difference whether that unknown thing/idea/belief is true or not, until the concept is introduced to you, you cannot incorporate it into your world view. And that may have serious consequences, but then necessity is the mother of invention.

but there are tremendous implications in rejecting or ignoring some of the varieties of God-belief.

Not nearly as tremendous as in a false belief in same. Belief replaces reason.

It's a more philosophical point about the wider implicatins of not believing particular things.

See above.

My god concept? When have I ever defined a god-concept, let alone espoused one?

Fair enough, replace "your" with "a".

My point was that your not believing in any of the more common theistic god concepts implies that you are unlikely to believe that there's any divine purpose, direction or goal to history. You're unlikely to believe that there's any inner affinity between man and the divine. You won't be apt to interpret historical events as this-worldly images of divine purposes. You're unlikely to interpret mathematics, natural law and universals generally as reflections of ideas in the mind of God. You are probably less apt to explain natural events teleologically in terms of their supposed purposes. You won't be a proponent of some varieties of religious art. Your ethics will probably be stoutly naturalistic. Your vision of human flourishing will be this-worldly. You probably won't be fearing postmortem judgement or looking forward to the beatific vision.

But that is a good thing. These are false conclusions(IMHO). Belief in gods has been one of the most destructive influences in human history. I disagree about art, however. I can appreciate the ceiling of the Sistene Chappel on it's own merits, while dismissing as superstition whatever the motives for it's creation(Michealangelo was likely an Atheist as well as being a homosexual). I thouroughly enjoyed the "Underworld" films without the least bit of belief in the existence of Vampires and Werewolves. It's called "Fiction".

And "more likely to" is not "you believe these things", so you do not know what my philosophy will be if I reject supernatural explanations. So Atheism only tells you that my world view is not religious in nature, it tells you nothing about what those beliefs are as you are trying to assert.

The point is simply that lack of belief in God can make a tremendous difference in how people conceive of the world around them. It's hard to imagine any single belief whose absence would make more difference.

The belief that you are god's chosen and that you know his will has had a profoundly corrosive effect on human civilizations and is much more likely to have tremendous detrimental effects than being uncertain about what is right or wrong(and applying reason to the question). It would be a good difference, not a bad one. ALL changes in paradigms have an effect.

So not knowing/believing that the world is round has nothing to do with thinking the world is flat?

It is irrelivant to that belief. Believing the world is flat is IGNORANCE of the facts, roundness doesn't enter into your worldview until you are introduced to the concept, THEN you can incorporate it into your model. That doesn't mean there are not consequences to your false belief in flatness, it just means your model cannot anticipate those consequences. If, after experiencing those consequences, you stick to the dogma of flatness you are being religious about your belief. If you re-examine your belief in light of those consequences you are being rational about what you believe. In the first case you will continue to be surprised by those consequences(your world view has not changed), in the later, you will have learned something and incorporated that roundness into your world view. Neither can happen UNTIL you experience those consequences. So unknown things cannot be an influence on your world view, only the things you know or believe have such influences.

Once again, the point was that the things that we lack knowledge of or belief in can and often do have bigtime effects on how we conceive of the world around us and on the adaquacy of our views of that world.

Adequacy, yes(as illustrated above), effects on how we see the world, no.

Once again, the point was that the things that we lack knowledge of or belief in can and often do have bigtime effects on how we conceive of the world around us and on the adaquacy of our views of that world.

Once again, the adequacy and effects, yes, but the formation of world views and beliefs, no, until those inadequacies and effects become apparent THEN it can be an influence.

What we are ignorant of cannot be an influence on our world view. It is only as we become aware of these things that they can be incorporated into that world view. Finding out the Earth went around the sun rather than vice versa CHANGED our world view(in ways the Catholic Church killed to try to prevent)from a man centered one to one not centered on man, a profound change indeed.

”

Ok, so what about your own words from up above:

"Superstition is the handmaiden of ignorance about reality and the ancient men who created those god(s) concept(s) were profoundly ignorant of reality and the Universe, thus they explained the world in superstitious and supernatural terms with miracles and magical events and entities."

You seemed to be asserting the same view that you're now denying.

Read what I said again. You are conflating the consequences of our beliefs with the formation of those beliefs in the first place. When the worldview was formulated what was unknown and it's effect was not incorporated into it, it is only after experiencing the effects of the unknown, exposing the inadequacy of the original world view, that such unknowns can subsequently be an influence(because they are now known)on the new or modified worldview. False beliefs do have consequences, but until those consequences are evident they have no influence on what was originally believed.

Grumpy

 

[Yazata]

I was arguing against Dave's idea that not believing in things doesn't contribute to shaping worldviews. It often does.

But that still doesn't make it, itself, a world view.

It's true that nobody has ever proposed any convincing way to individuate worldviews. No precise way of determining what constitutes an individual worldview, one rather than more than one.

I suppose that we could define 'worldview' as the sum total of how an individual (person? culture?) conceives the world. In which case beliefs in the existence or non-existence of things or kinds of things would be components of the worldview.

In that case, we couldn't really speak of a 'Christian worldview' either, or a generic 'theistic worldview' if such a thing is possible. They would just be components of the total picture.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

That's not what the question is asking. The question is asking what a non-believer thinks a believer is experiencing.

Oh! I know that!...a delusional global mental state brought on by years of brainwashing and with combination of “claimed” encounters with extra dimensional forces or entities triggered by an influx of Neurological chemicals, Electromagnetism (God Helmet) and the fear of what happens to our “ soul” a.k.a personality and thoughts after our body dies…does that sum it up or did I miss something?
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/god_helmet.htm
http://www.existence-of-god.com/arguments-for-atheism.html


psy·cho·sis
   [sahy-koh-sis]

noun, plural -ses  [-seez]
1.
a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.
That pretty much sums what christians encounter with their " god"

 

[Yazata]

but there are tremendous implications in rejecting or ignoring some of the varieties of God-belief

Such as?

I posted a whole set of them in my last reply to Grumpy a few posts above. Basically a greatly reduced likelihood of imagining the world in the sorts of ways that theistic believers often do. Atheists are far less likely to conceive of the world in ways that make explicit reference to God, God's earthly purposes, God's desires, to history being some kind of religious drama with a final divine consummation, to divine judgement, and so on.

There are tremendous implications in not having a bomb shelter in your backyard. Do you have one? Can you afford to take the chance?

What kind of implications does having a backyard bomb shelter have on the larger totality of how one conceives of the universe?

If the presence of the bomb-shelter is associated with a view of the universe as a dangerous threatening place, of one's life as hanging by a thread over impending doom, then it might. It wouldn't be the bomb shelter so much as what motivated it. We're talking about ideas here.

 

[Arioch]

What kind of implications does having a backyard bomb shelter have on the larger totality of how one conceives of the universe?

Well, still being here to conceive of the universe would seem to be a rather large impact to me.

 

[spidergoat]

If you do have a backyard bomb shelter, you have no faith. As a matter of fact, if you stop for stop signs and traffic lights, you have no faith.

 

[DaveC426913]

I posted a whole set of them in my last reply to Grumpy a few posts above. Basically a greatly reduced likelihood of imagining the world in the sorts of ways that theistic believers often do. Atheists are far less likely to conceive of the world in ways that make explicit reference to God, God's earthly purposes, God's desires, to history being some kind of religious drama with a final divine consummation, to divine judgement, and so on.

That is circular. And not a little bit baffling in its naivete.

It's like saying 'some of the tragic consequences of not believing in ghosts are that you can't meaningfully participate in seances or watch GhostHunters with a sense of awe'.

(In case I wasn't clear: seances and GhostHunters are as silly as ghosts.)

It's like saying 'some of the tragic consequences of not believing in perpetual motion machines are that you can't spend your natural life trying and failing to add just ooooooone more gear to get that extra erg of work out of it'.

 

[lightgigantic]

from another thread :

“
Originally Posted by wynn
Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject, to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
Try to really, seriously believe that.
”
spidergoat : I already do! What's your problem with reality?

feel free to explain how this world view (typified but certainly not exclusive to the atheism spidergoat presents) is not a consequence of atheism.

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

It may well be a consequence of atheism, however it's far from the only possible consequence(I know atheists who became more "spiritual" after they lost their belief in god). Also, that a worldview can be a consequence of atheism, that doesn't make atheism a worldview.

 

[ughaibu]

wynn: Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational,

spidergoat: I already do! What's your problem with reality?

feel free to explain how this world view (typified but certainly not exclusive to the atheism spidergoat presents) is not a consequence of atheism.

No explanation is required, on the contrary, in order to establish that it is a consequence of atheism, you need to show two things:
1) that no theist can believe all the things listed
2) at least one atheist can believe all the things.
Personally, I doubt very much than any mentally healthy person can believe that everyone and everything in the universe is unpredictable and irregular, the counter-examples are too many and obvious.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

It may well be a consequence of atheism, however it's far from the only possible consequence(I know atheists who became more "spiritual" after they lost their belief in god).

regardless which way you want to spin spiritual with quotation marks, its still giving rise to a world view

Also, that a worldview can be a consequence of atheism, that doesn't make atheism a worldview.

No more than theism, feminism, communism or capitalism

:shrug: