beyelzu

strong atheism does assert that there is no god.

and i think that in order to state that you do not believe in god, you have to have a definition.

amie, if i saw an angel i would think it was an illusion. if the angel sat and spoke with me for an hour after pulling me out of a car wreck using superhuman strength, i might believe.

Oxymoron

Amie,

there are innumerable Gods who you personally do not believe in. I would think, therefore, that your first point of understanding of atheism is to understand the reasons for your own personal choice of creation mythology.

Once you have understood why you do not believe in Buddha and Mohamed and Vishnu and Sol Invictus and..., then you will have some understanding of why we find your xian fables so readily dismissable.

beyelzu

oxymoron


there goes all of my arguments against theism. i dont know why i never thought of what you just posted. its got to be the best thing i ever heard. do you mind if i steal it from you?



edited cuz i put the wrong smily in.

Psycho Economist

sure.

God: n. According to Abrahamic religious traditions, the deity credited with creation of the universe and life on Earth, believed to be the ultimate dictator of morality... do I have to keep going?

Shadowy Man

Any god I could believe in would be irrelevant.

If there were a god that were relevant, I might as well give up my career.

David Bowden

Hi Amie! These are really good questions. Second one first.

To say, "I don't believe that x exists," it would seem like x has to be defined at least somewhat. One attribute or more has to be listed, or else x is just a label that doesn't refer to anything. For example, "What's a Unicorn?" "A horse that has one horn." We need at least one distinguishing trait in order for "a unicorn exists" to mean something. Otherwise, what am I believing or not believing when I agree or disagree with that statement?

If that's basically what you're getting at with your second question, then I don't think you're off-base at all.

If you're saying we need a more or less complete definition in order to reject something, then I'd have to disagree. I'm assuming, but I'm pretty sure, that you don't believe in every god that you haven't heard a definition for. Not only that, but I don't expect you're even neutral with regard to, say, the existence of any one of the thousands of Hindu deities, even though you (probably) haven't tested each of them for plausibility. Categorically, as far as you're concerned, Hindu deities don't exist, whether you know anything about Vishnu et al. or not. (I hope I'm not assuming too much; please correct me if I am.)

So in principle, it's possible for a person to disbelieve in something that hasn't been well-defined. If you do adhere to one god-concept exclusively (ie, if you're not a polytheist, and if we're not talking poetically about Krishna "existing" but in reality being just a flawed understanding of Yahweh), then you at least implicitly reject all the other gods, whether that rejection is based on some deep understanding of the alternatives, or merely on personal satisfaction with the god-idea you accept.

So I would agree that at least a very basic, general definition of god is necessary in order to accept or deny that any particular god exists.

Now your first question. Well, as far as gods go, no general or particular definition that I'm aware of, however pleasant-sounding or awe-inspiring, seems likely to represent an actual being. The label and the definition(s) of god seem not to point at any real entity.

Also, the various religious experiences people testify to are satisfactorially explained (I am convinced) without depending on any supernatural phenomena. Human nature being what it is, I am very skeptical with regard to incredible claims. Sometimes people can substantiate incredible claims and I have changed my initially skeptical mind (as when I learned that hijacked airliners really had destroyed both World Trade Center towers, after initially chalking it up to confusion and hyperbole), but with regard to the supernatural, belief seems unjustified, despite the best efforts of believers to justify their belief.

So I'm not a believer in gods generally, nor in any god in particular. Justification is lacking for me to take the position of a believer. As the cliche goes, as an atheist, I believe in the same number of gods you do, minus one. To put it another way, I lack belief in all gods for which I understand the definition, as well for all gods whose definition I don't understand. A traditional Christian is just the same as an atheist, except that exactly one of the god-definitions seems valid to her or him. The extent to which you feel justified in not believing in any other god, I also feel justified in not believing in them, and I also feel the same justification in disbelieving in the one god you do believe in.

I would certainly change my mind if I was convinced that a proposed definition for "god" did represent an actual, distinct being. Not only would the definition have to be plausible, but also there would have to be some evidence that the entity in question actually exists. (A unicorn is plausible -- some large quadruped mammals have horns, and some of those horned animals have a defect resulting in only one horn. But there's no evidence that a unicorn species that looks like a horse actually exists.)

It would be intellectually irresponsible not to do believe if those conditions were met, and I couldn't live with myself if I knew I was being persistently irresponsible in that manner. So I would believe -- actually, I'd know -- that God exists, in the sense that I know anything derived from sound reasoning.

A personal religious experience seems unlikely to convince me, however; I understand that people can fool themselves, and with no way to confirm the true nature an inner, subjective experience, I couldn't conclusively attribute it to a supernatural power. At most, a dramatic personal experience would render me a provisional theist, or more likely a less-skeptical agnostic. This level of "belief," if it can even be called that, is insufficient for salvation, though, as I understand Christianity and Islam. So it doesn't do me much good to seek it out, if traditional theism is true.

[ I suppose I could have a religious experience which short-circuited my current reasoning criteria... in which case anything goes. But I wouldn't really be me, then. Both the subjective state and the judging criteria would have changed at the same time, and it would be preferable to have had a controlled experiment with two of me undergoing the same experience, one with the changed reasoning and one not... or something. Perhaps someday an artificial intelligence will claim to have experienced god and we can run the scenario over and over again and test it... ]

In any case, I think that if God really existed and really wanted to get my attention (to say nothing of my highest affections), as theism generally claims, then he would use a completely unambiguous method of getting it. I would not have to reconcile a seemingly godless reality with the claims of this or that description of god -- an honest God would not hide from someone he desires fellowship with, with someone who desires to know the truth, even if -- especially if -- knowing it would lead to a significant change in lifestyle.

[ Perhaps there's a real god who doesn't care about getting my attention -- if so, then by not recognizing him in the midst of reality, I fulfill his will. ]

So Amie, I don't believe in a god - not even the gods I haven't heard of yet. And I don't expect I ever will, having once been a serious believer and exploring belief from the inside out. That's not to say I now spend my time ignoring the issue or reading only anti-theist works. I think that if a credible theistic argument were to come onto the scene, I'd be in a position to be an "early adopter" among present unbelievers. I do enjoy reading some modern theologians and chatting it up with non-fundamentalist believers, among other things.

There's a Catholic professor named Haught, for instance, who tries to re-vision the Christian God as being more in tune with evolution, and much less anthropomorphic, than traditional Christian theology makes Him out. I'm still far from convinced that such a being is necessary, or that it even jives with the Gospel which Haught professes to believe, but it's stimulating mental exercise to chew on such new god-concepts.

Interacting with good contemporary theology keeps the dialogue between theism and atheism interesting and fresh, and if nothing else it prods this atheist to appreciate the range of possibilities and refine his understanding to account for them. And of course, interacting with good, thoughtful theists is always a pleasant experience.

-David

PS - In rereading your original post, I came up with a question, Amie:

If your belief is based on faith, then what is your faith based on?

happyboy

no evidence will ever convince me. i'm schizophrenic, so i could never, ever be sure what i saw (should the almighty come down and have a nice little chat with me) is real or just something a misfiring synapse MADE me see.

happyboy

Amie

I want to thank you all, I really appreciate it. I just seem to have so many questions...

Thanks David I appreciate your post.

for some reason you seem to be able to express what I wanted to say better than me.

A God belief is all I have ever known however I do recognize the fact that I am filled with questions about my own beliefs that I still don't quite understand. Unfortunately David when I really give it some thought, like right now I am left crying. And I don't even know what those tears are for. There's just so much I don't understand that I want to.

Thank you David

hinduwoman

God implies some kind of creator of the universe. Where is the evidence for it?

The Admiral

Hi Amie

It's me, The Admiral.

Starting from zero, why should I believe in god? I think that god does not exist. In fact, I think that the existence of god is a logical impossibility. But if god does exist, and wants me to belive in he/she/it , would it be to much to ask for it to give me some evidence? My mother would sweep her arm and say, where do you think all this came from? And I would say, Mom, I don't know. I don't think that the existence of god can be dis-proven. They(who are they)say you can't dis-prove a negative or something like that. It's all beyond my 9th grade education.

Excuse me while I freshen my martini.

The Admiral