The only two reasonable positions on the existence of God?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

[McCulloch]

I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

You seem to say that as if it is something noble. God, being who he is, should not be subservient to mere humans, how dare they presume to limit or define him.

I, of course, see it quite differently. God is a word. Words have meaning (or at least they should). You say the word tree and I know what it is you are talking about. I can look out the window and see more than a few things that we would all agree are trees and a few where we might disagree. However, you might use the word God and not only do I not know what you mean when you use that word, but it seems that you don't know what you mean either.

[Ooberman]

I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

You seem to say that as if it is something noble. God, being who he is, should not be subservient to mere humans, how dare they presume to limit or define him.

I, of course, see it quite differently. God is a word. Words have meaning (or at least they should). You say the word tree and I know what it is you are talking about. I can look out the window and see more than a few things that we would all agree are trees and a few where we might disagree. However, you might use the word God and not only do I not know what you mean when you use that word, but it seems that you don't know what you mean either.

This is my problem, too. I have no problem with people who think this way, except as a philosophical problem.

We can't discuss God if they can't define God. What would we be talking about?

Hence the vast number of "strawman" gods, I suppose: because there is no definition, and so atheists have to do the best they can to guess at what the theist means.

As it turns out, they may not mean anything by saying "god". It seems to support the notion that "God" means 'a place holder; another way of saying "I don't know, but I know".

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

You seem to say that as if it is something noble. God, being who he is, should not be subservient to mere humans, how dare they presume to limit or define him.

Since God has not presented Itself, and therefore we don't know if God even exists, there is one definition that fits no matter what God's nature, or whether It exists as a supernatural spirit being or not ....Truth. I propose that we "worship" the Truth by its pursuit, and whatever we find, well, there It/it will be.

[Cephus]

Because "I don't know what's in the bag" is as far as one can go. I choose to decline to guess, since no one is going to open the bag and verify ANY guesses.

Then if you don't know what's in the bag, you can't possibly believe in it because you can't even define what it is. That makes you an atheist by definition.

So if one can't define something, it does not therefore exist?

Sorry. Once again, I disagree.

Same offer I just made to Ooberman:

You think in the ways that suit YOU, and I'll think in the ways that suit ME. I won't tell YOU what and how to think, and you won't tell ME what and how to think. Okay?

Like it or not, we're on a debate forum, specifically in a forum under the category of "DEBATE", there really is no option to just let everyone think what they want to think without challenging them on it.

Besides, if you can't even define a thing, how you you believe in it if you don't even have a clear picture of what it is that you supposedly believe in? That's irrational.

[cnorman18]

As I have often said: if there is a God, he is most probably not only different from what we think, but different from what we CAN think.

"A coherent concept"? I don't know that I have any concept of God at all, never mind a "coherent" one. Once again, I don't think that's necessary. It certainly isn’t for me.

Then "God" doesn't mean anything to me, if it doesn't mean anything to you.

First: I never said (funny how often I'm obliged to note that in response to your posts) that God "doesn't mean anything" to me. I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

It seems the same thing to me.

Then you don't understand the idea.

"Undefined" doesn't mean "worthless" or "nonexistent."

Second: What God means to you is neither my business nor of any interest to me. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. People ask about my views, and I answer. That's all.

i understand. i don't have a problem with that. I am speaking as a topic of conversation among people trying to philosophize about something.

Perhaps that's the problem. I'm really not interested in "philosophizing" about anything.

Once again, and over and over and over ad nausaeum: The doctrinal content of religious belief, as in claims about "the nature of God" and so on, are of minor to no importance in the Jewish religion or to my own. I -- we -- feel no need to justify or explain that aspect of Judaism to anyone. It just isn't a "belief-based" religion, no matter how insistent some others may be that it MUST be or SHOULD be (or even REALLY IS).

For the rest -- as I've said from the start, it still seems to me that you're demanding that people have to claim to know things that they don't if they wish to call themselves "theists"; that "I don't know" -- something that we say every day about myriads of things is somehow unacceptable when speaking of religion, but -- dare I say it -- about NOTHING ELSE; and therefore ALL people other than hardcore fundamentalist/literalist/dogmatists must label themselves "atheists."

Sorry. I disagree.

Tell you what: You think in the ways that suit YOU, and I'll think in the ways that suit ME. I won't tell YOU what and how to think, and you won't tell ME what and how to think. Okay?

I think people ought to understand what it is they believe in if they claim their belief is coherent. That's all.

And the fact that I don't have any interest in "religious doctrine" or the details of "religious beliefs" make you think I don't "understand" my religion -- even when I say over and over and over that those are not important to it?

You see? You still work from stereotype and prejudice, insisting that "religion" is all about "believing in God." From where I sit, you just can't wrap your head around any other perspective or point of view or definition.

I'm not so draconian as you are making out, though, I agree it places a burden on theists which may make them bristle.

What "burden"? Who's bristling? Once again -- those tired old tactics of trying to define the terms of debate for your own convenience (I feel no "burden" because of your failure to grasp and/or accept my perspective here), and simultaneously attributing emotional upset to one's opponent. Surely you can do better.

I am here to discuss the philosophical side of Belief.

Which entails insisting that "belief" is the definition of religion and MUST BE the central concern of all who claim to be "religious."

See, that's why I detest the term "theist"; it implies that belief in God is synonymous with "religion" and must be its primary, or even ONLY, concern.

Beliefs that people have no interest in defending or exploring are of no interest to me. They are a dime-a-dozen. I can make up Gods just as well as anyone here.

I have no interest in "defending" my religion, in the usual sense of "proving it true" or proselytizing for it. I am CERTAINLY interested in "exploring" it -- though "belief" is not of any particular interest, no. And since I hold no definitions of God, I can hardly be accused of "making them up."

I'm interested in the Belief, and if it is true (and how one demonstrates it) or, from where such Beliefs (if false) originate.

If one can't define something they claim to believe in, then I suspect they are expressing something other than a Belief. I think it's a wishful emotion.

If one can't define, in coherent terms, the object of their belief, I think it's fair to call it irrational or incoherent. Something not coherent is incoherent.

All of this frustration that I sense from theists can be cleared up by proving their case, not by trying to get atheists to change their definition of a coherent idea.

The only "frustration" I am experiencing is your adamantine refusal to even attempt to grasp my ideas here or to take them seriously. Belief just isn't the point, and even with all the times I've posted that, I've never seen you even acknowledge that statement in any way, never mind actually try to understand what I mean by it. You just ignore it and press on about "beliefs."

Let me break it down another way: What does "belief" mean, anyway? Isn't it just another word for how one thinks about or conceives of something?

Well, I think about God in MANY ways, as I described in an earlier post. Which one is "right"? Beats me. I have no way of knowing that ANY of them are "right," and no way of verifying such knowledge even if I claimed to have it. My religion is about how I'm supposed to LIVE, not "my conception of God." That is irrelevant to it, and impossible to "prove" or "verify" as you keep insisting I have to do. I think about God in any way I find convenient, comforting, or useful at the time, with complete consciousness that such thoughts are mental constructs and nothing more -- because they don't, any of them, affect the reality we all live in in any way. Can't you understand that approach?

I think that's what the whole "Trinity" thing is about for Christians; it gives them the option of thinking about God as the Father (the Mighty Creator and Thunderer), the Son (the Cosmic Teacher and Savior), or the Holy Ghost (the Mysterious Comforting Presence). I got that even as a child; that's why Christians can speak of still believing in One God, and why Jews don't regard them as "polytheists" -- we speak of the "aspects" of the Divine too. (It's more the whole "Man as God" thing that puts Jews off of Jesus.)

I just don't think I'm obligated or required to hold a bunch of detailed "beliefs" in my head about God or the Afterlife or anything else, and think of them in only those specific ways using those specific definitions. I don't even see why I need to have ANY beliefs of that kind at ALL, a position that is perfectly acceptable within the Jewish faith and has been for centuries. It's just not that important to the practice of the religion.

THAT seems to be what frustrates, and even occasionally infuriates the atheists -- and, interestingly, the fundamentalists -- that I deal with around here. As I've often said, those two groups seem to hold that one idea in common -- an insistent demand that one MUST hold to a specific set of "BELIEFS" in order to be really "RELIGIOUS" (and often enough a literal, supernaturalist reading and interpretation of the Bible as well). I've often thought how strange it is that there is that one place of agreement.

And I regard it as deeply wrong, and not only about Judaism. If I were to list the top 25 things I love or think about or try to learn about or practice in Judaism, how high would "beliefs about God" be?

It wouldn't even make the list. If you think that's "irrational," then you plainly don't understand this approach to "religion," and aren't willing to consider any other approach or perspective than the stereotypical obsession with the details of "theological beliefs."

Sorry. I do enjoy these conversations -- the effort needed to try to explain my point of view (as opposed to "defend" it) is intellectually stimulating. But if you're just going to keep harping on "beliefs," and what they are, and how I can prove them, and all that -- well, I'd just as soon talk about what brand of peanut butter I like, and what variety, and how I can prove it's the best. That's PRECISELY as silly a subject for discussion to me, and for the same reasons: I change brands and types rather often, I don't really care about why beyond "I like it," and I have NO interest whatever in convincing anyone else to eat the same kinds.

I found a smooth white chocolate/peanut butter blend that is very tasty not long ago, but sometimes I prefer crunchy/salty/nutty instead. Shall we argue about which one I should eat ALL the time and vigorously explain and defend? That's just about as important to me.

Before you pounce, let me make this clear: I don't mean to say that religion is as trivial as peanut butter -- but THEOLOGY, in my opinion, is! My RELIGION and my COMMUNITY and my PRACTICE is very important to me: my THEOLOGICAL BELIEFS are not.

[cnorman18]

I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

You seem to say that as if it is something noble. God, being who he is, should not be subservient to mere humans, how dare they presume to limit or define him.

I find that rather surprising coming from you. That's rather a LOT of words to stuff into my mouth at the same time.

I just won't pretend to have information that I don't have and have no way of obtaining. That's all.

I, of course, see it quite differently. God is a word. Words have meaning (or at least they should). You say the word tree and I know what it is you are talking about. I can look out the window and see more than a few things that we would all agree are trees and a few where we might disagree. However, you might use the word God and not only do I not know what you mean when you use that word, but it seems that you don't know what you mean either.

I would agree with that: I don't. But then, once again, the theological content of one's religious beliefs, in the Jewish religion, are of little to no importance and are not standardized, beyond a few limitations. Read the post above to get a clearer idea of what I mean.

[Cephus]

I just won't pretend to have information that I don't have and have no way of obtaining. That's all.

Which is certainly admirable. Most theists don't understand that they have no way of getting any of the information that they claim to know. I just don't understand how you can claim to believe in something about which you have no information whatsoever, including whether or not it even exists.

[dianaiad]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

I agree with this. I think it's patently obvious that not one theist knows what they are talking about when it comes to defining or describing the Being they assert exists. It would be blind luck if one of them is right, and they probably differ from their Church's view of the God it worships.

Ask any theist about what they believe about God and they will inevitably disagree with some key doctrines of their Faith.

Churches are made up of hypocrites and heretics, but as long as they sing along and say "Lord, Lord" they are welcome to put money in the plate.

Very few theists think about their beliefs, and fewer still have coherent views.

None of them have any method to verify one attribute of God over another. They are all wrong.

The minute someone says "prove it", I'll simply say they need to give me their definition, I'll provide a slightly different one and ask them to prove their view is correct.

Since they can't distinguish between 2 (in other words, have a 50/50 chance of being right), then when we compare their God to 5 billion other options, there isn't a Bayesian chance in Hell of them being right.

Moderator Comment

If the above post had the word 'atheist' substituted for the word 'theist,' it would be considered to be uncivil and out of line. Do not make generalities like this about entire groups of people.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[cnorman18]

I just won't pretend to have information that I don't have and have no way of obtaining. That's all.

Which is certainly admirable. Most theists don't understand that they have no way of getting any of the information that they claim to know. I just don't understand how you can claim to believe in something about which you have no information whatsoever, including whether or not it even exists.

Because -- as I have said many times -- "belief in God" and "defining God" is not what "religion" is all about, and certainly not MY religion.

When you finally begin to grasp THAT idea, get back to me. Otherwise, I don't have anything more to say on that subject.

[wiploc]

No, it isn't the same thing at all. Being a strong agnostic, in a case where we have no ability to get data is a metaphysical position. It's a totally different concept.

No, it doesn't.

Even "strong atheist" isn't related to certainty.

In any case, by the accidents of history, "strong agnostics" is the name of this group of people.

Here's the the Wiki article's lead on the subject, with which I agree:

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1976, and appeared again in Michael Martin's writings in 1990.

We've got to at least agree on the definitions or communication will be impossible.

I'm not going to agree with that definition. Why would an atheist have to assert anything?

- Strong atheism is the belief (not assertion) that gods do not exist.
- Theism is the belief (not assertion) that gods do exist.
- Weak atheists include everyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist.

How many popes have been strong atheists? We don't know, but we do know that if such existed, they didn't assert that gods don't exist. Their strong atheism was covert, hidden, a belief rather than an assertion.