Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

[SIB]

Define atheist? I list the personality traits...

Personality traits have nothing to do with it.
Would someone with better language skills than I, please explain these terms to SIB:

Theist =
Atheist =
Gnostic =
Agnostic =

SIB, after you have digested these terms, please plot yourself on the following graph. then update your profile.
Your comments clearly show you to be a believer. That's OK. Believers can post here. But I hate liars.

View attachment 45997

How about we describe how the universe works to the best of our abilities first. Basically, form a belief off of observations. Then form a relative reliability list of our beliefs? which ones are more or less likely? and openly discuss using all information available.

Where does your table fit the following?

no god or gods of any type
something complex more than humans
my god only

I think we need a minimum of three to work. Only this or that enters fundy think or agenda driven in this god case. I start simple because, well, I am not smart. I just put those three in order. Then we can apply more information of possible.

For me, "Any God" is problematic. The traits of the thing are the focal point. I look at the system around me. What classification, that we have, does it match? Lets look at a general classification, more complex than us (humans) or less complex than us (Humans). Obviously we can move the points around a bit.

What does the system around us match better? That's where I start.

I would say I believe that answer is in-between "doesn't believe in any god or gods of any type" and "believes a god exists". Then I go from there.

 

[abaddon]

What does the system around us match better? That's where I start.

Why bother matching "the system around us" (do you mean the ecosphere?) to any theism classification?

I would say I believe that answer is in-between "doesn't believe in any god or gods of any type" and "believes a god exists". Then I go from there.

What's in-between atheism and theism? They're an absolute binary.

IMV these terms describe people, not systems in nature. If you believe in gods, that's theism and so you're a theist. If you don't, that's atheism and so you're an atheist.

People who don't like either term, and want another label, are still one or the other anyway. Some folk carry on about "I'm too open-minded to be a theist or an atheist!" and will choose agnosticism for this reason. But their two choices are still theism and atheism anyway, they're just being fussy for having stereotypical images of theists and atheists.

But anyway, what does finding a "classification" do to help describe "the system around us"? I don't see the relevance. Sometimes people will say something like "I think polytheism fits nature better than monotheism" because there's so much variability in nature; but this is just people playing around with metaphors. It can't explain things.

Atheist, theist, agnostic... they're terms to describe humans, not systems. And about humans they only describe whether the person's a believer in gods (theist), unbeliever in gods (atheist), someone trying to not get limited to a dogmatic god-belief (agnostic theist), someone trying to not get limited to a hard stance against god-belief (agnostic atheist).

My own stance is that God cannot add anything to any discussion, unless we're talking about mythology. To me a god is never anything else than a type of character in myths, like elves and dwarves and wizards. It's a sloppy abuse of language when philosophers use the term to discuss metaphysics -- whatever system or holism or ultimate that they're calling "God" can, in all cases, be given a much less baggage-laden label.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheist, no god. Theist there is a god or gods.

I understood agnostic as there is no way to prove it so al l I can say isI do not know. I call it sitting on a fence.

There are dictionary definitions of terms and there is hiow they are used cokkoquikly.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

[The agnostic] principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.[10]
— Thomas Henry Huxley

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[11][12][13]
— Thomas Henry Huxley

Then the inevitable speciation of categories. Atheist agnostic and theist agnostic. Weak atheist and strong atheist.

Weak theism I don't think I believe in gods but I feel like there ere is something.

Atheist is not an affirmation of any belief, the key is the 'a' in atheist. Atheist and theist are mutually exclusive. Hence the shades of atheism and theism, us humans do not typically fit onto black and whit binary categories.

There s no singular Christian or atheist.

Logically A and ~A. Something can not be both true and not true.

 

[DBT]

Without evidence, what reason is there to believe?

 

[TomC]

Without evidence, what reason is there to believe?

Makes you feel better and enjoy life more.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Without evidence, what reason is there to believe?

I would suppose some would say there is evidence. Of course, when you follow up with them on it, the evidence isn't quite as relevant to their faith all of a sudden.

God exists because we exist and we can't explain adequately why we exist. This use to be the case for other things like weather, disease, the NY Jets. We understand that better now, so we don't just default to God to explain why that is the way it is. But we still have our own origin and the Universe's origin (if it is even accurate to consider such a state). Add inertia and the human desire to feel control over what they don't understand... you get God.

 

[TomC]

I would suppose some would say there is evidence.

Speaking for myself,
I don't think there's evidence. That's why I feel free to believe whatever I want to on the subject.

However, I don't expect anyone else to agree with me. That's what makes me different from theists.

It's also the fundamental principle of my moral principles. Humans need help, care, and compassion. All of us. There is no God who will even help, much less do it for us. So, we must do it for each other or it just won't happen.
Tom

 

[unapologetic]

SIB;
So you don't believe in god, but you do believe in the supernatural?
"between "doesn't believe in any god or gods of any type" and "believes a god exists"."
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I will stop thinking of you as a christian agitator. And I apologize.
That puts you in the middle of the theist <---> atheist scale.
How certain are you?
Gnostic (certain) <---> agnostic (uncertain) scale.
"My god only" would be gnostic, I think.

Choosing to live under Jesus in his domain...everyone is happy.

And if I don't, That's a sin for which I'll burn? In a hell created by your god, just for that purpose.
That 'choice' is nothing short of a Protection Racket. The rescuer is also the jeopardizer. (like your neighborhood gang or mobsters)
The cult that put that delusional rationalization into your head is EVIL.
I don't need jesus' 'protection' (which he can't deliver) from a hell that doesn't exist.

By your idea above - why would Jesus want credit for your 'moral life' if you're rejecting God etc.? Not that's what it's all about.

All powerful immortal beings wouldn't give a damn what you or I think. Wouldn't give a damn about getting credit.
It is your CULT that wants us to give credit to it's figurehead.

What's in-between atheism and theism? They're an absolute binary.

I disagree. It's a scale. I am further along the atheism scale than most.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Without evidence, what reason is there to believe?

Rhymes with 'wraith'. And has the same substance.

 

[TomC]

What's in-between atheism and theism? They're an absolute binary.

I disagree. It's a scale. I am further along the atheism scale than most.

I completely agree with unapologetic here. It's a huge spectrum. And people can move along it over time, in either direction.
Sometimes on a day to day basis.
Tom

 

[Learner]

Choosing to live under Jesus in his domain...everyone is happy.

And if I don't, That's a sin for which I'll burn? In a hell created by your god, just for that purpose.
That 'choice' is nothing short of a Protection Racket. The rescuer is also the jeopardizer. (like your neighborhood gang or mobsters)The cult that put that delusional rationalization into your head is EVIL.I don't need jesus' 'protection' (which he can't deliver) from a hell that doesn't exist.

Being told to 'Love your neighbor & love your enemies as yourself' - everyone holding to that idea (& following them) would be quite counter-productive and a problematic threat to dictatorships and gang rackets. Jesus doesn't want your hard earned money or your material possessions. Giving to the poor and hungry is one of the must dos.

By your idea above - why would Jesus want credit for your 'moral life' if you're rejecting God etc.? Not that's what it's all about.

All powerful immortal beings wouldn't give a damn what you or I think. Wouldn't give a damn about getting credit.
It is your CULT that wants us to give credit to it's figurehead.

I can only say of the above that your god description is a different description to the biblical God.

 

[Thomas II]

Reality is different in different in different states of consciousness...

What is consciousness? What is awareness? What is reality?

 

[unapologetic]

Being told to 'Love your neighbor & love your enemies as yourself' - everyone holding to that idea (& following them) would be quite counter-productive and a problematic threat to dictatorships and gang rackets. Jesus doesn't want your hard earned money or your material possessions. Giving to the poor and hungry is one of the must dos.

That does not justify the threat of hell. And your cult does not have a monopoly on 'love your neighbor' ideas.
The existence of HELL^tm puts the lie to 'god's love'.

I can only say of the above that your god description is a different description to the biblical God.

You have obviously not read the whole thing. And/or too gullible about what you are told how to interpret it.
You probably look up to Abraham as the perfect christian.

 

[SIB]

For me, asking if "hidden means the same as no god" is theology. In this case, its some atheist theology and based on what people want. That really isn't my thing. I mean I am ok with an emotional attachment to god or no god so long long as it stays in its lane.

For me, it is about describing the system around us to the best of our ability such that "emotion" or "practicality" is not determining the best description we have. So I put them in a list and determine what "storyline" matches best. With a special focus on "Why do you rate that observation as heavily as you do?"

No god or gods of any type
I don't have to make a claim (but I only have to counter any claim without any counter claim)
Hidden means no god
something more
a deity of some type (I call it My God Only)
Add any others

I put them in a relative reliability list.
What one of these matches the system around us best?
What one can be repeated by people no matter where they were born?
Is a political stance clouding the issue for personal need?

For me, a major component of enlightenment is "Knowing when I know what I don't know." and "Why am I having an emotional response?"

But since we are on the net, truth is secondary is personal political agenda. Very few of us can deviate from that or this is easy. Just put the list in a relative reliability (not fact) list. That's the best we gotz to me.