Atheists, Agnostics, and Theists Have It All Wrong.

I'm no expert on either Bible or Christianity, that's why I'm asking the question.

If the answer is the whole Bible, then it is a rubbish definition (more than the necessary conditions), if the answer is less than the whole Bible, then you should be able to say so.

And so have I, which is one of the reasons why must reject the notion of atheism, since they are just as unable to pinpoint what they mean by God.

I have not said that anyone is evil and I believe I have been consistent in saying that God is incomprehensible at least since I became a theological noncognitivist. I'm not saying we have to bottle God up in a test tube and mix him with chemicals until we know every single feature, I just want a specific way to tell him from a BIC pen.

Finally, that took you how long? And it wasn't that hard either, was it? I can appreciate that this is not a complete definition, and perhaps not one that will be accepted by all, but it's a great start.

So let's now assume that the Big Bang happened "naturally" (I'm not stating here that it did, this is a thought experiment), would that make Big Bang a god? Or are there more necessary conditions?

 

You'd be well advised to consider the topic at hand, the impossibility of defining god is an ignostic position which is being commented on.
No, the majority of atheists here do not argue that god can not be defined or the term used in a meaningful way without defining it - that would be ignosticism.

Read and understand what is being said.

 

I believe agnosticism is defined to be (shortened for our purposes) thinking that whether God exists or not is unknowable or unknown. I know it's not correct any more, but it should do for our purposes.

Anyway, without a definition of God, this could be a statement that the existence of BIC pens is unknowable. I know that BIC pens exist, therefore, to be agnostic towards BIC pens would be wrong, therefore, being agnostic towards God can be either reasonable or not reasonable depending on your definition of God.

Another thing I feel I should add here is that we're talking about the general case here. If a Muslim and a Christian debates about the features of God, then God is fairly well defined. The uncertainties that exist are not relevant. The theological noncognitivist argument is often not applicable towards theists, because they know what god they are talking about. However, figuring out whether that god exists or not again requires a definition that allows you to tell whether an observed (or unobserved) object is God or not.

 

I'd say this is a good summary.

i agree.

I have noticed that the specific god is named or at best described rather than defined. When someone talks of Allah, we know it's not Zeus' attributes which are up for discussion, if someone argues God is merciful, we know it's not Gaia they're referring to.

But the actual definitions are not given. Often theists prefer to argue about an abstract creating entity of the universe, and somehow unspokenly assume any argument confirms their specific belief in a personal creator god.

In this respect I agree to an extent with the OP, but wouldn't go as far as saying discussions are meaningless but rather tedious to argue about something for whichh no set definition is agreed on.

 

Its in the very same Bible that you routinely quote to tell us we are murderers and rapists.

Now, despite being confident enough to tell us we are rapists, you cannot find anything about God in the Bible?

That is a bit like saying you can't find a tree in the forest.

Its simply not an honest position.

 

I rarely quote the bible, nor do I tell anybody here they are rapists.
Quit posting moronic hyperbole, a little intellectual honesty would be appreciated.

And I haven't looked for the definition of God you claim is in the bible - I asked you several times to make good on your claim and show the quotes.

No amount of rhetoric and accusations will shift that burden nor make anybody else somehow guilty or responsible for the failure to deliver.

 

Bt you do quote it. So thank you for quatifying that you rarey do it, an dtherefore you are ignorant in this context of teh Bible.

And are totally unable to find God in the Bible?

You are just plane old lazy.

Again, if you cannot find God in the Bible, then you would also be unable to find a tree in a forest. Your protestations hold as much validity.

No amount of accusations or excuses can avoid the obvious conclusion that you are too lazy to look at something. SOmething you rotinely claim is utterly invalid ... but, have now apparently not read (or is it merely rarely quote and thus unaware of what it says?)

Its changing your position on a dime just to disgree.

So either you have been ignorant about the Bible for all the months you have spend attacking Christians, or you are simply lying now.

Its really that simple.

BTW - you have insinuated in the past by quoting deuteronomy that my God commands me to kill and rape. Now, when confronted, like a ny serial abuser, you simply deny it?

Now, how exactly is your intent in those statements misquoted or misrepresented? You can find all that in the Bible, but not God, huh?

Feel free to blow your stack .... again.

 

In English, God with a capital G refers to the god of Abraham as described by the Bible.

I posit that your claim is self-evidently wrong. It is quite possible to claim belief or disbelief in God. "I do not believe in God." There you go, I just did the impossible.

You're thinking about this from the wrong direction. If a phenomena exists outside of our understanding of natural laws, our understanding is wrong--the phenomena is not supernatural. In other words, supernatural things are impossible--if something seems supernatural, it is really part of reality and nature but we simply don't understand how it works.

Belief is not governed by science. Just because something is not scientifically testable does not make it impossible to discuss or disagree about. The notion that a person "cannot believe or not believe" in deities goes directly against observed behavior and professed beliefs.

The god of Abraham, as described by the Bible. God, in the English language, strictly refers to that character. It is a proper name, not a general noun. God with a lower case g refers to the more general sort of omnipotent deity (of a masculine or neutered image).

I think you're presupposing that all people consider deities to be supernatural. I'm an atheist, I do not think that a deity, if one exists, would be beyond reality or natural laws. Clearly, if a deity does exist, our understanding of physics is completely wrong, but that doesn't make the deity impossible or beyond nature.

The reason for a lack of belief in deities stems purely from a lack of observed evidence favoring a deity. If a god does exist, it appears to be concerned only with enforcing the laws of physics. Maybe he considers it moral for objects to attract each other in proportion to their mass.

This is more an argument against a supernatural concept of god than it is an argument against atheism or theism, since the obvious answer to your core issue is that god is a part of reality and nature.

 

A most excellent post Someone. Coming from an admitted atheist, I have to raise you to the top of my ladder with regard to my respect to intellectually honest atheists. I commend you highly.

 

No it doesn't. Provide evidence that this is true.


I posit that your claim is self-evidently wrong. It is quite possible to claim belief or disbelief in God. "I do not believe in God." There you go, I just did the impossible.[/quote] You didn't do the impossible.

You can't belief or disbelief in an undefined word. It's the same as saying "I do not believe in ___."

or

"I do not believe in fjif[pawwjiw4pt."

Anyway, you claim that God in english means the Abrahamic god of the bible. Even if you're right, it doesn't matter in reference to atheism

Atheism is "the lack of belief in a god or gods." See? No specificity, therefore the phrase is meaningless.

That's my point. That makes the word supernatural meaningless. It is impossible for something to be "supernatural" because to be a something, that something must be in reality.

Okay, but if someone claims that their "god" is supernatural, that makes the concept meaningless because something cannot be "supernatural". Existence outside of reality is an oxymoron.

Again, where are you getting this? In Websters, they don't have seperate definitions for God and god so I think what you're saying is baseless.

I'm simply saying that because "god" has no many different meanings to different people, using a blanket statement, "I do not believe in a god or gods" is a meaningless phrase.

Deists believe that the universe or everything is "god"

That's certainly different from monotheistic religions. So if you don't specify, which atheism by its very definition doesn't, the phrase is meaningless.

Okay, you can't use the word "deity" without specifying what you are referring to. You can say:

"The reason for a lack of belief in the character named God in the bible,stems purely from a lack of observed evidence favoring that character." A blanket term like "deity" is meaningless, you must specify because the word has so many different definitions.

It's actually two separate arguments. I'm saying that because atheism uses the term "god" (which has many different definitions that are wildly different) without specifying what they are referring to, atheism is an illogical position.

The other argument is that when people say that their "god" is timeless and existed before anything existed and can be everywhere at once, these are logically incoherent ideas. "Supernatural" implies existence outside of reality, because once something that was described as "supernatural" existed it would be in reality and no longer be "supernatural". It may do things that we can't explain, but it isn't supernatural if it's in reality.

 

I'm beginning to think that Sonofodin has confused the subject and included many arguments and wordings that are not a necessary part of the world view he claims to advocate.

Whether or not someone's concept of God is supernatural or not is not important. This has nothing to do with physics, and more to do with logic (and by saying that, I don't mean "my belief is logical, you're all morons", I'm saying it's concerned with how we construct the statements that make us theists or atheists).

The argument against atheism is that there are many definitions of God, and all should be accepted as valid definitions of God unless otherwise specified (which would not be the case when determining a title for your belief/world view). To be an atheist would be to deny all possible definitions of God. However, since we have no definition to make a clean cut between gods and not-gods, you would be denying concepts which you're not as convinced do not exist and possibly some things you do know exist.

In example. Let's take thunder. I don't know if there is anyone left who thinks thunder in itself is a god, but I'll take it as an example. You believe thunder exists (I hope). You might believe that there is nothing godlike about thunder, that it is completely natural, but some might consider it a god, and more importantly, without a definition of god, you cannot say that it isn't a god. Therefore, by claiming to be an atheist, you would be denying the existence of thunder.

To a large extent, this is a narrow minded and annoying view, which is why I don't bring it up often, but I think it is the only ultimately defendable position, so I allow it to influence what title I give myself.

 

The latter does not follow from the former, and rarely quoting is not the same as "routinely quoting" as you falsely alleged.

There isn't even the pretense to follow basic logic in this opening sequence, and it gets worse:

No, but you seem unable to find the definition of your God in it. lol
Not a single quote or passage to point at, NOTHING!

Hear, hear, it isn't me who made a claim and makes no effort to support it. dooh!

This hatefueled nonsense contributes nothing but spurious insults.

Thanks for playing.

 

I can find it just fine. I have a God I know is real. I am able to tell the difference between God, as defined in the Bible. It is you who cannot.

It is nice to see the 'logic' of atheism though, after repeatedly stating that I will not do this for the atheists asking for it, after several Christians have gone through a put a few things out there, after strating with the Creator of the Universe .... well, suddenly we have gone 12 year old? YOU can't find God in the Bible neut? I think that pretty much defines childish sophistry.

Worse, we were again treated to your faux victimhood, only to find that you do indeed pretend mastery of our faith to cakll rapists, murderers and genocidal maniacs. But .... you cannot find God in the Bible, and the real problem is that Christians are the ones that cannot find it. And someone how this childish game of obstinance is supposed to be logical?

Please tell me stroll, why should anyone take your whirlwind of denial and insult at any cost as anything other than simple trolling?

As for the general audience, you atheists do realize that this kind of behavior does nothing to advance your position? So, I am glad to see that supposed superior in moral conduct atheists turn a blind eye to bad behavior in their ranks, but consider the lot of Christians to be sub-human dolts.

(And please spare me the, "we aren't all that bad!" Well, none of you are standing up to this - as usual.)

 

Yet more offtopic vitriol with no substance and insults, and still no bible quotes defining God.

Thanks for adding nothing to the discussion - again.

 

Thanks for simply repeating the criticism of you behavior (I won't term them debate) and avoiding answering any questions, offering a rebuttal to criticisms, even acknowledging points made in a post, and again playing the victim card.

I believe we call this the death of personal responsibility. (Watch, I will bet he comes back with something to the effect of, "I know you are but what am I!)

Remember atheists, this guy is one of yours.

So if you wonder why you are sliding down the old trust scale ... well, now you know.

 

An atheist is someone who believes in NO God or gods at all. Belief in one God is monotheism which is a subset of theism, not atheism.

 

Well, there is at least one atheist or non-theist on this forum who thinks differently than you. See here http://www.politicalforum.com/4579918-post154.html

Stroll seems to believe that there is something there that deserves worshiping.

 

Atheists are classified by many theologians as self worshippers, the God you worship would, in that case, be you.

 

It's been answered many times, you simply don;t like the answer.

Read the Bible.

The reason I won;t dig for you or the other atheist has been stated as many times.

That fact that you cannot accept that position and are too lazy to look yourself is at this point just the standard atheist internet bully schtick - with the normal super victim cape.

You are expert enough to use our Bible to call us rapists, but cannot find God in the Bible? But you are victim of anger, not its originator ... right.

 

I guess we'll just have to take 'YOUR' word for it.

Love the infallamtory invectve to boot.

 

Lols, who else here would know?
Are you instigating another online trial where I'll have to ask my father and wive to bear witness that I do not worship myself as "God"?

Yes, we know how very fond you are of those.

 

"Read the bible" is not an acceptable 'answer' to the request to back up your claim with quotes - it is a lazy copout at best.
And it sure isn't anybody else's fault that you do not produce the quotes, lol, this failure is entirely YOUR responsibility.

 

Being that you admitted to practicing those occult things and specifically called out numerology, I would speculate and guess that god which you worship would be the 'god of science'... bear in mind now, that is just a guess, because even if I knew factually what god you worshiped, you would deny my announcement of which god it is that you worship.

 

Which is the idiotic nonsense?

Your admissions?
Your questioning of which god you worship?
Your challenge to name the god that you worship?

The fact that you got caught in making the admission?
The fact that your rationalizations (making of excuses) would begin and they now have?

Surely you can do better than that stroll?

 

Then take your position down in the bogs and wait for some unsuspecting soul to venture by. Be careful and make sure you dodge all those silver bullets.