100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What is an atheist? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Define "God" please. A doG walking backwards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Define "God" please. A doG walking backwards. I saw a dog walk backwards once. He had just gone down a rabbit hole and met up with a rattlesnake and he walked backwards all the way out of the hole after being bit on the nose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
an agnostic doesn't believe in god either. An Agnostic is someone who is NOT sure if there is a God or no God at all . He or she still thinks about the issue . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tohyup
on
Wed 10/14/09 03:42 PM
|
|
Sorry folks double posts....again...!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Define "God" please. A doG walking backwards. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
an agnostic doesn't believe in god either. An Agnostic is someone who is NOT sure if there is a God or no God at all . He or she still thinks about the issue . nope. as regards religion, an agnostic thinks that the human mind is not capable of knowing the existence of gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena. no reason to think about the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Define "God" please. A doG walking backwards. a dyslexic atheist doesn't believe in dogs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
an agnostic doesn't believe in god either. An Agnostic is someone who is NOT sure if there is a God or no God at all . He or she still thinks about the issue . nope. as regards religion, an agnostic thinks that the human mind is not capable of knowing the existence of gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena. no reason to think about the issue. I don't think that is what an agnostic is. (But first you would have to define "god" or "gods.") And why would the "human mind" not be capable of knowing of the existence of gods? If said gods do indeed exist, they can certainly be "known" to exist if they were to reveal themselves. If a God were to reveal himself, claim to be a God, demonstrate his power, there would be some who believed him and some who did not. An atheist would not believe him. (I would not believe him, simply because I don't believe in Gods.) But perhaps an agnostic, might be convinced. Or at the very least he would soon discover if he was really an agnostic or an atheist. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 10/14/09 05:07 PM
|
|
So, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. You shouldn't trust Wikipedia.. It's not always right, ya know. My son could define something on there.. He's only 8... Bushidobillyclub is a pretty smart guy. I try to pay attention to what he writes. I don't always agree with him though.  [to whoever mentioned the fallibility of wiki, not sure I didn't read the whole thread, srry! : )] Yes, I myself would not cite wiki, if I did not think it was accurate. Claiming because something comes from wiki, it is not accurate is itself a confirmation bias. If you can show why these statements are not accurate that would be a great start and different from just out of hand saying because its on wiki it therefore must be wrong. _____ Ruth, I have always liked you, you have always been very honest, respectful, and open minded in all of our conversations even when we did not agree, I always really appreciate that.  I have lots of very "spiritual" friends, I myself remain skeptical of all such claims, its just who I am. But that does not change the nature of my friendships with those people. I just try to keep my understandings of words as simple as possible and no simpler, it helps understanding. And Ruth to answer your question: So, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. Yes, that is what it means, now it says nothing why they do not believe, nor what they actually do believe. An atheist could be whats called a weak atheist like myself where we make it clear that we are not saying a being labeled god with various fantastic abilities cannot exist, just that we see no evidence for it, and our paradigm is one that we require rigorous evidence to found beliefs. After all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence --Carl Sagan. OR There are also strong atheists which do take the tact that god cannot exist, many times they cite reasons such as, a complex being such as a all powerful creator would itself require an even more complex creator, or environment with which to evolve from, and that there is no evidence of such things, or that they may have specific gods in mind when they say such a being could never exist, or that the natural world provides positive evidence for a god not being needed, ect. Many times direct logical paradox's are used such as Epicurus notion of the impossibility of an all loving, all knowing, all good being and the inherent contradictions. I myself do no subscribe to this line of reasoning, I see it as a complex web of rationalization, I myself can imagine a deistic non interfering initiator as infinitesimal and unlikely that may be, or the pantheistic god is nature, which I find to be more an argument from semantics, yet still a formative possibility. Its a deep topic, but one I enjoy as long as the participants can understand that the word, or label itself says very little about what the person in question actually does believe, it merely says a single thing about what they do not believe. We atheists, do not believe in god. an agnostic doesn't believe in god either. An Agnostic is someone who is NOT sure if there is a God or no God at all . He or she still thinks about the issue . nope. as regards religion, an agnostic thinks that the human mind is not capable of knowing the existence of gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena. no reason to think about the issue. Gnostic, pertains to knowledge. The knowledge of things spiritual to be exact, that is of course if we could exactly define the word spiritual, something I have always been left unsatisfied with. However, agnostic says little about belief, it says everything about what can be known, or a belief of what can be known. The word itself has a couple of subtly different definitions. Its good to be careful not to mix and match. One such definition is just as JR has stated and is the traditional definition. A person who believes that we cannot know if god actually exists ever. This is usually based on the limitations of the human mind, or the fact that god is thought to be either only an initiator, or outside spacetime ect, many such arguments can illustrate why this might be so. Another definition is not that we cannot know, but just that the body of evidence currently is insufficient, this is a more modern definition, after all who knows what we will know given the amazing advancements in understanding the information age has illuminated. So we have two flavors of atheism, and two flavors of agnosticism. These terms IMHO are not mutually exclusive. In fact using the later definition of agnosticism, while remaining skeptical of the existence of god leads you down my path of weak, or agnostic atheism. I do not believe, there for I am an atheist. I do not rule out, there for I remain agnostic (using the lighter more modern definition). I find it to be a whole other ball of wax to actually define god, so that we could create objective criteria for the labeling of a being that could fit such a definition. Quite a hard affair I imagine. I am always fond of such conversations with believers, it really gets the mental juices flowing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Wed 10/14/09 05:07 PM
|
|
an agnostic doesn't believe in god either. An Agnostic is someone who is NOT sure if there is a God or no God at all . He or she still thinks about the issue . nope. as regards religion, an agnostic thinks that the human mind is not capable of knowing the existence of gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena. no reason to think about the issue. I don't think that is what an agnostic is. well many disagree on definitions. here's the dictionary definition. ag⋅nos⋅tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ag-nos-tik] –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge. agnostic really has nothing to do with religion. gnostic means known. agnostic means unknowable. the second definition describes a pure agnostic like myself who thinks that nothing is knowable absolutely. i related this thinking to this religious discussion when i mentioned that god is unknowable. (But first you would have to define "god" or "gods." god is not my word. it's somebody elses. if i say, "i believe in a giberdabishary. and you say i don't believe in a giberdabishary, are you required to define giberdabishary before you can not believe in it? it's not just god's that are unknowable to agnostics. nothing is absolutely knowable other than our own experiences as we see things. And why would the "human mind" not be capable of knowing of the existence of gods? If said gods do indeed exist, they can certainly be "known" to exist if they were to reveal themselves. ah but i can know what i experience as the definition holds. if i do experience god then belief is not an issue. i know he exists because i've experienced him. i don't know that he exists now because i have nothing but other's testimony to rely on. If a God were to reveal himself, claim to be a God, demonstrate his power, there would be some who believed him and some who did not. An atheist would not believe him. (I would not believe him, simply because I don't believe in Gods.) well then you do need to difine god. i was refering to god or gods that can be found in scripture such as the bible or the koran, etc. if a being were to appear and perform such feats as the bible claims i would give consideration that some very superior being in terms of power indeed does exist. god is not my word. i use the term so as not to confuse the issue. you keep asking people who don't believe in god to define god. now you say you don't believe in god. great, then you must have defined god. so define god for us. But perhaps an agnostic, might be convinced. Or at the very least he would soon discover if he was really an agnostic or an atheist. well every atheist i know, i don't know you of course, denies the existence of gods for only one reason. that reason being that they've seen no convincing evidence to support even a theory that he exists. if what you describe is not evidence then i don't know what is. is he god like he claims? well we're back to you defining god for us before we can answer that. my bet would be that many if not most atheists and agnostics would be saying, "wow, this looks an awful lot like the work of that god those christians are always talking about in the bible." but until such a thing as you describe happens and i have only testimony to rely on, my mind and i believ the mind of every other human cannot know whether or not gods exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. You shouldn't trust Wikipedia.. It's not always right, ya know. My son could define something on there.. He's only 8... Bushidobillyclub is a pretty smart guy. I try to pay attention to what he writes. I don't always agree with him though. [to whoever mentioned the fallibility of wiki, not sure I didn't read the whole thread, srry! : )] Yes, I myself would not cite wiki, if I did not think it was accurate. Claiming because something comes from wiki, it is not accurate is itself a confirmation bias. If you can show why these statements are not accurate that would be a great start and different from just out of hand saying because its on wiki it therefore must be wrong. _____ Ruth, I have always liked you, you have always been very honest, respectful, and open minded in all of our conversations even when we did not agree, I always really appreciate that. I have lots of very "spiritual" friends, I myself remain skeptical of all such claims, its just who I am. But that does not change the nature of my friendships with those people. I just try to keep my understandings of words as simple as possible and no simpler, it helps understanding. And Ruth to answer your question: So, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. Yes, that is what it means, now it says nothing why they do not believe, nor what they actually do believe. An atheist could be whats called a weak atheist like myself where we make it clear that we are not saying a being labeled god with various fantastic abilities cannot exist, just that we see no evidence for it, and our paradigm is one that we require rigorous evidence to found beliefs. After all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence --Carl Sagan. OR There are also strong atheists which do take the tact that god cannot exist, many times they cite reasons such as, a complex being such as a all powerful creator would itself require an even more complex creator, or environment with which to evolve from, and that there is no evidence of such things, or that they may have specific gods in mind when they say such a being could never exist, or that the natural world provides positive evidence for a god not being needed, ect. Many times direct logical paradox's are used such as Epicurus notion of the impossibility of an all loving, all knowing, all good being and the inherent contradictions. I myself do no subscribe to this line of reasoning, I see it as a complex web of rationalization, I myself can imagine a deistic non interfering initiator as infinitesimal and unlikely that may be, or the pantheistic god is nature, which I find to be more an argument from semantics, yet still a formative possibility. Its a deep topic, but one I enjoy as long as the participants can understand that the word, or label itself says very little about what the person in question actually does believe, it merely says a single thing about what they do not believe. We atheists, do not believe in god. an agnostic doesn't believe in god either. An Agnostic is someone who is NOT sure if there is a God or no God at all . He or she still thinks about the issue . nope. as regards religion, an agnostic thinks that the human mind is not capable of knowing the existence of gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena. no reason to think about the issue. Gnostic, pertains to knowledge. The knowledge of things spiritual to be exact, that is of course if we could exactly define the word spiritual, something I have always been left unsatisfied with. However, agnostic says little about belief, it says everything about what can be known, or a belief of what can be known. The word itself has a couple of subtly different definitions. Its good to be careful not to mix and match. One such definition is just as JR has stated and is the traditional definition. A person who believes that we cannot know if god actually exists ever. This is usually based on the limitations of the human mind, or the fact that god is thought to be either only an initiator, or outside spacetime ect, many such arguments can illustrate why this might be so. Another definition is not that we cannot know, but just that the body of evidence currently is insufficient, this is a more modern definition, after all who knows what we will know given the amazing advancements in understanding the information age has illuminated. So we have two flavors of atheism, and two flavors of agnosticism. These terms IMHO are not mutually exclusive. In fact using the later definition of agnosticism, while remaining skeptical of the existence of god leads you down my path of weak, or agnostic atheism. I do not believe, there for I am an atheist. I do not rule out, there for I remain agnostic (using the lighter more modern definition). I find it to be a whole other ball of wax to actually define god, so that we could create objective criteria for the labeling of a being that could fit such a definition. Quite a hard affair I imagine. I am always fond of such conversations with believers, it really gets the mental juices flowing. well said. neither all christians, muslims, jews, atheists, or agnostics can all agree on what a christian, muslim, jew, atheist, or agnostic actually is. i am simply not in the least religion. as a philosopy on life i adhere to humanism. hahahaha. i know, here we go again. so i post the following from the institute of humanist studies: Humanism is a philosophy of life inspired by humanity and guided by reason. It provides the basis for a fulfilling and ethical life without religion. ◦Humanists make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. ◦Humanists see no convincing evidence for gods, the supernatural, or life after death. ◦Humanists believe that moral values are properly founded on human empathy and scientific understanding. ◦Humanists believe we must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have -- that, therefore, we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other, and our world. Humanist philosophies have arisen separately in many different cultures over many thousands of years. Whether or not they use the term humanism, tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people around the world agree with the humanist philosophy of living a happy and productive life based on reason and compassion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 10/14/09 05:35 PM
|
|
The definition I was using was the idea of God as a supreme being who created us and the world and who has supernatural powers.
That is the common definition of God, or a god, not mine. If I were to see such a being, I would then probably believe in supernatural beings, but I would not necessarily believe that I was seeing the almighty God. He could be just an imposter.  And if these beings do exist, there are probably a lot of them, many of which might attempt to impersonate a god. For if one an agnostic, says that "the ultimate cause" or God is unknowable I might agree. Hence I would be an agnostic. But if one says that God, a supreme being and creator exists I would have to disagree, hence I would be an atheist ... according to them. So what I would be called depends on how you are refering to or defining God. If "God" is the "ultimate cause" that may well be unknowable. (But I don't even know that.) And if "God" is a supreme being and creator of man, then I don't believe that supreme being IS GOD but I'm not going to say that he or they (supreme beings) do not exist. They might. In short: I don't know if "the ultimate cause" can be known. (Maybe it can.) I don't know if supreme beings exist, (maybe they do) (I think aliens exist, and they may think they are supreme beings, and they may have convinced humans that they are gods.) I guess I just don't believe anyone anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For if one an agnostic, says that "the ultimate cause" or God is unknowable I might agree. Hence I would be an agnostic. again, the word agnostic does not relate to god as the words theist and atheist do. gnostic relates only to knowledge and agnostic to unknowable. an agnostic thinks nothing is knowable absolutely hense god is likewise unknowable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____ Ruth, I have always liked you, you have always been very honest, respectful, and open minded in all of our conversations even when we did not agree, I always really appreciate that. I have lots of very "spiritual" friends, I myself remain skeptical of all such claims, its just who I am. But that does not change the nature of my friendships with those people. I just try to keep my understandings of words as simple as possible and no simpler, it helps understanding. And Ruth to answer your question: So, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. Yes, that is what it means, now it says nothing why they do not believe, nor what they actually do believe. An atheist could be whats called a weak atheist like myself where we make it clear that we are not saying a being labeled god with various fantastic abilities cannot exist, just that we see no evidence for it, and our paradigm is one that we require rigorous evidence to found beliefs. After all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence --Carl Sagan. OR There are also strong atheists which do take the tact that god cannot exist, many times they cite reasons such as, a complex being such as a all powerful creator would itself require an even more complex creator, or environment with which to evolve from, and that there is no evidence of such things, or that they may have specific gods in mind when they say such a being could never exist, or that the natural world provides positive evidence for a god not being needed, ect. Many times direct logical paradox's are used such as Epicurus notion of the impossibility of an all loving, all knowing, all good being and the inherent contradictions. I myself do no subscribe to this line of reasoning, I see it as a complex web of rationalization, I myself can imagine a deistic non interfering initiator as infinitesimal and unlikely that may be, or the pantheistic god is nature, which I find to be more an argument from semantics, yet still a formative possibility. Its a deep topic, but one I enjoy as long as the participants can understand that the word, or label itself says very little about what the person in question actually does believe, it merely says a single thing about what they do not believe. We atheists, do not believe in god.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a linguistic terms " God " is the creator . If you do not believe in a creator then you are an Atheist . Unless we respect the linguist terms we just create a chaotic language ... I think the cats out of the bag, with that one! This is why I (and the better dictionaries, too) use the word "deity" rather than "God" when discussing theism and atheism. People use the word God to mean just about anything at all these days. Language is a matter of consent, so as they do so, they reshape the language. The "God" of theism is not just any kind of God, but a God that also qualifies as a "Deity". Now as far as "God" being "the creator" - does that include an impersonal creator? an accidental creator? a 'creator' that creates through mindless mechanism? what if a committee created the universe? Or is it only a singular, deliberate, conscious creator? Seriously, because there are people who consider themselves atheist who admit that the universe could have had a cause. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bushidobillyclub is a pretty smart guy. I try to pay attention to what he writes. I don't always agree with him though. I agree! And if we disagree with him, and have good reason for it, he will listen. ----- Bushido, obviously I completely agree with you on this topic, but I also think this was very well said. I find if you do not find the least common denominator then you cannot fully understand words like atheist. Start at the bottom and work your way up, I happen to prefer the most reduced form myself. Theist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theist Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. I have bolded the parts I think are most important to come away with in this definition. So we have . . . Belief His/her Personal Active Governance If you do not believe that the word god represents a singular, personal, active governing stand alone entity with desires and wants then you are not a theist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....someone brought out the actual definition...thank you Atheist: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity Deity : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful Yes, I completely agree that this is one valid definition for atheist. Its also the most commonly used one. Historically, this use has so overshadowed another use that some dictionaries only give this definition. As a consequence, many people (including educated people) believe that this is the only definition for atheist. Atheist also means 'one who lacks belief in a deity'. The agnostic just says they arent sure one way or the other. JRBogie may have a bone to pick regarding that!  But I think that you are both right. There are many who say they are agnostic, and that by this they mean that they are not sure one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theist = A person who's willing to believe in things with no proof. Atheist = A person who must have proof before believing in anything. Agnostic = A person who offers Theists and Athesits cognac, steak and potatoes.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You shouldn't trust Wikipedia.. It's not always right, ya know. My son could define something on there.. He's only 8... Taken at face value, I think this is a good public service announcement. I think just about everyone here knows this already, but I could be wrong. However, all sources are written by fallible people. All sources have a bias. In those areas where I have a strong academic background, I have found wikipedia to be far MORE accurate and reliable than many traditional sources. You would think that hiring professionals would get you better results, but its not always the case. Do you have some particular reason to think that any of the wikipedia quotes in this thread are inaccurate or substandard? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
an agnostic doesn't believe in god either. Yes. That is true. I would like to take this moment to say: I appreciate your sense of humor, JR. |
|
|
|
|
