For Atheists - define what you don't believe in

[bilby]

Sure. I mentioned earlier that we would know if Santa existed based on the attributes Santa is purported to have. We know that no one delivers gifts to all the children of the world in one night. If that were happening we would know it.

This would not apply to any god and especially the Christian God. If we wanted to prove that God doesn't exist then we wouldn't point out that he doesn't deliver gifts to all the children in the world in one night from a flying sled.

There is no necessary connection between God and Santa.

People "believe in" Santa.

People "believe in" gods.

Someone asked that atheists define what they don't "believe in." I don't "believe in" Santa. I don't "believe in" gods.

It's quite simple.

But it should be stated that I'm talking about all the ghost gods, the ones that aren't there, the ones that are phantoms that walk through walls and have magic powers, like the christian gods. If someone wants to call a mountain or a river a god that is different and I think people understand the difference. Those things aren't ghosts.

Also, "believe in" is being pretty tricksy, and I'm not sure most folks have caught on. For example, I know gods are not real, just like I know I'm not a billionaire, or just like I know that Santa is not real. Whether I "believe in" something or not hardly makes a difference.

What's being discussed in this thread are the ghost gods, alleged gods, not rivers and mountains.

I don't believe in mountains or rivers. Those things exist - things that exist don't require belief, because they can be observed.

If someone declares a mountain or river to be sacred, then they are adding an additional, unobservable, attribute, that is subject to belief or disbelief, and that is, IMO, correctly included in your classification of 'ghost gods'.

If an entity has no impact upon those who do not believe in it, and if people who don't believe in it do not come to belief in it without prompting from existing believers, then it almost certainly doesn't exist. Even entities as ephemeral as neutrinos have a demonstrable effect on the real world; If all knowledge and record of Jehova, and all knowledge and record of neutrinos were to be lost in a collapse of civilization, and a new equally advanced civilization were to rise to take its place, then the new civilization would discover the neutrino, but would never discover Jehova. Indeed, we see cultures around the world with different gods based on their location and local history and culture; These geographically separate cultures never arrive at the same set of Gods. But they do arrive at the same set of physical laws.

If any of the gods were real, you would expect that the first missionaries in a newly discovered land would find that the indigenous people already worshiped the same gods. But they never do.

 

[Keith&Co.]

say, and say, but no demonstration except by more assertion

I have said it more than once ...

YAAAYYYYY!

MORE ASSERTION!

 

[Rhea]

I think that belief in gods goes much deeper than just unquestioning acceptance of what they were told as children.

Don’t you find this is directly contradicted by the bahavior and beliefs of the children of atheists?
My children were born atheists and were raised without preaching and indoctrination. As were several of their friends. I’ve watched them grown from infants to young adults and they do not behave at all like you’re saying kids have to behave.

Most people are instinctive dualists. That is, they split reality up into the physical and the mental, rather than seeing mental thoughts, feelings, and sensations as just an aspect of physical reality. We interact with physical reality through volition--mind over body (and matter). So belief in two planes of existence--the spiritual and the physical--is a natural state of affairs.

But it doesn’t naturally lead to a belief in eithr god or the supernatural. As seen in the children raised without religious instruction. There is evidence to review on this “natural state” that you claim. Does it match your hypothesis?

My experience with actual children is “no.” It’s not “spiritual” frou frou at all. It’s fictional. They love stories and they know they are stories unless instructed otherwise by parents.

To the extent that we become materialists, we do that later in life, after we've come to observe the dependence of mental activity on physical brain activity. Gods tend to inhabit the spiritual realm, so it isn't hard to convince people that immaterial beings such as gods could exist.

Or Santa Claus, right? But only by convincing them. Indoctrinating. Instructing. They do NOT do this by themselves. When my children were faced with the knowledge that their friends believed in Santa Claus but we had not given them instruction (indoctrination) in it, they were not prone to believe that it was real.

A god can manipulate physical reality by will alone, just as our minds can will our bodies to move. Gods would explain a lot of events that are otherwise inexplicable, and they provide us a means of trying to influence events that seem beyond our control, e.g. natural disasters.

Only if you are indoctrinated to believe a god is a believed choice.

What I'm getting at is that belief in a deity is not caused by a failure to be sufficiently skeptical. It follows as a consequence of our own intimate experiences and interactions with the physical world. indoctrination

It takes time for people to begin to look for better models of reality, and most people aren't ever motivated to do so. Atheism is not an attractive belief.

?? Evidence?

It might explain reality better--for example, why there is so much human suffering--but it doesn't represent a more attractive explanation of reality.

Evidencde beyond your opinion? My kids example and that of their friends is evidence that you are wrong.

For one thing, it doesn't promise immortality or an ultimate alleviation of suffering. As the previous Pope once said, atheism robs people of their hope.

Bullshit. What a weird thing to say unless a person is utterly invested in god belief.

Do you _really_ think atheists lack “hope”????

 

[Jobar]

Lion, in my post you quoted from I gave a definition of God ("...a supreme, self-consistent, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, righteous and benevolent being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what he has created.") meant to describe Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah. It's general enough to cover all the common monotheistic faiths. Would you accept it as an approximation of the God you believe in, even if it doesn't address every characteristic of your belief?

Yes, a very close approximation. I couldn't have said it better.

Even that very general definition is one that we find unbelievable, because of internal contradictions in the characteristics listed. So defining the God of your belief more specifically (maybe by adding 'who gave His only begotten son for the salvation of those who believe on Him') doesn't help you, if you want to convince us we are wrong in our unbelief.

Well I don't think there are any internal contradictions but I agree, the doctrine of atonement is a little esoteric for a thread like this.

Your list of counter-apologies doesn't include the point being argued here;
*Theistic definitions of God/gods are unintelligible/self-contradictory.

No, I don't accept that my definition (as you summarised it) has any internal contradictions.
So when the atheist (incorrectly/mistakenly) describes the God they don't believe in as an incoherent entity, then that justifies my having asked them to define what it is they disbelieve.

So many times I am telling atheists that I wouldn't worship the God they are describing.

You really should put the Problem of Evil/Suffering in there, too.

Yep. Good catch. It should probably be at the top of my list.
The God/god(s) of any religion would have to account for the existence of otherwise preventable evil/suffering.

But do you see my point about the need for the atheist to at least define the scope of their disbelief sufficiently to allow good faith dialogue? How often do we see atheists quibbling about stuff that PZ Myers rightly says is off topic.

If we (theists and atheists) are to discuss the topics of God/gods meaningfully, of course we ought to be sure that we have similar definitions. My only point all along has been that we skeptics aren't really the ones who should first put forward such definitions; after all, we aren't the ones attempting to justify the existence of such an entity, or entities. And it's always been surprisingly difficult for us to elicit such definitions from the believers who are willing to deeply discuss these topics, or even the ones who just want to preach to (or at) us. There seems to be nothing in the Bible which would serve concisely; I'd like it if some Biblical (or Koranic) scholar could assemble a list of verses that conveyed the same thing in toto that my offering does.

I should note that quote comes from the book Critiques of God: A major statement of the case against belief in God, ed. by Peter Angeles, from 1976. I'm pleased that you confirm it's a valid approximation of the definition of God; as you say, it gives us something to work with.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, it's not really up to atheists to define to Christians, Muslims or whomever what their religion is about. It's their God, so they're the ones who need to define it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sure. I mentioned earlier that we would know if Santa existed based on the attributes Santa is purported to have. We know that no one delivers gifts to all the children of the world in one night. If that were happening we would know it.

This would not apply to any god and especially the Christian God. If we wanted to prove that God doesn't exist then we wouldn't point out that he doesn't deliver gifts to all the children in the world in one night from a flying sled.

There is no necessary connection between God and Santa.

People "believe in" Santa.

People "believe in" gods.

Someone asked that atheists define what they don't "believe in." I don't "believe in" Santa. I don't "believe in" gods.

It's quite simple.

But it should be stated that I'm talking about all the ghost gods, the ones that aren't there, the ones that are phantoms that walk through walls and have magic powers, like the christian gods. If someone wants to call a mountain or a river a god that is different and I think people understand the difference. Those things aren't ghosts.

Also, "believe in" is being pretty tricksy, and I'm not sure most folks have caught on. For example, I know gods are not real, just like I know I'm not a billionaire, or just like I know that Santa is not real. Whether I "believe in" something or not hardly makes a difference.

What's being discussed in this thread are the ghost gods, alleged gods, not rivers and mountains.

I don't believe in mountains or rivers. Those things exist - things that exist don't require belief, because they can be observed.

If someone declares a mountain or river to be sacred, then they are adding an additional, unobservable, attribute, that is subject to belief or disbelief, and that is, IMO, correctly included in your classification of 'ghost gods'.

If an entity has no impact upon those who do not believe in it, and if people who don't believe in it do not come to belief in it without prompting from existing believers, then it almost certainly doesn't exist. Even entities as ephemeral as neutrinos have a demonstrable effect on the real world; If all knowledge and record of Jehova, and all knowledge and record of neutrinos were to be lost in a collapse of civilization, and a new equally advanced civilization were to rise to take its place, then the new civilization would discover the neutrino, but would never discover Jehova. Indeed, we see cultures around the world with different gods based on their location and local history and culture; These geographically separate cultures never arrive at the same set of Gods. But they do arrive at the same set of physical laws.

If any of the gods were real, you would expect that the first missionaries in a newly discovered land would find that the indigenous people already worshiped the same gods. But they never do.

Well it's nice to see someone else understanding how the phrase "believe in" gets misused. I've heard people ask, "Do you believe in evolution?" When I first heard that I knew the person had no concept of evolution. Many years ago I made the same observation as yourself, namely that I do not need to "believe in" the tree in my back yard. I can simply observe that it is there, no belief needed. It's a very liberating understanding about how belief works, and I don't think believer types appreciate the distinction.

Many, perhaps most, of the believer types I ask also state confidently that they believe in ghosts. I've gotten used to this, gods woo and ghosts are all the same thing to them. I was at first surprised to discover that college educated people still believed in ghosts but the religious folks pretty much all do, and they love telling their ghost stories.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, a very close approximation. I couldn't have said it better.



Well I don't think there are any internal contradictions but I agree, the doctrine of atonement is a little esoteric for a thread like this.

Your list of counter-apologies doesn't include the point being argued here;
*Theistic definitions of God/gods are unintelligible/self-contradictory.

No, I don't accept that my definition (as you summarised it) has any internal contradictions.
So when the atheist (incorrectly/mistakenly) describes the God they don't believe in as an incoherent entity, then that justifies my having asked them to define what it is they disbelieve.

So many times I am telling atheists that I wouldn't worship the God they are describing.

You really should put the Problem of Evil/Suffering in there, too.

Yep. Good catch. It should probably be at the top of my list.
The God/god(s) of any religion would have to account for the existence of otherwise preventable evil/suffering.

But do you see my point about the need for the atheist to at least define the scope of their disbelief sufficiently to allow good faith dialogue? How often do we see atheists quibbling about stuff that PZ Myers rightly says is off topic.

If we (theists and atheists) are to discuss the topics of God/gods meaningfully, of course we ought to be sure that we have similar definitions. My only point all along has been that we skeptics aren't really the ones who should first put forward such definitions; after all, we aren't the ones attempting to justify the existence of such an entity, or entities. And it's always been surprisingly difficult for us to elicit such definitions from the believers who are willing to deeply discuss these topics, or even the ones who just want to preach to (or at) us. There seems to be nothing in the Bible which would serve concisely; I'd like it if some Biblical (or Koranic) scholar could assemble a list of verses that conveyed the same thing in toto that my offering does.

I should note that quote comes from the book Critiques of God: A major statement of the case against belief in God, ed. by Peter Angeles, from 1976. I'm pleased that you confirm it's a valid approximation of the definition of God; as you say, it gives us something to work with.

A few days ago a neighbor was telling me how he witnessed his long departed father in his house, a typical ghost story. He was surprised to find that i didn't feel the same about ghosts and I told him he's just imagining these things, that they are not really there. I told him the ghosts are in his head, like a thought, and that the thought is quite real. I told him that although the thought is real real enough the ghost he is seeing is not real outside his brain. But I did tell him also that believing he is seeing a ghost, particularly one that he really likes and misses can be quite restorative, feel really great. We understood each other perfectly. I'm going to try to use that line of reasoning in future encounters with folks when it comes to gods.

And we all do this when we use our imaginations. Having gods in one's life is no different than my flying around my neighborhood. God thoughts and my flying over my house are equally real thoughts, but neither experience can be shown to have actually happened beyond our brains as we imagined it. We have to write books, make movies and tell stories to make those things come to life and have an artificial existence outside our brains.

 

[Random Person]

say, and say, but no demonstration except by more assertion

I have said it more than once ...

YAAAYYYYY!

MORE ASSERTION!

It's dishonest to edit what someone said and then make a counterpoint to the edit. You also didn't answer my question.

I have said it more than once in a way that can be easily understood. How much do I have to dumb this down?

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is there really any difference?

Well maybe a bit in degree:

. Santa punishes the bad by withholding toys and giving a lump of coal but only for that year. God punishes the bad with eternal damnation in hell.

. Santa rewards the good with toys but only for that year. God rewards the good with eternal bliss in heaven.

But there is still that both are omniscient and reward the good and punish the bad.

Does Santa care if you believe in him and worship him? Or only that you are good? I think Santa is clearly better than God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

YAAAYYYYY!

MORE ASSERTION!

It's dishonest to edit what someone said and then make a counterpoint to the edit.

You provided no evidence, no argument, just an assertion. What have I done dishonestly?

You also didn't answer my question.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

I have said it more than once in a way that can be easily understood. How much do I have to dumb this down?

It's perfectly clear. it's understood. it's just meaningless unless we already agree with you.

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

It's your claim. YOU get to provide a 'why it IS true' before anyone else need lift a finger in reply.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does Santa care if you believe in him and worship him? Or only that you are good? I think Santa is clearly better than God.

He may not even CARE if you're good. Maybe it's just a job, to him.

The good get toys, the naughty get coal. No mention anywhere of an appeals process, or of Santa fudging things one way or another. I mean, my wife had three students who had a 58 or59 for the year. She gave them a chance at extra credit to bump him to 60, and passing. One busted ass and got the points, one threw the worksheet in her face. Happy summer school.
Anyway, there's no holiday Claymation of Santa offering a last-chance to up your status from the naughty list.
But then again, your naughty/nice score doesn't carry over into the next holiday season, much less all of eternity...

 

[Random Person]

You provided no evidence, no argument, just an assertion. What have I done dishonestly?

You also didn't answer my question.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

I have said it more than once in a way that can be easily understood. How much do I have to dumb this down?

It's perfectly clear. it's understood. it's just meaningless unless we already agree with you.

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

It's your claim. YOU get to provide a 'why it IS true' before anyone else need lift a finger in reply.

I did provide several arguments. You ignored them.

If my arguments are perfectly understood then why don't you acknowledge them and provide a counter?

"People exist so God must exist too." <--- You don't know why that wouldn't be true? You understand I am saying that it's not true right? This isn't my argument. This question is the deep end of the pool for you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I did provide several arguments. You ignored them.

Okay. Sorry.
Where are they?

Because as posted, it just looks like an argument from incredulity.

 

[skepticalbip]

The same evidence can't be used. They aren't the same.

sp you say, and say, and say, but no demonstration except by more assertion

I have said it more than once in a way that can be easily understood. How much do I have to dumb this down?

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

People exist so the ancient alien visitors that modified the genes in one of Earth's ape species to make them intelligent enough to work as slaves for them mining gold must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

 

[James Brown]

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

If "God" is an imaginary concept made up by people, then the statement is true.

Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
--Robert G. Ingersoll

 

[Random Person]

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

If "God" is an imaginary concept made up by people, then the statement is true.

Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
--Robert G. Ingersoll

Nope. Imaginary concepts aren'y necessarily true or false.

 

[Random Person]

I have said it more than once in a way that can be easily understood. How much do I have to dumb this down?

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

People exist so the ancient alien visitors that modified the genes in one of Earth's ape species to make them intelligent enough to work as slaves for them mining gold must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.


Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have said it more than once in a way that can be easily understood. How much do I have to dumb this down?

People exist so God must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

People exist so the ancient alien visitors that modified the genes in one of Earth's ape species to make them intelligent enough to work as slaves for them mining gold must exist too. <------- Why is that not true?

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.


Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

 

[Juma]

If "God" is an imaginary concept made up by people, then the statement is true.

Nope. Imaginary concepts aren'y necessarily true or false.

Of course not. But the proposition that ”god exists” is.
If ”god” is defined to mean the human concept of deity then your proposition is true.

 

[Random Person]

If "God" is an imaginary concept made up by people, then the statement is true.

Nope. Imaginary concepts aren'y necessarily true or false.

Of course not. But the proposition that ”god exists” is.
If ”god” is defined to mean the human concept of deity then your proposition is true.

It's not my proposition that God exists. Is it yours?

- - - Updated - - -

There is no necessary connection between the two and there is an expectation of knowledge. If aliens were harvesting gold from earth we would know that it was happening.


Side note: You are suggesting ID. I don't imagine you want to do that.

I am suggesting nothing. I am only pointing out that your statement is the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion. Any statement containing an asinine assertion gives the conclusion of whatever was assumed, regardless of how absurd.

ETA:
BTW - there is intelligent design. Humans have been doing it for quite a while now. One of the products is the genetically modified organisms that is in a great deal of the food you eat.

Intelligent design by an imaginary supernatural being is another story.

Aliens creating humans is an example of ID as opposed to humans evolving from another species.