Amie

I could use one as well. Perhaps two.

joedad

Amie,

From my perspective anyway, there's a bit of semantic hypnosis involved whenever I see the phrase "believe in god." Why is it necessary at all to "believe in" anything, least of all something that cannot be substantiated? That's not to say that I don't "believe in" such things as personal freedom or friendship or equal justice before the law. But unlike the idea of god, those are things we can get our heads and hands around. We build them and then we "believe in" what we've built. Am I making any sense? To put it another way, it seems there's much more "god in belief" than there is "belief in god" within people generally.

Also, it took me a while to appreciate the value of what Oxymoron just said and what David just amplified, namely, that atheism is common among theists, but that it just goes unrecognized. Assuming David was accurate in his presuming that you do not "believe in" Hindu deities, you must admit that you are atheistic with regard to these Hindu gods.

The word "god" itself has an interesting past and has only come to be a noun as we use it in our English today. The word "Bless" has an equally curious history. Words are a bit like DNA to me. Lots of information inside.

Raised catholic, there was a time when I did not appreciate the non-difference between religion and mythology. Now I see them as two words describing the same thing. It just took some personal deprogramming to make that observation possible. This point was somehow made abundantly obvious to me one morning while still a church-goer when the celebrant felt compelled to state quite emphatically that the resurrection of Jesus was an "indisputable historical fact." I felt like I was witnessing William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech.

I do not know why he chose to be so assertive that day, but my brain – more so than myself if that's possible - didn't agree. To date my brain has held the upper hand. Maybe brains are more rational than we give them credit for. Mine saved me.

no need to cry. {{{{{{{{{amie}}}}}}}}} That's a hug.

joe

seebs

"Atheistic with respect to" is a semantic game at best; if we are to adhere to the idea that atheism is "lack of gods", then it's nicely boolean, no "with respect to".

I think mostly, if I haven't got a definition for anything, I won't form an opinion at all. If I have a definition, I may or may not have enough information to form an opinion. I can rule out some concepts of the divine; I can't rule out others.

I think the theistic concept of "believe in God" is more along the lines of "believe in your friends"; it's not a question of whether or not you think they exist, but whether or not you have any kind of faith in them as people. And, if you do, honesty compells us to admit it's faith, and that sometimes people don't live up to it.

Asha'man

Hi Amie! *waves*

I’m simply not interested in god belief. I want knowledge. I consider myself both an Atheist and an Agnostic, using the formal definitions of both words. (Without belief/knowledge of god/gods) Oddly enough, the Agnostic may be the more important one.

I don’t believe in my car, I know it exists and I drive it to work every day. I don’t believe in my house, it keeps me from freezing on cold winter days like today, and I know it exists. These things are real and indisputable (except within extremes of philosophy, which I generally ignore). I don’t choose to believe in these things, my knowledge of them is a direct conclusion of my senses.

Belief is for things that are unseen and unseeable, knowledge is for things that exist. Why should I have any sort of belief in god when knowledge should be possible?

Now, it may be possible to believe in the love of god, or the goodness of god, but the existence of god seems to be a matter of knowledge, not belief.

David makes an excellent point, that even a very limited definition is sufficient to define what you aren’t believing in. I would extend that thought and say that it is also impossible to believe in something that you know nothing about. I don’t think there is anything between belief and non-belief: either you believe in something, or you don’t. If you are just introduced to a new concept, at that moment you either believe in it or you don’t (with the provision that more information may change your mind later.)

I think you are on the right track, but perhaps still a little muddy in your thinking. (I hope that discussions with us will help you remove more mud than we add, but you never know. )

Asha'man

Ahh, but I wouldn’t really see an angel, would I? I might see what looks like a person with wings, I might see someone with great strength, and the ability to fly, and a strange glow.

An angel is an interpretation of what I see, not the raw input. Calling something an angel would be attaching an unjustified explanation to it, and (in my mind) a pretty poor explanation at that.

How would I know that what I saw was really an angel and not an alien? Maybe comic book superheroes are real, that explanation is just as good as any other. Doubting my senses would probably be last on my list, but I certainly don’t assume that everything I see is real: I may be seeing an illusion, or a large projection TV screen.

I think that is the difference between the scientific way of thinking and the superstitious way of thinking: what type of explanation do you attach to your observations, and why.

Shadowy Man

What does this mean? I thought most people have faith because they believe, not the other way around.

Is it that you were raised to believe, and accepted it unquestioningly in the beginning because you were a child, and are now just afraid to give up something that you have believed for so long? Is it an emotional need to believe? The result of a detailed philosophical search?

I guess I just don't really understand what you said. Sorry.

Debbie T

Here is a quote that might make it easier to understand. Some other's said basically the same thing:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Stephen Roberts

Arvel Joffi

The Abrahamic concepts of God I find to be patently absurd. I think ancient human superstitions still hold sway over most of the human race. Forget proof, I see no indication that there is a singular anthropomorphic deity watching, judging, doing nothing, knowing everything, whatever.

The best way that I can describe it is "silly."

Now, a great eternal something, a collective spiritual something, an undefinable something? I think there could be, I think it's scientifically possible and philosophically plausible, but I believe it has no bearing on day to day life and is therefore a moot point for spiritual debates. I have enough reverence and wonder for life itself as seen and felt. I don't need a cosmic mystery to increase the significance of life, or to put it all in place for me.

I spent all my teenage years and much of my twenties trying to sort out the great mysteries of the universe. I think a lot of things occured to me that made a lot of sense - along with a lot of nonsense - but I realized I am alive, here, now. I live.

Damn I'm rambling. It's bedtime.

Infinity Lover

Hallo lieverd

I'm glad to see you've been getting some substantial response. After giving your questions due thought I'll join in the discussion.

A subjective experience leading me to believe in God... in order to determine that the experience was God, or proof of God, I would need a proper picture of what God is. (As others have already stated, the picture drawn of God by holy scryptures doesn't quite make the cut to the skeptic mind. Same as it's reason for you to not be a biblical literist.) Otherwise the experience would just have to be filed under "unexplained".

In the case of an unexplained phenomenon, however, I would still find it more plausible that I had been dealing with something natural. The scientificly verifiable "natural" simply has, by far and mildly put, the most impressive trackreccord in being the explaination for phenomena. A plausibility that's by no means easily dismissed, and I think rightfully so.

So does rejection require a clear definition of God?
The thing is, that a lack of acceptence is rejection... even if it's a rejection for the time being. A permanent rejection would require a definition, same as acceptance would. However in the case of something as abstract as God, the rejection is rather a suspended acceptence, or what you (correct me if I'm wrong) were calling a "neutral" position.

But then you're still left with how likely it is, that the suspension gets lifted and the position goes from neutral to positive. I think that for most people here, that neutral position is bound to be of a permanent nature.

Unless we'd profide ourselves with a definition of God we can easily accept. If I were, for instance, to see God as the impact religion has on individuals, and on the world on the whole, I'd have no problem with acknowledging God as a force to be reckoned with, and one that's very real indeed.

And if God existed in any way beyond that, as the creator of everything, he did give us this world and the experience of living in it. For me that's already more than a handfull and plenty to work with.

Believing in God is one thing, believing how you should lead your life is another thing alltogether.

(On that last note, how about we make something beautiful and valuable out of it? You bring your lovely self, I'll bring the hugs and kisses. )

fando

Amie, as has been stated previously, first it is required that we describe God in terms that we can measure, preferrably with direct and repetable observational evidence. This is extremely important.

Someone claims that there are stars made solely of neutrons: Neutron stars. The skeptic asks, what is a Neutron star and how can I find one? Well, the theorist says, a Neutron star is basically a huge ball of neutrons--the corpse of a star within a particular mass range--and according to calculations, it should spin really fast and emit intense radio waves. Because it spins really fast and emits radio waves, it should appear like a radio lighthouse in the sky. So the skeptic points his radio telescopes towards the sky and eventually finds many of these beacons exactly as described. (Actually, they were first discovered without realizing what they were, but someone recognized the signal for previously predicted Neutron stars and the rest is history). There's reason to believe that Neutron stars exist because we have detected them and they behave as predicted.

So how does God manifest himself, if he exists? And how can we know it's him for sure? Does he leave goo, and is there no other explanation for that goo? If it's an emotional thing, then are you sure it's not your hormones talking? I did acid once and I could have sworn that I saw a doorknob talking to me. Afterwards, I was sure that my brain was just going haywire. There are no talking doorknobs (unless some smart aleck installs a speaker in one).