For Atheists - define what you don't believe in

[abaddon]

Someone isn't paying attention here.
I did NOT say atheists have to be persuasive.
Frankly, I would rather atheists remain quiet and just stick with their non-stamp collections.

What I do argue is that if you're gonna be all emphatic (and preachy) about your disbelief you should at least be able to define what it is you're claiming doesn't exist. If you're gonna be ranting about stuff not being evidence^TM you should be able to explain what it isn't evidence for.

Look up "god" in a dictionary and there's your answer. It's always been as simple as that.

If you want atheists to remain quiet, then get quiet about poorly supported claims about the nature of nature and ethics. That ultimately is what the argument's over.

 

[abaddon]

"Dictionary says" wasn't the point at all. I don't care if the full description is there or not. Remove the definition and my point is still complete. Tossing in a definition was partly responding to the request for a definition, as well as pointing at how any concept of "god" is problematic regardless of details.

The specifics need to come from the theist. The theists fill in the context.

People asked atheists to define what they don't believe in and I provided my answer to that: gods.

 

[bilby]

They don't differ significantly from atheists when it comes down to rejection of all the others.

I think they do.
Christains don't believe in Thor because he's a False God, not to be confused with the real one. When they hear 'God,' there's a specific deity they think of first. That space is taken and they distinguish between their god (s) and the false ones.
...

I think this is an important point. The subtext of Lion's posts on the subject - including his claim that he would rather people be Muslims than Atheists - gives weight to this idea, and even the Bible seems to support it; To many Christians, all the Gods are real, and theirs is the top God, the best one, and the only one worthy of worship. The others are 'false' or 'lesser' in many ways, and worshiping them is going to upset the big God, so you shouldn't do it; But not because these other Gods don't exist.

Christianity has never really shaken off its polytheistic origins, and so many Christians (and I suspect Lion is amongst them) use the word 'disbelieve' in a VERY different way to the way atheists use it. In short, all the crazy and irrational things Lion suggests about Atheistic attitudes to God (that they are angry at God, or that they should be concerned with God's reactions to their atheism) make sense if by 'I do not believe in Thor' you mean "Thor is real but I am not in his supporters club because MY God is better than Thor".

In Lion's world, everyone has an opinion on which is the correct God, just as everyone has an opinion on which football team will win the cup. You might support the wrong team, or you might even not support any team at all; But nobody seriously believes that no team will win the cup this year. They might tell you that they don't know, or don't care who wins. There are plenty of people who hate the fact that football takes up so much airtime, and dominates conversation, and they might go so far as to say "Don't even mention the football in my presence", but even those people don't think that football doesn't exist, and even if they don't have an opinion on who will win the cup, they still know that a competition of some kind will be won at some point.

The idea that football doesn't exist AT ALL is one that even the most anti-football person does not hold; And in Lion's worldview, atheists are like those anti-football people who want nothing to do with the sport they hate - and he wants us to get the benefit of enjoying the game itself, even if he can't get us all supporting the winning team (which he is sure will be his own).

Of course, the problem for this worldview is that at it's heart it is wrong - the sport he invests so much time in really doesn't exist. It's not football at all - it's Quidditch; A purely fictional sport with no games, no players, no winners or losers, and no cup. He is vehement in his unwavering support for Griffindor to win the Quidditch, and cannot grasp that people who say "Quidditch doesn't exist' are not just angry at the fact that Griffindor keep winning every year, or bitter supporters of Hufflepuff, or even uninterested in sports - they really don't think that there is an actual sport being played at all. Nobody will win the cup; Cheering for the wrong team is not better than cheering for no team at all. There are match previews and supporters clubs and team paraphernalia, but no actual games. Ever. Because the game can only be played using magic, and magic isn't real.

A supporter of Ravenclaw does not have the same reason to reject the claim that Slytherin will win the cup as a person who knows Quidditch doesn't exist. Similarly, Christians do not have the same basis for rejecting Islam as Atheists have for rejecting both.

One of the reasons why atheists find Lion's (and other Christian's) arguments so pathetic is that they are based on the incorrect assumption that atheists believe that Gods exist, but have chosen to reject them all (just as Christians reject all non-Christian Gods). The fact that atheists don't believe any gods exist at all is incomprehensible and inconceivable to these theists, and never enters their reasoning.

 

[Copernicus]

Bilby, the issue here is more one of whether there is a common understanding of the concept that we use words like "deity" and "god" to refer to, not the specific god at issue. I don't particularly care whether a theist is a polytheist or a monotheist. Many, if not most, theists are open to a range of opinions about the nature of the god(s) they believe in. How could anyone even become an atheist if there were not some general concept of "god" to reject belief in? Atheists are usually religious skeptics in that they see the preponderance of evidence as weighing against belief in the existence of any god. For atheists and theists to have a debate on any level at all, they have to share a common sense of what the word means. Otherwise, it is pointless to use labels like "atheist" and "theist", because those words represent antonyms for most people. If you only reject belief in a set of specific gods, then you are not really what one conventionally thinks of as an atheist.

 

[Rhea]

Bilby, the issue here is more one of whether there is a common understanding of the concept that we use words like "deity" and "god" to refer to, not the specific god at issue.

ON the contrary, that was the point of the thread. To determine what Christians define as their god - because even they do not have a common understanding of the being that they all say they have a personal relationship with!!

That was the point. “What are you god people talking about?

And now it’s a whole thread about what are atheists believing. That’s the absurdity of the Christian mocking conversation. Swift dodge and _phew_ we can stop talking about my god, since I can’t defend the definition anyway.

Many, if not most, theists are open to a range of opinions about the nature of the god(s) they believe in.

Then can we stay on topic and find out what that is?
You came in and said, “yeah, this derail is so reasonable.” And now we’re stuck on what atheists think. But we’ll NEVER find out what range they believe in if they aren’t made to stay on topic and actually answer.

How could anyone even become an atheist if there were not some general concept of "god" to reject belief in?

Um. Wot? By having a lack of belief. I have a lack of belief in a lot of things I’ve never heard of, I lack belief because there is an absence of information that would make me believe.

Like how babies are born without theism, despite never having been preached to.

Atheists are usually religious skeptics in that they see the preponderance of evidence as weighing against belief in the existence of any god. For atheists and theists to have a debate on any level at all, they have to share a common sense of what the word means.

Right. So what the hell are the theists talking about? THEY need to define the gods because we don’t have any.

Otherwise, it is pointless to use labels like "atheist" and "theist", because those words represent antonyms for most people.

That would be theist and anti-theist.

A-theism is merely a lack, not a rejection.

 

[bilby]

Bilby, the issue here is more one of whether there is a common understanding of the concept that we use words like "deity" and "god" to refer to, not the specific god at issue. I don't particularly care whether a theist is a polytheist or a monotheist. Many, if not most, theists are open to a range of opinions about the nature of the god(s) they believe in. How could anyone even become an atheist if there were not some general concept of "god" to reject belief in?

I never became an atheist, so I couldn't say. People are born atheist; Some become theists; And some of those become Atheists again - with varying degrees of baggage.

Atheists are usually religious skeptics in that they see the preponderance of evidence as weighing against belief in the existence of any god. For atheists and theists to have a debate on any level at all, they have to share a common sense of what the word means. Otherwise, it is pointless to use labels like "atheist" and "theist", because those words represent antonyms for most people. If you only reject belief in a set of specific gods, then you are not really what one conventionally thinks of as an atheist.

Indeed.

But my point is that many theists do NOT agree with atheists on what the word means. To some theists, 'god' implies something real even when used to describe a god the theist does not believe in. In such a case, the theist in question is using a totally different definition from that used by the atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in either Thor or Jehova, because he considers both to be fictional; A theist might believe in Jehova, and not believe in Thor because he believes that Jehova doesn't want him to believe in Thor. He rejects Thor not as a fictional character, but as a rival god who Jehova demands not be worshiped.

There is then no commonly agreed definition of what the word 'god' implies - because central to that type of theist's definition is that a god is a real entity for any value of 'god'.

Of course there are likely lots of theists who really do view the gods in whom they do not believe with a similar perspective to that which atheists have regarding all gods; But my point is that that is not a description of all theists, and it might explain the difficulty we have in communicating with them - we cannot help but be at cross-purposes, because we both incorrectly assume that we share a definition, when we in fact do not.

I would be interested to know whether LionIRC agrees with me that this is how he treats gods other than the Christian god. He seems to be of the opinion that they are real, but not 'correct' - perhaps because they are merely obscured or misunderstood views of his 'true' god - rather than that they are purely fictional.

 

[Rhea]

Would it be fair to say that many atheists don't believe in freedom of religious expression?

No, that would not be a true (or “fair to say”) statement. In general, Atheists don’t give a shit what you believe. They only care when you try to oppress.

Many atheists object to freedom of religious oppression.

 

[Rhea]

What I do argue is that if you're gonna be all emphatic (and preachy) about your disbelief you should at least be able to define what it is you're claiming doesn't exist. If you're gonna be ranting about stuff not being evidence^TM you should be able to explain what it isn't evidence for.

You’ll note that atheists only tend to get emphatic in response to theists who won’t leave us alone.

There are religions that don’t preach and get in our faces and try to harm our lives.
We don’t have a single word to say about them.

 

[steve_bank]

I belive most belive in the 1st Amendment. We all have freedom of beliefs, expression, and association.

There is an old saying, your right to extend your elbow ends at my nose. Christians don't accept that and presume the right to get in our faces and attempt to use public institutions to promote Christianity. The justification is god wants us to do so, without any definition of god.

 

[DBT]

Why would I be desperate to avoid discussing what atheists don't believe in other than it's not a very well constructed question?

I don't think it's so much a matter of what Atheists 'don't believe in' but the distinction between a belief that is justified and a belief that is not.

 

[bilby]

I belive most belive in the 1st Amendment. We all have freedom of beliefs, expression, and association.

There is an old saying, your right to extend your elbow ends at my nose. Christians don't accept that and presume the right to get in our faces and attempt to use public institutions to promote Christianity. The justification is god wants us to do so, without any definition of god.

I don't believe in, or even support, your first amendment.

Its history is ignoble - as a means to prevent sectarian warfare it wasn't bad, but as a road to secularism it has been awful. Its effects are weak at best, and counterproductive at worst - European nations with established religions have done far better at secularising their societies than the USA.

It's a typical American idea - far better in theory and far worse in practice than the solutions applied elsewhere.

In the hard sciences, good ideas are a boon. In the social sciences, good ideas inhibit flexibility, and usually do more harm than good. Your bill of rights is a good example of this.

I will grant you that freedom from having soldiers billeted in your home is probably a good universal right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I do argue is that if you're gonna be all emphatic (and preachy) about your disbelief you should at least be able to define what it is you're claiming doesn't exist. If you're gonna be ranting about stuff not being evidence^TM you should be able to explain what it isn't evidence for.

You’ll note that atheists only tend to get emphatic in response to theists who won’t leave us alone.

There are religions that don’t preach and get in our faces and try to harm our lives.
We don’t have a single word to say about them.

Or theists that are certain they have found a proof to put atheists in their place.

Such as this lame brained, I have a god that I believe exists but you tell me first what type of god you don’t believe in and then I’ll let you know if they are the same.

 

[Jobar]

 

[Copernicus]

/mod

 

[Opoponax]

I do, however, believe there's a ghost of a chance we can find someone to love - and make it last.

Typical Tom Sawyer appeal to woo...

Hey, my mind is not for rent to any god or government.

The Canadian gods of music is your mysticism. Explain!

 

[Lion IRC]

Bilby, the issue here is more one of whether there is a common understanding of the concept that we use words like "deity" and "god" to refer to, not the specific god at issue. I don't particularly care whether a theist is a polytheist or a monotheist. Many, if not most, theists are open to a range of opinions about the nature of the god(s) they believe in. How could anyone even become an atheist if there were not some general concept of "god" to reject belief in?

I never became an atheist, so I couldn't say. People are born atheist; Some become theists; And some of those become Atheists again - with varying degrees of baggage.

Atheists are usually religious skeptics in that they see the preponderance of evidence as weighing against belief in the existence of any god. For atheists and theists to have a debate on any level at all, they have to share a common sense of what the word means. Otherwise, it is pointless to use labels like "atheist" and "theist", because those words represent antonyms for most people. If you only reject belief in a set of specific gods, then you are not really what one conventionally thinks of as an atheist.

Indeed.

But my point is that many theists do NOT agree with atheists on what the word means. To some theists, 'god' implies something real even when used to describe a god the theist does not believe in. In such a case, the theist in question is using a totally different definition from that used by the atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in either Thor or Jehova, because he considers both to be fictional; A theist might believe in Jehova, and not believe in Thor because he believes that Jehova doesn't want him to believe in Thor. He rejects Thor not as a fictional character, but as a rival god who Jehova demands not be worshiped.

There is then no commonly agreed definition of what the word 'god' implies - because central to that type of theist's definition is that a god is a real entity for any value of 'god'.

Of course there are likely lots of theists who really do view the gods in whom they do not believe with a similar perspective to that which atheists have regarding all gods; But my point is that that is not a description of all theists, and it might explain the difficulty we have in communicating with them - we cannot help but be at cross-purposes, because we both incorrectly assume that we share a definition, when we in fact do not.

I would be interested to know whether LionIRC agrees with me that this is how he treats gods other than the Christian god. He seems to be of the opinion that they are real, but not 'correct' - perhaps because they are merely obscured or misunderstood views of his 'true' god - rather than that they are purely fictional.

Yes, I basically agree with bilby to the extent that the god(s) worshipped by many other religions are real but only insofar as being flawed perceptions of reality. Muslims and Christians worship the same God, in my opinion, by virtue of the fact that there is only One God. Polytheists misconceive the plural manifestations of divinity as evidence of multiple gods but I'm not going to tell all those blind men feeling different parts of the elephant that trunks and tusks and tails don't exist!
Then there's the broader concept of an ontological existence of God/divinity/Maximal Being which ALL religions can rightfully claim as a shared truth or at least shared definition.

If the divide-and-conquer atheist wants to haggle about comparative religion and mutually exclusive definitions of God that's intellectually fair. But the points I've just outlined surely make the case that there's a lot of "definition" which is shared and can't be just brushed aside in these "Define God" threads.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are so giving with not judging a polytheists misunderstanding of god. Good thing you have the right understanding.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's an old joke:

When a Jewish atheist heard that the best school in town was a private school that happened to be Catholic, he enrolled his son.
One day the boy came home and said he had just learned all about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
His father, barely able to control his rage, seized his son by the shoulders and said, “David, this is very important, so listen carefully: there is no trinity. There is only ONE God. The God of Abraham, and Moses, who freed our people from slavery — and we don’t believe in Him!”

 

[Jobar]

I do not honestly believe that Lion is out of line to ask atheists to define what they think they reject. The thread title starts out with the assumption that the burden of proof is only on theists to define the concept of a deity, but both sides of a controversy bear an equal responsibility on that score. From many past discussions on this subject, I've learned that theists and atheists are all over the place on the question. Are we talking about a generic concept of a deity or the specific one that Christians or Muslims or Jews worship? Is atheism about rejecting belief in gods or just not holding a belief about their existence? Is it even possible to describe a generic concept of a deity that fits all of the various entities that people use that name to refer to?

Yes!

The trouble arises when an atheist gives their concept of what God means, then the theist replies "that's not what God is!"

If we are to discuss this meaningfully, we have to get the believers to say what they mean by 'God'. But it appears every believer has a different concept; God(believer A) does not equal God(believer B) does not equal God(believer C), etc.

Atheists can try to work with very broad definitions; one I frequently have used-

"...And by theism I shall mean the view which holds, as one writer has expressed it, "that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance in existence to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-consistent, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, righteous and benevolent being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what he has created."



Trouble is, all such general definitions contain internal contradictions; and when efforts are made to remove those contradictions, you wind up with something like the deistic god- so meaningless, so unconnected with the real world, that it's pointless to believe in it.

 

[steve_bank]

God only knowsn whao and what god is...II as a human can only speculate.