Redefining Athiesm: You cannot fully accept until you fully understand.

[John Cuthber]

 

John Cuthber,

 

If the word "God" is already used for something, then there must be that something that the word "God" is used for.

 

As there are pieces of paper we put ink on in agreed upon and understood patterns that we call newspapers. The thing we are referring to by the word newspaper has an agreed upon meaning to refer to existing things that we have created and brought into reality. Perhaps the word "God" in its agreed upon meaning is referring to those real things that we (humans) had no part in bringing into existence, but that non-the-less have an agency about them. And we need a common word to refer to this other-than-known agent.

 

Have you revealed that you too believe in God, by this statement?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

 

 

No,, of course it doesn't. We use the word Unicorn or Hobbit.

It doesn't mean they exist.

More relevantly, we can use words like "big bang"

[Bill Angel]

Not quite sure that questioning the intentions of a creator can be done, without imagining one to question the intentions of. If the universe is to have no intentions, then what its going to do next has not yet been experienced, has not yet been concieved of, and certainly we, as universe material, can not "fully understand" ourselves as solid anchors on one end of a thusly "terminated" continuum.

I don't believe it is necessary to speak in terms of intentions of a creator in order to make predictions as to the future of the universe. Cosmologists are concerned about questions such as whether the universe is flat or curved and how much matter the universe contains. Based upon determinations of matter and curvature, they can make predictions as to weather the universe will keep on expanding forever, or whether a "Big Crunch" will occur with all of the universe disappearing in a singularity. There is no need to bring speculations about a the nature of a God or his intentions into the picture.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Bill Angel

[Science>Myths]

Sorry I guys I had a paper to do!!!I am a fairly young Atheist for my age. My question was-Should you be knowledgable about Atheism and what it means? ( to me it means I believe in science over leprechauns any day)Or can we (atheist) cope with ignorant ones running around while knowing they are just as ignorant and misinformed just as religious persons. (Christians)

 

I ask that you all please keep in mind I'm a young "un-believer"/aspiring scientist, so if I'm unsure on something don't get upset.Thank you!

[Villain]

 

No,, of course it doesn't. We use the word Unicorn or Hobbit.

It doesn't mean they exist.

More relevantly, we can use words like "big bang"

 

What is it that you mean when you say God or gods don't exist?

[imatfaal]

Sorry I guys I had a paper to do!!! I am a fairly young Atheist for my age. My question was -Should you be knowledgable about Atheism and what it means? ( to me it means I believe in science over leprechauns any day) Or can we (atheist) cope with ignorant ones running around while knowing they are just as ignorant and misinformed just as religious persons. (Christians)

 

I ask that you all please keep in mind I'm a young "un-believer"/aspiring scientist, so if I'm unsure on something don't get upset. Thank you!

 

young ... for your age? Isn't that a bit like being tall for your height? Sorry - excuse the dig - we know what you mean. Whilst being an atheist is technically/linguistically a simple lack of a positive belief as iNow and ydoaps spoke about above - you will find that you are challenged on those views as if they were a positive belief. A brief understanding of the religious argument and the counters are useful if you want to keep your end up in a pub debate (even if you are too young at present for that future treat).

 

As a scientist you need to get a concept of evidence, observation, and theory straight in your head - you can then try to apply this to the question of the existence of god. Do not be tempted into the trap of dogmatic denial - just go where the evidence or lack of evidence would take you if the the question were not so emotionally laden.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

What villian asked.

 

If the word god has an accepted meaning, then it has an existing referent.

 

Or perhaps you meant that the word god means the strawman God that atheistss know can not exist...whose definition is widely accepted by Atheists, is the accepted meaning of God to Atheists.

 

Which would of course not be the accepted meaning of the word God, to the majority of the people on the planet. Each theist has their own esoteric definition, but within their circle, the word God does have an accepted meaning.

 

And you forget that many of us, are still trying to figure out what WE mean by the word.

 

Yours and my image of God, may indeed be built upon mutual referents. After all, we do agree we are in the same universe, and when we agree on that, we are both referring to the same one.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Science Myth, I am young for my age, as well.

[John Cuthber]

 

What is it that you mean when you say God or gods don't exist?

Much the same as when I say unicorns don't exist.

 

Re "If the word god has an accepted meaning, then it has an existing referent."

From WIKI

"In semantics a referent is a person or thing to which a linguistic expression refers"

 

The word "God" refers to an idea- not a thing or person so, in as far as that definition is correct, then you are wrong.

The word God usually refers to some sort of all powerful being that created the Universe.

the word Unicorn usually refers to a roughly horse shaped creature with a spiral horn that can only be tamed by a virgin or shod with silver.

People used to believe in both of these.

Belief in one is now rare because there's no evidence for them.

Oddly, belief in the other persists.

 

In maths i usually refers to the square root of minus 1

 

Perhaps the simplest point is that, while I have heard plenty of definitions of God from various theists I have never seen any evidence of God's existence.

It doesn't seem to matter whose definition of God you choose, He still doesn't exist.

Similarly, some definitions of unicorns have the animal looking like a cow, rather than a horse but, since neither version exists, the details are beside the point.

 

Can you provide a definition for any widely accepted God that actually exists as anything but an abstract concept (like the unicorn)?

I know that there are supposedly people who think that Prince Philip is a God but I don't think that counts even though I think he is real. he doesn't meet the "normal" requirements of being a God. (He's not old enough for a start)

[ydoaPs]

to me it means I believe in science over leprechauns any day

 

That's not really what it is at all. There are atheists that believe in all manner of stupid things like ghosts and ESP.

[Moontanman]

 

That's not really what it is at all. There are atheists that believe in all manner of stupid things like ghosts and ESP.

 

 

Agreed, that is why I generally claim to be a Empirical Rationalist, it kinda thins the herd a bit... not to mention allows you to shift positions in case a leprechaun pops out of the wood work at some point...

 

 

Much the same as when I say unicorns don't exist.

 

Re "If the word god has an accepted meaning, then it has an existing referent."

From WIKI

"In semantics a referent is a person or thing to which a linguistic expression refers"

 

The word "God" refers to an idea- not a thing or person so, in as far as that definition is correct, then you are wrong.

The word God usually refers to some sort of all powerful being that created the Universe.

the word Unicorn usually refers to a roughly horse shaped creature with a spiral horn that can only be tamed by a virgin or shod with silver.

People used to believe in both of these.

Belief in one is now rare because there's no evidence for them.

Oddly, belief in the other persists.

 

In maths i usually refers to the square root of minus 1

 

Perhaps the simplest point is that, while I have heard plenty of definitions of God from various theists I have never seen any evidence of God's existence.

It doesn't seem to matter whose definition of God you choose, He still doesn't exist.

Similarly, some definitions of unicorns have the animal looking like a cow, rather than a horse but, since neither version exists, the details are beside the point.

 

Can you provide a definition for any widely accepted God that actually exists as anything but an abstract concept (like the unicorn)?

I know that there are supposedly people who think that Prince Philip is a God but I don't think that counts even though I think he is real. he doesn't meet the "normal" requirements of being a God. (He's not old enough for a start)

 

 

 

 

Just saying dude...

 

 

Now that I look at it closer that is more of a Cow triceratops....

Edited December 11, 2012 by Moontanman

[Science>Myths]

Thank you guys you are all awesome! I'm glad I got onto this forum!

[iNow]

Some people are awesome-er than others, and some are just jackasses or idiots... but welcome!

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

You can refer to an "idea". And you do not need to locate the brain where the idea resides.

 

I could speak of "bravery" and you would know what it was, without requiring that I provide you a jar full of it, for proof of its exsistence.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

Much the same as when I say unicorns don't exist.

 

Re "If the word god has an accepted meaning, then it has an existing referent."

From WIKI

"In semantics a referent is a person or thing to which a linguistic expression refers"

 

The word "God" refers to an idea- not a thing or person so, in as far as that definition is correct, then you are wrong.

The word God usually refers to some sort of all powerful being that created the Universe.

the word Unicorn usually refers to a roughly horse shaped creature with a spiral horn that can only be tamed by a virgin or shod with silver.

People used to believe in both of these.

Belief in one is now rare because there's no evidence for them.

Oddly, belief in the other persists.

 

In maths i usually refers to the square root of minus 1

 

Perhaps the simplest point is that, while I have heard plenty of definitions of God from various theists I have never seen any evidence of God's existence.

It doesn't seem to matter whose definition of God you choose, He still doesn't exist.

Similarly, some definitions of unicorns have the animal looking like a cow, rather than a horse but, since neither version exists, the details are beside the point.

 

Can you provide a definition for any widely accepted God that actually exists as anything but an abstract concept (like the unicorn)?

I know that there are supposedly people who think that Prince Philip is a God but I don't think that counts even though I think he is real. he doesn't meet the "normal" requirements of being a God. (He's not old enough for a start)

 

Is saying God/gods doesn't/don't exist really adding or subtracting from the concept of God/gods though? From what I understand God/gods are not portrayed as material objects (at least not for long durations of time), saying that God/gods don't exist is ultimately taking an agnostic position towards the knowledge that we could portray of God/gods (which is a given considering the definition and meaning of knowledge). Since there is no meaningful word for describing something that might or might not 'exist' outside of our conception of the universe, although 'universe' itself with our limited experience is no doubt limited in meaning, concluding that unicorns and God/gods have equal non-existence is meaningless unless they are both meant to have existence.

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber,

 

You can refer to an "idea". And you do not need to locate the brain where the idea resides.

 

I could speak of "bravery" and you would know what it was, without requiring that I provide you a jar full of it, for proof of its exsistence.

 

Regards, TAR2

Quite true.

Bravery exists- I could cite examples.

However , what I asked you to do was provide evidence for the existence of the "God" that so many people believe in.

Please do so.

 

"Is saying God/gods doesn't/don't exist really adding or subtracting from the concept of God/gods though?"

Yes, of course it does.

For example, it takes away any point to getting up early on a Sunday to go to church.

It destroys any justification of the role of the church(es) in politics.

It means that one of the largest organisations on earth is a fraud.

 

Did you really not understand that?

[Villain]

 

 

"Is saying God/gods doesn't/don't exist really adding or subtracting from the concept of God/gods though?"

Yes, of course it does.

For example, it takes away any point to getting up early on a Sunday to go to church.

It destroys any justification of the role of the church(es) in politics.

It means that one of the largest organisations on earth is a fraud.

 

Did you really not understand that?

 

No, I fail to understand the meaning of the expression. It seems that you think there is one being conveyed. You put forward 'God' as an idea, therefore God exists as an idea.

[ydoaPs]

some are just jackasses or idiots...

 

Yeah, like that iNow guy!

 

John Cuthber,

 

You can refer to an "idea". And you do not need to locate the brain where the idea resides.

 

We, however, can locate in the brain where ideas reside. We can even reconstruct visual, auditory, and textual experience from brain activity.

 

 

The problem of non-existing referents is actually a big problem in the philosophy of language. And, like a lot of open questions, just about everyone has a different "answer" to it.

 

"The present king of France is bald." Is that sentence true or false? There are quite a few philosophers who would say neither since there is no present King of France and the sentence thus fails to refer (since "present" is an indexical, though, one could hop in a time machine and make it true or false for those philosophers).

 

 

You put forward 'God' as an idea, therefore God exists as an idea.

 

This is actually something that happens in Anselm's Ontological Argument. He starts with the idea of God and then switches to the entity God when you're not looking.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

So would it be correct and true, or incorrect and false, if I were to maintain that unicorn horns are not spiral, but straight, and I could tame one, even though I am not a virgin?

 

As an "idea", the unicorn still is a specific one, and I would be incorrect to make the above claims about it.

 

As an "idea", god, to each religion, is a specific one, and the "idea" of it, is held in the minds of all properly informed about the thing.

 

If I had a secret society, and we in the society had a secret password, which was never and will never be written down, or recorded, or even hinted at...would this password "exist" in reality, as more than just a thought in a particular member's mind?

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

^{May I recommend Karen Armstrong - The Case for God. Excellent discussion. It draws out the ambiguity of theism, which may be naive nonsense or sophisticated philosophy depending on our approach. In particular, (and massively simplifying the issues) it may depends on whether we use a pre or post 17th century idea of God.}

 

^{I find that atheists are ofen very naive in their ideas of what they've decided not to believe in, which bears on the OPs point. After the 17th century the idea of God becomes increasingly naive both inside and outside of our western religions. The atheists here probably have more support within religion than they realise. The idea that the ultimate is an existent being is quite a recent one. More traditional would be the view that God is Being itself or, at least, that this would be he best way to use the word.}

 

^{The real question is about what is 'Ultimate' or 'Absolute' and what to call it. God, Tao, Nirvana, Brahman or maybe just Ingredient X. Physics has no need for an absolute substance or entity being nonreductive, and no room for one since it would be a metaphysical entity, but this doesn't mean that common sense doesn't require one.}

[imatfaal]

 

.....

 

This is actually something that happens in Anselm's Ontological Argument. He starts with the idea of God and then switches to the entity God when you're not looking.

 

There was a very interesting "In Our Time" on BBC radio on the Ontological Argument for any members who would like a basic taste of this particular argument that has been running for at least 900 years.

 

The Ontological Argument - In Our Time

 

Anselm's argument is not quite the legerdemain described above - but it gets quite close with its concept of quality and the characterisation of god as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” The quality of something that exists must be greater than something that is merely imagined. This leads to a logical contradiction if god does not exist - one can think of something (god in reality) greater than “that than which nothing greater can be thought” (god in thought alone).

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber,

 

So would it be correct and true, or incorrect and false, if I were to maintain that unicorn horns are not spiral, but straight, and I could tame one, even though I am not a virgin?

 

As an "idea", the unicorn still is a specific one, and I would be incorrect to make the above claims about it.

 

As an "idea", god, to each religion, is a specific one, and the "idea" of it, is held in the minds of all properly informed about the thing.

 

If I had a secret society, and we in the society had a secret password, which was never and will never be written down, or recorded, or even hinted at...would this password "exist" in reality, as more than just a thought in a particular member's mind?

 

Regards, TAR2

It would be false to say that unicorns have straight horns.

But, more relevantly, it would be false to say that they exist.

An idea can have many attributes such as colour (unicorns are silver or white) or number of legs (4 in the case of the unicorn- unless it's had an accident).

One of the really important attributes you need to consider is that of being real.

It's true for bravery or love, but it's not true for unicorns and God.

 

As I have said, there are many different assertions about the nature of God. The problem is that many of them include an inaccurate assessment of the property of being real.

 

So, once again, I'm asking you for any meaningful definition of God that actually includes being real.

 

re"If I had a secret society, and we in the society had a secret password, which was never and will never be written down, or recorded, or even hinted at...would this password "exist" in reality, as more than just a thought in a particular member's mind?"

No, it would only exist in the members' minds but nobody is saying that the password built the universe or whatever. More importantly, until it actually existed as a spoken word or whatever, it couldn't do anything in the real world.

The concept of God can exist independently of the actuality of god.

 

The night I spent with the Minogue sisters has exactly the same reality as God and the password: it only exists in my mind.

Kylie and Danii can provide evidence that the night concerned doesn't exist.

The problem is that you can't summon God as a witness to prove His existence and anything else really doesn't cut it as evidence. So far as we can test for God, He never does anything.

 

Is it possible to distinguish between something which doesn't exist and something which "exists" but can never be detected and never influences anything?

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

You missed one aspect of my secret society password example. It is real, and will allow members of one chapter identify themselves to members of another chapter. It has real existence, beyond being just a private thought in an individuals mind.

 

But that does not matter. I am not arguing that the God of the Bible exists as depicted in the Bible.

I decided against that being the case, quite early in my life. I am on the side of those that would argue that the "Lord" depicted in the Bible, was only real in the person of the King or Priest who ruled over the "believers". And that this "lord" resided mostly in the psyches and thoughts of the believers.

 

But my arguments pro or con, figurative or literal, are mostly aimed at determining, what real things are worthy of reverence and awe, and determining why it is "so easy" for people to feel they have an "in" with reality, and know it personally. (And I am not so sure that this is a false belief).

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

what real things are worthy of reverence and awe

 

[Ringer]

John Cuthber,

 

You missed one aspect of my secret society password example. It is real, and will allow members of one chapter identify themselves to members of another chapter. It has real existence, beyond being just a private thought in an individuals mind.

 

 

Your secret society example has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. A password doesn't need a referent because it's meaning doesn't need to fall into a semantic category. Much like a string of characters can be a password on a computer, the meaning is not a part of its use so it does not have one. God, in the way it's being used, has a meaning and is being used with the assumption it has a referent so the analogy doesn't apply.

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber,

 

You missed one aspect of my secret society password example. It is real, and will allow members of one chapter identify themselves to members of another chapter. It has real existence, beyond being just a private thought in an individuals mind.

 

But that does not matter. I am not arguing that the God of the Bible exists as depicted in the Bible.

I decided against that being the case, quite early in my life. I am on the side of those that would argue that the "Lord" depicted in the Bible, was only real in the person of the King or Priest who ruled over the "believers". And that this "lord" resided mostly in the psyches and thoughts of the believers.

 

But my arguments pro or con, figurative or literal, are mostly aimed at determining, what real things are worthy of reverence and awe, and determining why it is "so easy" for people to feel they have an "in" with reality, and know it personally. (And I am not so sure that this is a false belief).

 

Regards, TAR2

I didn't miss out the idea that the password is real: I pointed out that, most of the time it isn't very real.

As I said "More importantly, until it actually existed as a spoken word or whatever, it couldn't do anything in the real world.".

Once it's a real bunch of soundwaves , it's real (In principle, of course, it's a bunch of connections in the brains of the society's members).

So, for the third time of asking, please can you give a definition of God that actually corresponds with something real?

If you can't then I suspect people will think you are trolling.

[Villain]

 

The concept of God can exist independently of the actuality of god.

 

The 'concept of x' necessarily exists independently of the actuality of 'x'.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A painter can describe their painting but can a painting describe it's painter.