Is there a God of atheism?

[Rhea]

What’s not confusing to me is that the intent of the OP, based on their further questions, seems to be a desire to walk away with the “proof” that “ALL atheists believe in God(dess)(es)”. Whether that is to assuage the OP’s own conflicts by “proving” that he’s not alone in his uncertainties or whether it is to bring this proof the Christians at CARM where he deceives them into thinking he’s a Christian to bring this tale, is uncertain. But it’s clear he is pushing various ambiguities and language assertions to drive toward a claim that **ALL** atheists “believe in God(dess)(es),” and he is not satisfied if one other atheist, or if a few other atheists, or if some other atheists believe this, he is intent on twisting the use of coherent language until he can claim that he’s proved ALL of us do.

If this were not about appeasing the discomfort of him or his christian friends, if it were really about a deep discussion of human psyche, the questions would look a lot different. And every attempt to drive the conversation to that exploratory depth is reined back in to, “but you definitely believe, I declare it so”.

At this point…. Whatever, dude, you be you. I’m clearly not a human being to you, who has her own brain and decisions and beliefs or lack thereof. I’m just a character in one of those smarmy christian stories where they make up scenarios to have a feel-good moment at the end, elevating christianity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just because Evangelical Christians are theologicaly unsophisticated doesn't mean we (secularists/atheists) have to be. Why are we letting the most savage brutes of philosophical thought define our terminology for us?

To be clear, the OP title says "God". Capitalized. That makes it a proper noun, something that is distinguished. The OP'er then wanders back and forth about how they have issues with resolving there being no physical God. The OP didn't ask whether there was something Atheists could consider important or hold tenants.

If they want to discuss different aspects of spiritualism, they are free to do so, but otherwise, this is bait and switch.

You are making distinctions without meaning. Its just word salad

No, grammar is an actual thing. To suggest implied contexts don't exist or matter is outright foolishness.

The terms God and god are not equivalent. A god is a vague reference to a deity. God is a specific reference to a specific deity. One does not fear god, but one fears God or a God.

Sure. But the difference is still poetry and emotional impact. There's no science of the supernatural here to fall back on. You are talking about a tradition that has arisen within Christianity specifically. Well, fuck Christianity. I don't care how much you live in a Christian culture. Christianity still doesn’t get to define this terminology.

 

[TomC]

Just because Evangelical Christians are theologicaly unsophisticated doesn't mean we (secularists/atheists) have to be. Why are we letting the most savage brutes of philosophical thought define o

Jimmy is talking about the real world most of us live in. Not the rarified world of philosophical academia.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The terms God and god are not equivalent. A god is a vague reference to a deity. God is a specific reference to a specific deity. One does not fear god, but one fears God or a God.

This gets especially messy amongst English speaking Christians. There are so many different god images in the Bible.
There's the god who couldn't be sure of what was going on in Sodom without sending spys. There's the god who killed a bunch of Egyptian babies to prove how tough he is.
All the way to the god now sharing a Trinitarian pantheon.

It gets confusing.
Tom

Dude suffers from multiple personality disorder, no doubt.

 

[steve_bank]

Debates on the philosophy forum tend to end up debates over meaning.

There were lengthy threads on objective vs subjective evidence and perceptions.

Senescence is ties to specific unambiguous standards not subject to entertainer. Ar the fluoridation is the meter, kilogram, and second. Not subject to context.


Religion and philosophy are based on concepts without any stable reference point. It is what enables religion and philosophy.

I'd say the fuzzy nature of the Christian god is what enables Chirality post Reformation. Anyone can read the bible in common languages and freely interpret what any of it means.

In the west the RCC told you what god is and what god wants. Now god is all things to all people, Jesus as well.

I sample the Christa TV shows. The more capable preachers constantly spin what god us and what god wants none of it in scripture. It is the ill defied concept that makes Christianity as diverse as it is.

I think it is as simple as the feel good brain chemicals when Christina talk about god. The definition is irrelevant.

To the OP if I use a Christian metaphor 'god only knows' in Soldier's reasoning that infers I am a closet theist,.


Colloquially god is used to mean the religious like zealous pursuit of an object or goal.

The capitalist god of profit.
The gods of rock and roll, porsued by the followers.


Here in the USA god usually means the Christian god. To me if someone asks if I beleve in god it mens Chrtian god, as opposed to being asked if I believe in 'a' god.

When somebody once asked me if I believe n god I anwered, 'Wich one?'

 

[bilby]

Our language is full of emotionally loaded words mostly useful to poets. Humans aren't robots. We're primarily emotionally driven creatures. Just because we're capable of rational thought, doesn't mean poetic metaphor can't have powerful sway over us. "God/gods" have been meaningful (and therefore useful) terms for humans since forever.

I agree. But that has zero bearing on my understanding that gods are entirely fictional.

Humans are, perhaps definingly, storytellers. We do ourselves no favours by believing our stories, no matter how emotionally attractive that might be.

Indeed, it's likely that stories represent a way to get ideas past our defences. If you tell someone that you want their banking details, they will suspect that you are trying to steal their money; But if you tell them that you're a corrupt accountant working for a Nigerian prince who is trying to smuggle $1,0000,000,000.00 US dollar out of the country, and will pay you fifty percent as commission if you help...

People are less likely to trust the evidence of their own observations, than they are to trust an idea presented as a part of a story. I could show you a boring, peer-reviewed paper from a highly respected psychological journal that shows this; But I needn't bother, because having read this anecdote, you probably already believe it to be true (if you're ever going to believe it at all).

Gods are storybook characters. I don't believe that they are real, because I wasn't told that they are by storytellers, when I was an infant. Most people are told, in infancy, that gods are real, and consequently hold an emotional belief in them, even if they develop an intellectual understanding that they're impossible and imaginary. I get that. I also get that such people really struggle with comprehending that their conditioned response isn't universal to all humans. But I happen to know that it isn't - because I don't have it.

That doesn't make me special - just lucky. If my infancy had been different, I would not be immune to that nagging suspicion that ex-theists describe that there must be "something else".

 

[bilby]

The problem here, as I see it, is that when we became Christian theology became simplistic and dumb.

That's certainly a problem; But it has nothing to do with me - it's your thesis, but it's not relevant to what I said, and really doesn't belong shoehorned into a reply to me as though it were pertinent.

 

[southernhybrid]

Our language is full of emotionally loaded words mostly useful to poets. Humans aren't robots. We're primarily emotionally driven creatures. Just because we're capable of rational thought, doesn't mean poetic metaphor can't have powerful sway over us. "God/gods" have been meaningful (and therefore useful) terms for humans since forever.

I agree. But that has zero bearing on my understanding that gods are entirely fictional.

Humans are, perhaps definingly, storytellers. We do ourselves no favours by believing our stories, no matter how emotionally attractive that might be.

Indeed, it's likely that stories represent a way to get ideas past our defences. If you tell someone that you want their banking details, they will suspect that you are trying to steal their money; But if you tell them that you're a corrupt accountant working for a Nigerian prince who is trying to smuggle $1,0000,000,000.00 US dollar out of the country, and will pay you fifty percent as commission if you help...

People are less likely to trust the evidence of their own observations, than they are to trust an idea presented as a part of a story. I could show you a boring, peer-reviewed paper from a highly respected psychological journal that shows this; But I needn't bother, because having read this anecdote, you probably already believe it to be true (if you're ever going to believe it at all).

Gods are storybook characters. I don't believe that they are real, because I wasn't told that they are by storytellers, when I was an infant. Most people are told, in infancy, that gods are real, and consequently hold an emotional belief in them, even if they develop an intellectual understanding that they're impossible and imaginary. I get that. I also get that such people really struggle with comprehending that their conditioned response isn't universal to all humans. But I happen to know that it isn't - because I don't have it.

That doesn't make me special - just lucky. If my infancy had been different, I would not be immune to that nagging suspicion that ex-theists describe that there must be "something else".

I was told they were real, but once I realized they were pretend, I never had any problem with it and I never had any nagging suspicion. I don't mean to offend you, but I think former believers who struggle with belief are very rare, so if what US is saying is true for himself, I see him as a rarity. Not that there's anything wrong with struggling over something like whether or not religions have any truth in them, but it is wrong to project one's personal feelings or beliefs on others, so please don't assume that most of us who were raised as god believers but then became enlightened to the fact that god is Santa Claus for adults, have ever had any struggles regarding those childhood beliefs. Doesn't the Christian holy book say something about putting away childish things once we reach adulthood? There are actually some true sayings in the Bible, but they are subject to interpretation.

To be honest in all the years I've been hanging out with atheists irl and/ or here, who had been raised to be Christians, the only one I ever met who went back to religion was former poster here, who I met in person many years ago. He simply couldn't be content without some belief in the supernatural, although at least he didn't go back to organized religion. He just decided there must be some god like power out there somewhere. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't try to drag the rest of us into your boat or we might all drown.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To be clear, the OP title says "God". Capitalized. That makes it a proper noun, something that is distinguished. The OP'er then wanders back and forth about how they have issues with resolving there being no physical God. The OP didn't ask whether there was something Atheists could consider important or hold tenants.

If they want to discuss different aspects of spiritualism, they are free to do so, but otherwise, this is bait and switch.

You are making distinctions without meaning. Its just word salad

No, grammar is an actual thing. To suggest implied contexts don't exist or matter is outright foolishness.

The terms God and god are not equivalent. A god is a vague reference to a deity. God is a specific reference to a specific deity. One does not fear god, but one fears God or a God.

It's not like the Christian God is specific. It even says in their sacred text that God is ineffable. If you are making a distinction between "God" and "god" you are making a distinction that the creators of the Christian God concept explicitly states isn't possible.

To go further back. The Jewish God is an amalgam of the Israelite Yehova (abstract personal God) and El, (a classic pagan angry storm god, like Zeus). When Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and they fled to Judea, combiing their people's and religions, making an amalgam God. There's a reason God makes no sense in the Bible. These are completely different kinds of gods. This is why the book of Genesis is full of loose ends. It's an amalgam of different creation myths, all just smashed together, with no thought of consistency or logic. A practice that was common in pagan sacred writing. The ancient Hebrews seems to have fetishized writing in general, and seemingly just wanted to collect as much as possible. The Christian God is the same kind of litterally creation.

You are applying modern scientific standards to evaluate, what always was a nebulous and mostly poetic idea. In logic we have the concept of garbage in, garbage out. Just don't. Trying to reason your way about God, no matter if you're an atheist or theist is silly. God (and god) can only be a proxy for something else. So how about trying to figure out what it's a proxy for, and talking about that instead? It'll be a bit more fruitful.

 

[steve_bank]

Dr Z

Christianity is a dumb theology? As an atheist a convoluted theology is as 'dumb' as a simple theology.

Degrees of self delusion. It is complicated therefor it must be good.

All that really matters in the end is how beliefs make the believer feel.

There are Christians who simply profess a belief a in god and Jesus and walk around feeling good from it. Aside from issues with Christian behaviors there is nothing fundamentally dumb or wrong about that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dr Z

Christianity is a dumb theology? As an atheist a convoluted theology is as 'dumb' as a simple theology.

The concept of God has been useful and meaningful for humans since the dawn of man. Either our theology accurately catches the many ways that concept is used, or it doesn't. Christian theology IMHO is all about cramming down a big complex concept into a tiny little God-shaped shoebox. I think the purpose is obvious. The world is big, mysterious and scary. In order to understand it Christian theologists want a feeling of control, so they create a theology that feed that need. The problem is that reality doesn't care about our feelings.

Degrees of self delusion. It is complicated therefor it must be good.

I'd argue that you are 100% locked into theology as defined by Evangelical Christianity, and letting that represent all religion. Yes, that is a delusion and can easily be dimissed. Because it is so dumb.

All that really matters in the end is how beliefs make the believer feel.

Yes, we're emotionally driven creatures. We respond well to poetic language and evocative metaphor. Language matters. And what's your point? What we're talking about here is whether the God is a useful and meaningul word. I'm saying yes. I am saying that as an atheist.

There are Christians who simply profess a belief a in god and Jesus and walk around feeling good from it. Aside from issues with Christian behaviors there is nothing fundamentally dumb or wrong about that.

Agreed.

 

[TomC]

There are Christians who simply profess a belief a in god and Jesus and walk around feeling good from it. Aside from issues with Christian behaviors there is nothing fundamentally dumb or wrong about that.

I'm certain that this is true.
Including a lot of the folks who check the box "Christian" on surveys.
I use the term "apatheist" for lack of a better one. People who know what to say in order to remain a member in good standing of a community they value. Without really thinking about how plausible it is, because they don't really care. They've no reason to do so.
Tom

 

[bilby]

The concept of God has been useful and meaningful for humans since the dawn of man.

So have the concepts of lying, cheating, murder, theft, fraud, duplicity, freeloading, terrorising, threatening, warfare, obedience, fear and dishonesty.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't reject them now, or fail to recognise that what they are useful for, may not be something we want others to do to us.

And the concept of God has mostly been useful in the pursuit of those other things I listed.

People are arseholes; Gods are a powerful cognitive tool to allow people to be successful arseholes. That explains their massive popularity, and their fictionality, in a neat and complete way - the details are unimportant.

Essentially, people have an innate defence against believing each other, because we know other people lie. But we also have an imagination, which is essential to forward planning.

Storytelling provides a way to use imagination to get around our defences against lies - a story fires up our imagination, and an imagined experience is something that happened to us personally - it becomes experience, which we trust, rather than hearsay, which we rightly do not.

Religion is an extreme example of this "brain hack", but it's far from the only one. Most of the untrue stuff we believe is introduced to our thinking as stories - that's why most self-help and business books (and for that matter, internet fora) are full of little stories, rather than statistics and references.

People are very bad at determining what is or is not true. Religion is a way to exploit that; Gods are the consequence of that exploitation. The bewildering array of complex (and simple) gods that we have developed over our existence is a clear demonstration of their fictionality; And the obsession with the details of these stories (to the point of going to war over minor plot points) is completely futile.

Sure, gods are useful and meaningful. But they're neither real nor (on average) beneficial, so...

 

[DrZoidberg]

The concept of God has been useful and meaningful for humans since the dawn of man.

So have the concepts of lying, cheating, murder, theft, fraud, duplicity, freeloading, terrorising, threatening, warfare, obedience, fear and dishonesty.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't reject them now, or fail to recognise that what they are useful for, may not be something we want others to do to us.

And the concept of God has mostly been useful in the pursuit of those other things I listed.

People are arseholes; Gods are a powerful cognitive tool to allow people to be successful arseholes. That explains their massive popularity, and their fictionality, in a neat and complete way - the details are unimportant.

Essentially, people have an innate defence against believing each other, because we know other people lie. But we also have an imagination, which is essential to forward planning.

Storytelling provides a way to use imagination to get around our defences against lies - a story fires up our imagination, and an imagined experience is something that happened to us personally - it becomes experience, which we trust, rather than hearsay, which we rightly do not.

Religion is an extreme example of this "brain hack", but it's far from the only one. Most of the untrue stuff we believe is introduced to our thinking as stories - that's why most self-help and business books (and for that matter, internet fora) are full of little stories, rather than statistics and references.

People are very bad at determining what is or is not true. Religion is a way to exploit that; Gods are the consequence of that exploitation. The bewildering array of complex (and simple) gods that we have developed over our existence is a clear demonstration of their fictionality; And the obsession with the details of these stories (to the point of going to war over minor plot points) is completely futile.

Sure, gods are useful and meaningful. But they're neither real nor (on average) beneficial, so...

Great. My work here is done

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What’s not confusing to me is that the intent of the OP, based on their further questions, seems to be a desire to walk away with the “proof” that “ALL atheists believe in God(dess)(es)”. Whether that is to assuage the OP’s own conflicts by “proving” that he’s not alone in his uncertainties or whether it is to bring this proof the Christians at CARM where he deceives them...

Whoa! Hold up there. I thought that it is a TOS violation to accuse other members here of lying--or simply not believing what one is told. It appears that there is a separate set of rules for me that others may disregard.

...into thinking he’s a Christian to bring this tale, is uncertain.

When did I say I'm a Christian?

But it’s clear he is pushing various ambiguities and language assertions to drive toward a claim that **ALL** atheists “believe in God(dess)(es),” and he is not satisfied if one other atheist, or if a few other atheists, or if some other atheists believe this, he is intent on twisting the use of coherent language until he can claim that he’s proved ALL of us do.

Actually, I can't prove what anybody believes or not. I've also told you that I don't know what you believe. So what you're posting here has nothing to do with anything I'm trying. Could it be that you all are afraid of what you believe?

If this were not about appeasing the discomfort of him or his christian friends...

What's wrong with having Christian friends?

... if it were really about a deep discussion of human psyche, the questions would look a lot different. And every attempt to drive the conversation to that exploratory depth is reined back in to, “but you definitely believe, I declare it so”.

LOL--It's getting deep. Will it make you feel better if I declare that there's nothing definite that I know of that you believe?

At this point…. Whatever, dude, you be you. I’m clearly not a human being to you, who has her own brain and decisions and beliefs or lack thereof. I’m just a character in one of those smarmy christian stories where they make up scenarios to have a feel-good moment at the end, elevating christianity.

I watch a lot of Christian apologetics on YouTube, and they've repeatedly talked about atheism being a religion and refer to a "God of atheism." They often have fits of anger referring to atheists as "fools" and "knuckleheads" and other such things. I used to dismiss it as religious propaganda, but now I know that there's some truth to it. There's simply no way out of life's troubles, and my leaving religion behind proves it. I often feel that I've just traded religious fanaticism, stupidity, and hatred for atheistic fanaticism, stupidity, and hatred. It's just that now I can save money and sleep in on Sunday mornings.

 

[bilby]

What’s not confusing to me is that the intent of the OP, based on their further questions, seems to be a desire to walk away with the “proof” that “ALL atheists believe in God(dess)(es)”. Whether that is to assuage the OP’s own conflicts by “proving” that he’s not alone in his uncertainties or whether it is to bring this proof the Christians at CARM where he deceives them...

Whoa! Hold up there. I thought that it is a TOS violation to accuse other members here of lying--or simply not believing what one is told. It appears that there is a separate set of rules for me that others may disregard.

...into thinking he’s a Christian to bring this tale, is uncertain.

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your awful logic.

Rhea said (though you broke up her sentence; Whether you did so because you were too quick to become butthurt at a percieved injustice, or whether your intent was to deliberately misrepresent her comments, is uncertain):

What’s not confusing to me is that the intent of the OP, based on their further questions, seems to be a desire to walk away with the “proof” that “ALL atheists believe in God(dess)(es)”. Whether that is to assuage the OP’s own conflicts by “proving” that he’s not alone in his uncertainties or whether it is to bring this proof the Christians at CARM where he deceives them into thinking he’s a Christian to bring this tale, is uncertain.

"I am uncertain whether or not you are lying to someone else" is not an accusation that you are lying, and certainly is not an accusation that you have posted a lie on this forum.

 

[Learner]

Dr Z

Christianity is a dumb theology? As an atheist a convoluted theology is as 'dumb' as a simple theology.

The concept of God has been useful and meaningful for humans since the dawn of man.[ ........]The problem is that reality doesn't care about our feelings.

Doc, do you mean as in, we don't really exist in reality, therefore our feelings aren't real?

 

[Rhea]

Could it be that you all are afraid of what you believe?

Nope. As I have stated multiple times. That appears to be your insecurity. It is not mine..

I’ve been clear multiple times, rewording in the simplest way to help you.
I’v done it again for you, here. Hope that clears it up for you finally. I am not you. My beliefs do not scare me; that is your story, not mine.

 

[TomC]

Do you mean as in, we don't really exist, so therefore our feelings shouldn't be real either? Caring about feelings only applies to rocks, snow, and...
..never mind.

Cannot speak for Zoid. Just me.

I don't see anything like a benevolent supreme entity in my reality.

I also know that humans are fragile and stupid. I know that because I am one.
We need teaching, help, compassion, lots of things. Since there is no God who will do any of that We must do it for each other or it just won't get done.

That's the foundation of morality. There is no superior being who cares about us. Either we care about each other or it won't happen.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Dr Z

Christianity is a dumb theology? As an atheist a convoluted theology is as 'dumb' as a simple theology.

The concept of God has been useful and meaningful for humans since the dawn of man.[ ........]The problem is that reality doesn't care about our feelings.

Doc, do you mean as in, we don't really exist in reality, therefore our feelings aren't real?

Hunh. That’s a really strange interpretation. I thought he meant, since he was talking about the usefulness of god(dess)(es), That there is no sentience outside of earthly critturs that cares about our feelings.

In other words, *a writing system* Has been useful and meaningful for humans since the first woman carved her menstraul cycle onto an antelope thighbone. The probelm is, *the writing system* doesn’t really care about our feelings.