Theism v. Non-Theism

Heck, I've been looking for proof for years now.

tmarie64 wrote:I know I would LOVE to see proof that God exists. I don't "need" to see it. But, any Christian who says they don't want to see proof is either a liar or completely nuts.

Now now, didn't Jesus say the spiritually immature seek signs and wonders, while they should rely on faith alone?

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:

tmarie64 wrote:I know I would LOVE to see proof that God exists. I don't "need" to see it. But, any Christian who says they don't want to see proof is either a liar or completely nuts.

Now now, didn't Jesus say the spiritually immature seek signs and wonders, while they should rely on faith alone?

Yeah, well, so this forum has a lot of spiritually immature people, TED. Wanta make something of it?

My opinion of THAT is . . . . they HAD to put that in the bible because knowing that there is no proof of what THEY say is true, they could only say that "Jesus expects faith alone". It is a huge copout. As I've seen before, if it was okay for Jesus to give ample proof to those in the bible times [as recorded therein], then that sort of proof is what I expect as well. Jesus appeared to some of the apostles, after his death [so says the bible], therefore I require the same done for me. Will it happen, . . . of course not. "Faith" can never be "proof".

Michael:

1) I do not speak for other Buddhists. I speak only for myself.

2) I said only that those who believe the physical universe is fundamentally real have objective evidence for such a belief: I did not attempt to say whether their belief is "true" or "false." What I'm saying is that are not merely believing what they believe in a "thoroughly faith-based way," as you wrote way back when you entered this conversation.

Michael ... and I'm not "sure" that the universe is "fundamentally real." I'm aware that our perceptions and reality don't always jibe.

Micheal,

It seems that the core problem that you have here is not that atheists believe something, which still doesn't make sense to me, because it requires a redefinition of what it means to believe in something, but that they seem to feel that they are superior, and at least some of them essentially, evangelize (for lack of a better term).

First of all, all of us, even the most humble among us, feel that we are superior for something, even if it is for humility. There isn't a member of humanity that doesn't feel this way. Now, if they will admit it, is another thing.

Secondly, the "evangelizing" is essentially reactionary. I haven't heard of atheists going door to door, or placing copies of "the origin of species" in hotel rooms. It stems from a thousand years of not being able to question. The barriers are down.

If you don't try to push beliefs on atheists, they won't push back. Arguments can honestly be defused before they start if you don't try to convince them of what they don't wish to be convinced of.

all

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Micheal,



If you don't try to push beliefs on atheists, they won't push back. Arguments can honestly be defused before they start if you don't try to convince them of what they don't wish to be convinced of.

all

for the most that may be true
but, the Nedow's and O'Hares of the world have and are trying to use the court system to change the playing field
and other groups do put up billboard's with messages like: Why God? Be good for goodness sake

As Gilly? I think said, there are jerks in every system. There are jerk Christians and jerk Jews and jerk Buddhists and jerk Atheists and jerk everything else. But All does have it right that your average Joe Atheist does by and large tend to ignore your faith unless you try to push it on to someone else.

That being said, I have occasionally had to tell an Atheist or two that I needed them to back off the Christian bashing in my presence, because as I said to them, "I have issues of my own. I don't need yours piling up on me."

Davelaw wrote:
for the most that may be true
but, the Nedow's and O'Hares of the world have and are trying to use the court system to change the playing field
and other groups do put up billboard's with messages like: Why God? Be good for goodness sake

I haven't personally seen those, but I have seen the ones that say "Jesus I trust in you" and "Attend the Church of your choice".

The playing field should be changed, the problem is, when you start changing something, you rarely get to pick what it will turn into.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but for a long time Christians have been able to have their cake and eat it too. There is a reason why I am "all" instead of my legal name. If I worked for a company, it'd be different. If I retire, it'll be different. There are many things that should be changed. There are also many things that would be worse if they were.

all

Michael5810 wrote: Gillyflower, you pointed out that Donald Duck is only a cartoon character. Yes, and yet if he drops a boulder on his foot, it will hurt his foot. So that isn't a very good test of a world's actuality, is it.

But consider a genuine possibility world, a possible universe, other than ours, not in any way physically-related to ours, consistently following its own physical laws. For simplicity, suppose that those laws are the same as this universe's laws. Does that world exist? Of course not. Does it have events and interactions? Of course. And if that nonexistent but possible universe evolved life, as did ours, and one of its beings dropped a rock on his/her foot, then the rock would hurt his/her foot.

And two or more inhabitants of that world could observe the same star, to confirm its existence in that world, just as Yen-for-Zen spoke of.

I'm entertaining company, for a week or a few weeks, and so I won't be able to participate in the forum nearly as much as I have been, for a while.

I find it very difficult to believe that if an imaginary rock fell on the foot of a cartoon character, the cartoon character would feel real pain. Science fiction is fun to think about. Just because you can imagine it does not mean that it exists.

gillyflower wrote:RevJohn, there are of course offensive atheists just like there are offensive Christians, Pagans, and members of every religion. I've wondered if the jerks changed their religion (or got one) would they be just as big jerks in the new religion? In other words, I'm wondering if it isn't more a personality problem rather than the particular supernatural beliefs or disbeliefs.

I agree absolutely that a personality factor might be involved, but I also believe that the choice of one's religion or non-religion is an outcome of these personality factors. Christians who are fundamentalists, for example, generally have a tendency to think in black/white, right/wrong classifications and usually are fairly concrete in their thinking. Agnostics are a totally different group from atheists, in my experience. An agnostic is almost by definition an even-minded skeptic. But most of the atheists I have encountered tend to be adherents of the religion I have already identified as Scientism, and are not merely skeptical but are hostile to any religion, spirituality, or notion of the paranormal, all of which, in their estimation, constitute primitive superstitions that humanity would be better off without. Leon Lederman, for example, in his book, The God Particle, stated that the existence of ghosts would violate a basic principle of physics. I know a bit about physics, and in the years since I read that book, I have tried to come up with some sort of rational explanation for such a statement, but I cannot come up with anything other than pure prejudice. For such "evangeizing" atheists, I think that their belief system does constitute a form of religion, since it is not just an absence of belief but is a belief system about the ultimate order of things in the universe. I would, as I said before, be more inclined to call that belief system Scientism.

There is a startlingly wide array of concepts of God that people can have; there are also people, of whom I am one, who have come to the conclusion that God is far beyond any capacity we humans have, at least in our normal waking consciousness. To be an atheist is to declare that none of those conceptions could possibly actually exist, and the way I see it, that is more of an extraordinary statement that requires extraordinary proof than is the existence of a God of some sort. And it is, truly, a statement of faith. As the old saying goes, my friend believes in No God, and worships Him.

Or, as I put it in a poem I wrote circa 2001,

I talk of God, and you think I speak
Of a big, big man
With a long white beard
In a far-off place
Who sits in judgment.

But I speak of the tree, in winter.

And when you say you do not believe,
Does that mean that you close your eyes,
Come Spring?

Ah, it makes me sad to see you trying to give them a religion just like Michael has been doing.

I have met many, many Christians who are hostile to any notion of a god that is different from their own. Does that make them better to me than an atheist who is hostile to me because I have a religion? Not at all. Is one a better person, a better thinker than the other? No, not in my opinion.

I don't believe in ghosts. Do you think that I am prejudiced because of that?

I am offended by you capitalizing the G in god. To me that means that you are trying to thrust your god on me, that you think your god is better than my own. I reject your ideas about a god. It does not match my own. Does it matter to you that I reject your god? Is that better or worst than an atheist rejecting your god?

I see a tree in winter and I guarantee I don't think the same things as you do. Is that more offensive to you than what an atheist thinks?

I really wish people could understand that it really isn't important what other people believe. They can believe different things than you do and can be a good person.

RevJohn wrote:There is a startlingly wide array of concepts of God that people can have; there are also people, of whom I am one, who have come to the conclusion that God is far beyond any capacity we humans have, at least in our normal waking consciousness. To be an atheist is to declare that none of those conceptions could possibly actually exist, and the way I see it, that is more of an extraordinary statement that requires extraordinary proof than is the existence of a God of some sort. And it is, truly, a statement of faith.

To be atheist is NOT necessarily to "declare that none of those conceptions could possibly actually exist" although SOME atheists do that. Other atheists simply declare they will withhold belief until they see sufficient evidence or heard a sufficient argument. The latter is a more reasoned and skeptical approach, in my opinion, while the former is a blanket statement based on (in my view) insufficient evidence.

Anyway, half of the communication problems we have here, I think, stem from people painting with a broad brush and assigning attributes to large groups instead of commenting on specific things done by specific individuals.

I'm going to throw this out there. Is it that people, atheists in particular, make other people feel defensive because they basically say "Show me some proof." And since that isn't possible, the people who are believers (and care what others believe) feel put on the defensive. There isn't a good come-back to that because there isn't any proof. And so they resent it.

I was thinking while I drove it is sort of like Christians who say "You are going to hell!" when they meet someone who believes something different than they do. Invariably it puts people on the defensive.

Or maybe it is a question of people who feel they are right and everyone else in the world has to be wrong, or everyone else in another group has to be wrong and they can't stand it. I don't know.

RevJohn wrote:There is a startlingly wide array of concepts of God that people can have; there are also people, of whom I am one, who have come to the conclusion that God is far beyond any capacity we humans have, at least in our normal waking consciousness. To be an atheist is to declare that none of those conceptions could possibly actually exist, and the way I see it, that is more of an extraordinary statement that requires extraordinary proof than is the existence of a God of some sort. And it is, truly, a statement of faith.

I really don't comprehend how it can be more extraordinary to refuse belief in things that cannot be demonstrated or proven.

I think it far more extraordinary to believe in a loving God who is the Parent of us all but can't be bothered to intercede when some woman's boyfriend shakes her baby to death for crying too much or a mega-corporation manages to get an insufficiently tested drug on the market, killing many people who thought it would help them feel better or get well, and so forth and so on.

RevJohn wrote:

gillyflower wrote:RevJohn, there are of course offensive atheists just like there are offensive Christians, Pagans, and members of every religion. I've wondered if the jerks changed their religion (or got one) would they be just as big jerks in the new religion? In other words, I'm wondering if it isn't more a personality problem rather than the particular supernatural beliefs or disbeliefs.

I agree absolutely that a personality factor might be involved, but I also believe that the choice of one's religion or non-religion is an outcome of these personality factors. Christians who are fundamentalists, for example, generally have a tendency to think in black/white, right/wrong classifications and usually are fairly concrete in their thinking. Agnostics are a totally different group from atheists, in my experience. An agnostic is almost by definition an even-minded skeptic. But most of the atheists I have encountered tend to be adherents of the religion I have already identified as Scientism, and are not merely skeptical but are hostile to any religion, spirituality, or notion of the paranormal, all of which, in their estimation, constitute primitive superstitions that humanity would be better off without. Leon Lederman, for example, in his book, The God Particle, stated that the existence of ghosts would violate a basic principle of physics. I know a bit about physics, and in the years since I read that book, I have tried to come up with some sort of rational explanation for such a statement, but I cannot come up with anything other than pure prejudice. For such "evangeizing" atheists, I think that their belief system does constitute a form of religion, since it is not just an absence of belief but is a belief system about the ultimate order of things in the universe. I would, as I said before, be more inclined to call that belief system Scientism.

There is a startlingly wide array of concepts of God that people can have; there are also people, of whom I am one, who have come to the conclusion that God is far beyond any capacity we humans have, at least in our normal waking consciousness. To be an atheist is to declare that none of those conceptions could possibly actually exist, and the way I see it, that is more of an extraordinary statement that requires extraordinary proof than is the existence of a God of some sort. And it is, truly, a statement of faith. As the old saying goes, my friend believes in No God, and worships Him.

Or, as I put it in a poem I wrote circa 2001,

I talk of God, and you think I speak
Of a big, big man
With a long white beard
In a far-off place
Who sits in judgment.

But I speak of the tree, in winter.

And when you say you do not believe,
Does that mean that you close your eyes,
Come Spring?

I'm going to have to agree with this one... I think personality often times determines religion. And by saying that I don't mean to broad-brush everyone in the same light because there are different people... after all, Christians aren't all people who are Type B personalities who score X on a Jung personality test whose favorite color is purple - however, personalities are what draw certain people to certain beliefs and denominations in their religion, as for example, you might not find a Jerry Falwell-type in a Lutheran church service.

People come into their faiths, or lack thereof, by different means. Mostly, it's from searching for something, and this certain faith provides it. Let's face it. The young woman who never had any kind of father figure and desperately seeks love and approval is going to feel more fulfilled in a father-figure benevolent god religion.

The USA Today had a neat article on "how Americans view God." They broke God up into 4 differnet personality types and gave the breakdown. Unfortunately, the survey didn't cover people who don't believe in God, believed in different gods, or believed in alternate versions of god like pantheists, people who see god in nature, etc. So to me it was badly flawed. But it made the point that personalities determine what aspect of God God-believers flock to.

I've met loads of evangelistic atheists on beliefnet. We don't have any on this board. They were, to me, as repulsive as an evangelistic preacher who can't shut their trap, because they are just as adamantly right, infallabile in their beliefs, and want to push them down your throat too. Like other pushy evangelists, this strikes a chord to me that they are insecure about their beliefs, and are more-less trying to prove them to their own selves, to be convinced they're right, not the world. The life experiences of people like this have led me to believe they've been hurt by religion.

Of course not all atheists are like that. Not all evangelists are like that either. But if it's a repeated encounter the thought sticks in your mind when you meet another.

Anyway, I'll see if I can find that USA today article. Personality has a lot to do with what religion we follow. You're not going to find a tolerant, peaceful person funding suicide bombers and you're not going to find hateful and scared individuals at a Quaker meeting. It is what it is.

USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-10-07-1Agod07_CV_N.htm

In the USA, God — or the idea of a God — permeates daily life. Our views of God have been fundamental to the nation's past, help explain many of the conflicts in our society and worldwide, and could offer a hint of what the future holds. Is God by our side, or beyond the stars? Wrathful or forgiving? Judging us every moment, someday or never?

Surveys say about nine out of 10 Americans believe in God, but the way we picture that God reveals our attitudes on economics, justice, social morality, war, natural disasters, science, politics, love and more, say Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, sociologists at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Their new book, America's Four Gods: What We Say About God — And What That Says About Us, examines our diverse visions of the Almighty and why they matter.

Pertaining to this thread's topic:

The Distant God. Though about 5% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, Baylor found that nearly one in four (24%) see a Distant God that booted up the universe, then left humanity alone.

This doesn't mean that such people have no religion. It's the dominant view of Jews and other followers of world religions and philosophies such as Buddhism or Hinduism, the Baylor research finds.

(Though the Buddha espoused atheism....)

Gillyflower:

You said:

I find it very difficult to believe that if an imaginary rock fell on the foot of a cartoon character, the cartoon character would feel real pain.

I invite you to specify the page and date of the posting in which you think that I said that Donald Duck would feel pain that is more real than the story, its things and events.

Donald Duck, his foot, the rock, and Donald Duck's pain if the rock falls on his foot, are all real and existent only in the context of the story. Their existence and reality are only contextual. Obviously, from our point of view, they are unreal and nonexistent. Obviously they don't have fundamental existence as I've defined it.

Just because you can imagine it does not mean that it exists.

I made it clear that Donald Duck, his foot, and the rock in the story all exist only in the story. In the story there is a Donald Duck. But, other than that, Donald Duck doesn't exist. Neither does his pain if he drops an equally nonexistent rock on his nonexistent foot.

ZenYen wrote:Michael:

1) I do not speak for other Buddhists. I speak only for myself.

2) I said only that those who believe the physical universe is fundamentally real have objective evidence for such a belief: I did not attempt to say whether their belief is "true" or "false."

Ok, you're saying tha they have objective evidence that the physical universe is fundamentally real, but their belief that it is fundamentally real might be false. What you're saying, then, is that they have _inconclusive_ evidence that the physical universe is fundamentally real.

You're saying that they believe in something that they haven't proven. You're saying that they're believers.

As for the "evidence", you never showed any evidence that isn' easily dismissed. You spoke of not liking it if someone throws a baseball at you. As I said, that proves only that the baseball is as real as the human body, and that they both (predictably) interact in the same story, in which they both exist. That says nothing whatsoever about the reality of the story with respect to some larger context, or about the matter of whether there is a larger context. It doesn't mean that the world is fundamentlly existent as I've defined it.

You said that I hadn't specified the difference between fundamental and contextual existence. Other than defining both terms? :-) I had aleady defined both terms at the time when you most recently said that I hadn't specified the difference between them

Elsewhere, you said:

What I'm saying is that they ["Atheists"] are not merely believing what they believe in a "thoroughly faith-based way," as you wrote way back when you entered this conversation.

I know that you're saying that, but what you're saying is incorrect if they can't show proof that this physical world has existence status that is more valid, or greater in degree, than nonphysical entities. They've shown no proof of that, nor have you.

To be atheist is NOT necessarily to "declare that none of those conceptions could possibly actually exist" although SOME atheists do that. Other atheists simply declare they will withhold belief until they see sufficient evidence or heard a sufficient argument.

No. That isn't how "Atheist" is defined. From what is said here, I understand that many people who call themselves "Atheist" are defining the term much more broadly than any dictionary. Someone said, we shouldn't go by the dictionary--we should go by what the self-designated "Atheists" say. The implication was that only general purpose Funk & Wagnalls dictionaries disagree with the broad definition. No. I haven't found any dictionary of philosophy or encyclopedia of philosophy that gives any support to that broader definition of Atheist. Nearly everyone agrees that an Atheist believes that God doesn't exist. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, reasonably, broadens that definition a little, saying that an Atheist is someone who rejects the statement "God Exists". "Reject" doeesn't mean "doubt". "Rejection" doesn't mean "skepticism". Rejection is conclusive to the rejector. And that's how the encyclopedia means the term, as they make clear.

So your "Atheists" are incorrectly using the word "Atheist". They're Agnostics. One philosophical dictionary points out that "Agnostic" should include people who merely say that _they_ don't know, along with people who say that the answer is unknowable. Your "Atheists" are Agnostics of the first type.

Additionally, it is pointed out that Atheist is defined only with respect to Judeo-Christian Monotheism.

So, probably, a better term would be "Non-Physical-Existent-Entity-Rejector" (NPER). Then, the people you call Atheists would be skeptics instead of rejectors, making htem NPESs.

Anyway, half of the communication problems we have here, I think, stem from people painting with a broad brush and assigning attributes to large groups instead of commenting on specific things done by specific individuals.

Nonstandard definitions also are a communication problem.

Am I the only one thinking that the two preceding explanations go waaaay beyond, "HUH?"

I truly had to restrain myself from using some quite vernacular phrasing which would have expressed my reaction more aptly.

Michael, I have no idea whatsoever what that means. Apparently, I'm far too dense to comprehend the intricacies of your philosophy.

As for your insistence that dictionaries are more authoritative and reliable determiners of what constitutes an atheist, I simply throw up my hands (and maybe my lunch as well!) and throw in the towel. Dictionaries know better than atheists themselves, of course! How very foolish of me to think otherwise!

Pardon the omission: I meant to say "Dictionaries and other reference works...etc."

DotNotInOz wrote:Am I the only one thinking that the two preceding explanations go waaaay beyond, "HUH?"

I truly had to restrain myself from using some quite vernacular phrasing which would have expressed my reaction more aptly.

Michael, I have no idea whatsoever what that means.

You need to be a bit more specific. Otherwise it isn't possible to know what, specifically, you don't understand.

Is it that you didn't understand the standard Atheism definitions that I described? If that's it, then of course feel free to say so.

As nearly as I can guess, you're trying to say that you were confused when I suggested new names, referring to Atheist-like positions regarding all nonphysical entities, because "Atheism" is usually undestood to refer only to Judeo-Christian Monotheism. Maybe that's it: You didn't like the abbreviations.

Apparently, I'm far too dense to comprehend the intricacies of your philosophy.

Then let me help you out: In your quotes, I was writing about definitions of Atheism, not about my philosophy. Doees that help any?

As for your insistence that dictionaries are more authoritative and reliable determiners of what constitutes an atheist, I simply throw up my hands (and maybe my lunch as well!) and throw in the towel. Dictionaries know better than atheists themselves, of course! How very foolish of me to think otherwise!

It helps if we speak the same language. Your "Atheists" are Agnostics, according to philosophical sources.
Anyone can make up a definition. Is that helpful? No. Remember, it helps if we speak the same language

Michael5810 wrote:
Is it that you didn't understand the standard Atheism definitions that I described? If that's it, then of course feel free to say so.

No, not at all. The limitations of the medium and my endeavoring to express my exasperation politely resulted in my condensing it in that giant "HUH?"

What I actually meant was, "Just give it up. We've told you more than once that you're simply reiterating your initial arguments/definitions, and we are NOT persuaded. From the start, we have little or no basis for agreeing with you, since we disagree at the outset with how you insist atheism must be defined."

Michael5810 wrote:
It helps if we speak the same language. Your "Atheists" are Agnostics, according to philosophical sources.
Anyone can make up a definition. Is that helpful? No. Remember, it helps if we speak the same language

Have you truly not noticed that no one else on this thread defines "atheist" as you insist it must be understood according to your dictionaries and philosophical sources? Very simply, we disagree with how you prefer to define the term. End of discussion when we cannot even agree upon the meaning of an essential term.

What you continue to insist constitutes an atheist makes about as much sense as stating that all Christians believe in Jesus Christ, Son of God when that's quite true for the fundamentalist ones and increasingly less so as one moves toward the progressive/liberal Christian end of the spectrum. But they all consider themselves Christians, most of whom would be offended to be told that they don't meet someone else's definition of what a Christian must believe.

This summation covers what most of us say is our understanding, and which you deny is the "actual" meaning of "atheist."

Note that:

Atheism relates to a belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity, or whether the person associates any meaning to the terms "God" or "deity."

Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist," and is probably the definition used by most theists.

Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists and many individual Atheists.

Atheists often promote the belief that all Gods and Goddesses, as well as angels, demons, ghosts, etc., are nonexistent entities created by human minds.

Source

The definition is simply not as cut and dried as you continue to insist it is. The simple fact is that we don't have to accept your definition or this source's when it does not represent our understanding or experience. Thus, it is even more so the case that we have no basis for discussion.

Michael said: Gillyflower, you pointed out that Donald Duck is only a cartoon character. Yes, and yet if he drops a boulder on his foot, it will hurt his foot. So that isn't a very good test of a world's actuality, is it.


There is is Michael. You said post the comment where you say Donald Duck would feel pain.

This was the comment I was responding to.