What difference does it make?

[DLH]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

 

[DLH]

At least DLH admits to being somewhat of an idiot. More of us should do the same, or at least consider the possibility. OTOH, there is no justification for DLH being so confrontational on a message board dedicated to non-belief.

So a public forum in which belief is confronted shouldn't have a rebuttal with equal veracity? I usually don't get confrontational until I'm badgered or hounded by the house harpies. There are always at least two or three of them. Sometimes larger packs. I know what I'm in for in doing that but I'm not terribly concerned with political correctness, making friends or enemies. I empathize and sympathize with the skeptical and critical. I think they have good reason for it, but I also think it a pity they aren't very good at it and that bothers them.

 

[lostone]

At least DLH admits to being somewhat of an idiot. More of us should do the same, or at least consider the possibility. OTOH, there is no justification for DLH being so confrontational on a message board dedicated to non-belief.

So a public forum in which belief is confronted shouldn't have a rebuttal with equal veracity? I usually don't get confrontational until I'm badgered or hounded by the house harpies. There are always at least two or three of them. Sometimes larger packs. I know what I'm in for in doing that but I'm not terribly concerned with political correctness, making friends or enemies. I empathize and sympathize with the skeptical and critical. I think they have good reason for it, but I also think it a pity they aren't very good at it and that bothers them.

We aren't very good at it because it a difficult subject. Of course it bothers us, or we not be having this kind of discussion at all. Many of us are quite happy with admitting we do not know, and perhaps even cannot know, and we are just making our own best guess, based on what we seen, which may be quite flawed. Anyone honest, on any and all sides, knows their logic, their premises and conclusions, are far from iron clad, and dubious.

 

[DLH]

We aren't very good at it because it a difficult subject.

Unlike science, sociology or politics? Nature. Creation isn't as complicated as the creator?

Of course it bothers us, or we not be having this kind of discussion at all.

I'm not sure what you are talking about there. What is it, who are we and what kind of discussion?

Many of us are quite happy with admitting we do not know, and perhaps even cannot know, and we are just making our own best guess, based on what we seen, which may be quite flawed.

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Do not or cannot know what and why not?

It's quite flawed, I can agree with that, whatever it is. What human endeavor isn't? That's part of what makes it somewhat interesting. Up to a point.

Anyone honest, on any and all sides, knows their logic, their premises and conclusions, are far from iron clad, and dubious.

Hmmm.

 

[steve_bank]

When DLH started posting he made it clear he was here to analogize atheists. He was ‘tired of hearing ideological atheist talk about science’, science being an ideology.

No problem with that, we are aggressive with theists. Members on all sides are aggressive with all topics.

As to challenging mainstream beliefs, DLH must have missed the Curtail Revolution that started ion the 60s. Rejection of mainstream Christian sexual and social values.

The free speech movement that made this forum possible. The 60s Christian norms would not allow such public criticism of religion and open promotion of atheism .

I remember the Smothers Brothers 60s TV show and how they were censored by the government for being socially and politically incorrect. Lenny Bruce.

So DLH, post as you please. No one is telling you that you can’t. Stop whining.

Tell me DLH, can you stand on your own two feet without the bible as a crutch?

As to the question of gods existing or not, as I do not believe in gods the question is meaningless. Iif a gid did exist I’d have as much respect as I do for any petty authorterian dictator, like Yahweh, Putin, and Trump. If yi want to suck up to a god and kiss his ass that is a matter of self respect.

Apparently you have an agenda. You said your phase one on the forum was over and phase two was starting. Are we at phase three yet? Have you declared victory?

Look at it like a Miranda warning, anything you post can and will be taken apart and questioned.

 

[DLH]

When DLH started posting he made it clear he was here to analogize atheists.

Why are you always referring to me in the third person? To exhibit dominance? You evolved that, did you? Got it all figured out? Don't do that if you want me to respond to you.

 

[DLH]

At least DLH admits to being somewhat of an idiot. More of us should do the same, or at least consider the possibility. OTOH, there is no justification for DLH being so confrontational on a message board dedicated to non-belief.

Oh, yeah. I'm an idiot. I consider everyone to be which doesn't render such a concept meaningless, it just means we are all just not as clever as we think we are and I would rather give myself the benefit of the doubt. Douglas Adams said "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." I get that but I'm not so certain. That way, when I fuck it up, which I will, at least I'm not mired in that like a stagnant pool. Dogma.

 

[lostone]

At least DLH admits to being somewhat of an idiot. More of us should do the same, or at least consider the possibility. OTOH, there is no justification for DLH being so confrontational on a message board dedicated to non-belief.

Oh, yeah. I'm an idiot. I consider everyone to be which doesn't render such a concept meaningless, it just means we are all just not as clever as we think we are and I would rather give myself the benefit of the doubt. Douglas Adams said "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." I get that but I'm not so certain. That way, when I fuck it up, which I will, at least I'm not mired in that like a stagnant pool. Dogma.

We all have our weaknessses and flaws. You're here to argue with people that you don't like, and that's what we do, so you get what you were looking for. As for dogma, there's an abundant supply of it on all sides.

 

[DLH]

We all have our weaknessses and flaws. You're here to argue with people that you don't like, and that's what we do, so you get what you were looking for. As for dogma, there's an abundant supply of it on all sides.

I'm not here to argue with people I don't like. What a remarkable thing to say. I honestly don't understand why there is that perspective. Like we don't think exactly alike or we don't believe in the same thing so we're supposed to be like the Hatfields and McCoys. That doesn't even reflect reality. We wouldn't have a problem in real life, you think, because we wouldn't discuss our differences? When you say that I'm here to argue with people I don't like, that is sort of a derogatory statement?

I'm only here looking for trouble and attention? My life is such a failure and I crave attention so much that I'm here just to argue with people I don't like. Is there likely not any other sort of interaction we can have since we don't agree? We are all posting on these four boards discussing religion and we couldn't possibly have anything remotely interesting to say, a dialogue, discourse?

I have no trouble disagreeing with people I like, and it isn't that I disagree or dislike anyone here. I don't like people in general because I don't like what they do.

Maybe I'm overreacting to a simple statement you made. Suffice it to say I don't think of my purpose here as adversarial or even argumentative. I'm here to exchange ideas and to discuss the Bible because I like doing that. I think sometimes I come across as an arrogant bully. Maybe because that adversarial relationship is assumed, but actually I should be read as matter of fact.

 

[remez]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

Everyone has a worldview. All worldviews address origin, morality, meaning and destiny. Whether God exists or not would affect each area of everyone's wv. That is quite impactful.

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

Hello Wiploc,

I have been gone for years. And on my first post of return, I find you. The person I left off with in great discussion over the KCA. Glad you are still here. anyway....

Hey! Welcome back!

Meaning....the meaning for my life is to know God and make him known. I'm certain you hold a different meaning to your life and are in no way motivated to know God or make him known. Unless things have drastically changed in the past 5 years.

Your claim isn't that your belief in god affects your worldview. Your claim, if I understood it, was that there is no person whose worldview would be unaffected by the existence of any god.

One of my favorite gods is Xal-x, the god of quadratic equations. He didn't create the world; he showed up later. So I don't see how his existence affects anybody's origin. He requires that we worship quadratic equations. That dog won't hunt. It doesn't interest me; I reject it. I can't see that he affects my meaning or destiny at all.

Perhaps you'd like to retrench and just say that some gods affect some people?

Sorry have not figured the new way to address selected portions of what you said. The quote system. Working on it.

But quickly your first thought....."Your claim isn't that your belief in god affects your worldview. ".....No.... That actually is may claim. Your meaning of life is far different from mine bc you don't believe in Him and I do. So, thus our belief in God or not shapes our wv in different ways. Is back to the original question....yes it makes a difference in the way we see and interact with the world around us.

 

[Wiploc]

Theists believe in gods.
Atheists (all non-theists) don't.

That's what they say, but really it doesn't make a great deal of sense.

It's what I say. It's what I mean. There are, of course, numberless other definitions, but, unless you want to preface each discussion by defining your terms, it is best to stick to one of the two most popular definitions.

The one I use is overwhelmingly preferred by people who call themselves atheists.

It's also clearer, less confusing, than the other popular definition. It is better for meaningful discussion.

In modern-day parlance there is some confusion about what a god is

Which is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist rather than a gnostic atheist.

and then there's the question of what is meant by belief.

I'm not familiar with this question, though I assume philosophers can go on about it.

As the Bible says, the demons know and shudder.

Not sure I'm following.

It isn't necessarily about belief and gods, i.e. venerated.

Belief and veneration are separate things. Many people believe in Satan without venerating him. Theists are those who believe that gods exist, not those who venerate gods.

To me a far more reasonable conclusion - without having to get into specifics - is that theists claim to have gods and atheists claim not to.

I pretended to be a theist until high school. By your definition, there was no pretense; pretending to be a theist made me an actual theist.

I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about theism.

I don't think that's a useful definition. It would make it difficult to address the question of whether the Pope is really catholic.

On the other hand, it would have made the Spanish Inquisition painless.

Inquisitor: "Are you a real Christian?"
Crypto Jew: "Yes."
Inquisitor: "Well, okay then."

For some atheists (babies, for instance), atheism has nothing to do with theology, gods, or the bible.

I don't think a baby has the capacity to believe or disbelieve much of anything.

Which means they can hardly be theists. They are, therefore, atheists.

I don't think theism or atheism has much to do with theology, gods or the Bible. It's about control. A class struggle of sorts. A battle of world views neither side of which seem terribly concerned or informed about theology, gods or the Bible.

Nonsense, I want to say. But, on further thought, that is what I assume about schisms in churches. Martin Luther's 95 theses were a response to Italy's political and fiscal dominance of Catholicism. The Anglican church resulted from King Henry's need for an heir. I assume the people who disputed whether baptism had to be by immersion, and the reality of transubstantiation, had real-world political differences that they were really fighting about.

But surely this has nothing to do with my own atheism?

I don't think it does, but you're free to suspect that I see others more clearly than I see myself.

And also, this issue is affected by our different definitions. I, like a baby, am an atheist because I don't believe that gods exist. Nothing political about that. But I speak up about my atheism because I'm tired of religious oppression.

Since you define atheism as speaking up ...

We had a deconversion thread here once (in a prior incarnation of this website). By far the most common reasons for leaving theism were akin to, "I finally sat down and read the bible." So, for many of us, theology, gods, and bibles do have to do with our atheism.

I've heard that a lot but you have to ask yourself why they were only then getting around to doing that. The answer is they study the Bible when it becomes important to them. If they want to believe or disbelieve it will serve their purpose, and that's good. I think it a personal responsibility, not group think, or riding the bandwagon, or any other thing.

Politics, I believe can be involved too. The Republican party claims the banner of religion, and then makes religion look bad. Bad enough that some people think, "If that's religion, I don't need it."

Right, and the politics gives some alternative justification for a worldview, like equality, freedom, democrisy, or any other obvious fixation which is, like religion used by Republicans and many other ruling classes for their own agenda. Religion is a tool. One of many.

I think it is about control.

I'm not familiar with this idea, and it doesn't chime for me.

Nevertheless, the evidence is pretty clear to anyone not having a dog in the race, i.e. theists and atheists. From the inquisition, crusades to modern-day "enlightenment."

Some atheists (non-believers, I'll try to be consistent in my usage) may have reverted to atheism for political reasons, but many did not. Many of us fail to believe in gods because of the lack of evidence, the same reason we don't believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

It isn't that they don't believe in gods as much as it is they want to be gods.

I think this dog won't hunt. I was raised by Christians, so the Christian god is the one I'm familiar with. The Christian god is unattractive. Evil, mean-spirited, petty, inconsistent, depraved.

It sounds to me like you may be preaching to the choir, or to a crowd.

I'm talking to you. You say I want to be a god. That's absurd. You are wrong.

You have no case. You should retract.

The only time atheists really object to people believing in something they don't believe in is if those other people have sociopolitical control.

You overstate your case.

Would you also claim that believers only object to non-belief when the non-believers are in control? Because that would mean there couldn't be a conflict unless both sides were in control at the same time.

Otherwise they do every aspect of the same thing. Mythology is the alleged objective, they teach their children religious holidays, ignorance - no matter what it is hold it up to a microscope metaphorically and it's obvious.

Nobody should want to be like that.

Right. And so no one is.

Your said I want to be a god.

Now you say nobody wants to be a god?

Are you backpedaling? Or are you saying that you get to pick the god I want to be?

Please clarify.

Imatio Dei, Deus ex machina. Atheism, in my view, is strictly a sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theocratic society.

Do you think people believe in a round earth because of their frustration with a quasi-flat earth society?

[laughs]

In a way I think it's a rebellion and an objection to mainstream authority and beliefs. If you look at religion from an historical perspective it's pretty obvious that science is rapidly just becoming the new religion. Only with much more dangerous potential.

Not obvious to me. But let's not take this thread in that direction.

By the way, I should probably point out that I don't entertain such nonsesne.

Why not? Is it because you want to be a god? Or because you are tired of the political sway held by those who do entertain such nonsense?

 

[DLH]

Sorry have not figured the new way to address selected portions of what you said. The quote system. Working on it.

The easiest way for me is to toggle BB code, the second from the right option in the editor icons above where you post. Then the code comes up and you can delete the quotes you don't need. When you've cleaned it up you can toggle it again to see what it looks like.

 

[Wiploc]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

Everyone has a worldview. All worldviews address origin, morality, meaning and destiny. Whether God exists or not would affect each area of everyone's wv. That is quite impactful.

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

Hello Wiploc,

I have been gone for years. And on my first post of return, I find you. The person I left off with in great discussion over the KCA. Glad you are still here. anyway....

Hey! Welcome back!

Meaning....the meaning for my life is to know God and make him known. I'm certain you hold a different meaning to your life and are in no way motivated to know God or make him known. Unless things have drastically changed in the past 5 years.

Your claim isn't that your belief in god affects your worldview. Your claim, if I understood it, was that there is no person whose worldview would be unaffected by the existence of any god.

One of my favorite gods is Xal-x, the god of quadratic equations. He didn't create the world; he showed up later. So I don't see how his existence affects anybody's origin. He requires that we worship quadratic equations. That dog won't hunt. It doesn't interest me; I reject it. I can't see that he affects my meaning or destiny at all.

Perhaps you'd like to retrench and just say that some gods affect some people?

Sorry have not figured the new way to address selected portions of what you said. The quote system. Working on it.

I'm sympathetic. I've always believed posters are duty bound to cut out material we aren't responding to.

For clarity's sake, post only your own response and the immediate bit you are responding to.

But--I believe--a recent attempt to do that caused me to attribute something you said to someone else.

It's confusing.

And I think there have been recent changes. It seems to me more confusing than before.

I think I have to give up my duty to succinct clarity in order to avoid miss-attributions.

Thus, the beginning of this post:

 

[Wiploc]

Sorry have not figured the new way to address selected portions of what you said. The quote system. Working on it.

The easiest way for me is to toggle BB code, the second from the right option in the editor icons above where you post. Then the code comes up and you can delete the quotes you don't need. When you've cleaned it up you can toggle it again to see what it looks like.

 

[DLH]

It's what I say. It's what I mean. There are, of course, numberless other definitions, but, unless you want to preface each discussion by defining your terms, it is best to stick to one of the two most popular definitions.

The one I use is overwhelmingly preferred by people who call themselves atheists.

It's also clearer, less confusing, than the other popular definition. It is better for meaningful discussion.

I use the terms believer and unbeliever, but any of them will do.

Which is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist rather than a gnostic atheist.

Fine. To each his own. I think all theists and atheists are agnostic, but agnostic and gnostic have meanings of their own.

and then there's the question of what is meant by belief.

I'm not familiar with this question, though I assume philosophers can go on about it.

Philosophers can go on about anything. I'm talking about very simple and straightforward terms. For example, I believe politicians exist but I don't believe in them, as in trust in them.

As the Bible says, the demons know and shudder.

Not sure I'm following.

James 2:19 (NASB) You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. We don't know for certain like the demons know. Their belief is more well founded because they themselves are spirit beings.

Belief and veneration are separate things. Many people believe in Satan without venerating him. Theists are those who believe that gods exist, not those who venerate gods.

Well, it is possible to believe gods exist without venerating or worshipping them; to believe in gods existing but not trust in them as with my example of politicians above. Though usually that isn't true. Also, theists can believe that as the Bible says, Satan is the God of this world, but not worship him. (2 Corinthians 4:4) And I often use the Shinto goddess Amaterasu who isn't presented as or generally believed to exist. A god doesn't have to exist. Luck is another example.

To me a far more reasonable conclusion - without having to get into specifics - is that theists claim to have gods and atheists claim not to.

I pretended to be a theist until high school. By your definition, there was no pretense; pretending to be a theist made me an actual theist.

You were not theist except for in pretense. Many theists are, in my opinion, the same as you were. Only in pretense. What I meant is that not all theists are really theists and not all atheists are really atheists. The latter because they think God has to be a specific example of what it means to be a god - as Paul said in one such case, their God is their bellies. Their stomach, food, appetite, etc. (Philippians 3:19)

I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about theism.

Generally speaking, no. Thus the confusion. People say it's complicated, but I think only the terminology is complicated.

I don't think that's a useful definition. It would make it difficult to address the question of whether the Pope is really catholic.

On the other hand, it would have made the Spanish Inquisition painless.

Inquisitor: "Are you a real Christian?"
Crypto Jew: "Yes."
Inquisitor: "Well, okay then."

There are various forms of theism. Christian, Jew, Hindu, Shinto. Theism isn't exclusively Christian.

I don't think a baby has the capacity to believe or disbelieve much of anything.

Which means they can hardly be theists. They are, therefore, atheists.

I said they don't have the capacity to believe or disbelieve. They are neither atheists or theists, in my opinion, but I wouldn't argue the point. If anyone wishes to think all babies are atheists they are welcome to do so.

Nonsense, I want to say. But, on further thought, that is what I assume about schisms in churches. Martin Luther's 95 theses were a response to Italy's political and fiscal dominance of Catholicism. The Anglican church resulted from King Henry's need for an heir. I assume the people who disputed whether baptism had to be by immersion, and the reality of transubstantiation, had real-world political differences that they were really fighting about.

But surely this has nothing to do with my own atheism?

I don't think it does, but you're free to suspect that I see others more clearly than I see myself.

And also, this issue is affected by our different definitions. I, like a baby, am an atheist because I don't believe that gods exist. Nothing political about that. But I speak up about my atheism because I'm tired of religious oppression.

Since you define atheism as speaking up ...

Yeah, I should have made that more clear. I was talking there about atheism vs. theism being a sociopolitical frustration of a minority of atheists in a quasi-theocratic society. I see atheists as being either by majority, apathetic or minority being militant (outspoken). It isn't that there aren't theological disputes or concerns but that in the struggle between the two it's primarily sociopolitical.

Some atheists (non-believers, I'll try to be consistent in my usage) may have reverted to atheism for political reasons, but many did not. Many of us fail to believe in gods because of the lack of evidence, the same reason we don't believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Okay.

I'm talking to you. You say I want to be a god. That's absurd. You are wrong.

You have no case. You should retract.

I should retract my opinion? Look, you say above that "I'm tired of religious oppression." In other words you don't want any gods controling your life, you want to control your own life. That's what I mean when I say that it isn't that atheists don't believe in gods but want to be one. It is also what I mean when I say that theists create their own gods that have little or nothing to do with the Bible God or theology. It's about abusing religion as a tool. About control in the name of a nameless god.

You overstate your case.

Would you also claim that believers only object to non-belief when the non-believers are in control? Because that would mean there couldn't be a conflict unless both sides were in control at the same time.

Both sides are vying for control, but remember in context we are talking about different approaches to theism and atheism, we are not making blanket statements about either.

Your said I want to be a god.

Now you say nobody wants to be a god?

Are you backpedaling? Or are you saying that you get to pick the god I want to be?

Please clarify.

I think it's common for theists and atheists to have a very limited and narrow perspective on what a god is. Atheists want control of their own lives, not to have someone elses belief dictate control to them and I'm saying, sarcastically, that no one wants to be the god as you see God. Evil, monstrous, whatever, etc.

By the way, I should probably point out that I don't entertain such nonsesne.

Why not? Is it because you want to be a god? Or because you are tired of the political sway held by those who do entertain such nonsense?

I was talking about flat earth. But I'm not tired of the political sway of anyone. I'm appolitical much in the same way as you are atheist. I believe the Bible when it presents religion proping up politics then politics turning on it and destroying it when politics becomes more powerful, then commerce doing the same to politics. So religion, politics, then commerce are, according to my understanding of the Bible, the order of control until God finally takes over and has ultimate control.

So, being irreligious and apolitical means that I take no part in the sociopolitical or religious struggle. I watch it bemused from a distance until it plays itself out.