Does atheism discount all gods?

stevejazzx

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

Tyrrial

There's loads of unknown stuff, i don't think any of it is a god, but i have no problem with someone saying "hey, that unknown stuff could be god". they're almost* certainly wrong though.


*almost as sure as i am that FSM was also some how involved.

Sam Vimes

something (unknown) started the universe"

Doesn't conflict

and I am going to call that unknown 'god'.

Does. Why call it a god? If you are able to call it god it must be known which would contradict the first statement

Galvasean

I'm with Sam on this one. If it's unknown then why would you label it with a word which has a clear definition?

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm with Sam on this one. If it's unknown then why would you label it with a word which has a clear definition?

If there's one thing that's become clear from this forum its that there's no clear definition for the word god.

As for the OP if that's the position a person takes then they're not an atheist but rather an agnostic. imho etc etc.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

If it's unknown then why would you label it with a word which has a clear definition?

"God" has a clear definition?

I dare you to invite ten religious people to your house and have them agree on a definition over dinner

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

"God" has a clear definition?

I dare you to invite ten religious people to your house and have them agree on a definition over dinner

Definition: "The God I personally know is the right one."

I can has prize now? :pac:

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If there's one thing that's become clear from this forum its that there's no clear definition for the word god.

As for the OP if that's the position a person takes then they're not an atheist but rather an agnostic. imho etc etc.

God is pretty much whatever people want him to be and his definition seems to change as people's morality changes or claims about him are proven wrong. The latest one is apparently god sent a memo saying that people who commit suicide don't go to hell after all. How nice of him

seamus

OK, replace the word "definition" with "implication".

Calling something "God" implies at least two things:

1. An intelligence
2. Omnipotence

If you believe there's an "unknown" that started the universe, it doesn't need to have either of those things to have started the universe. Calling it "God" immediately applies properties to this "unknown" which it doesn't necessarily need to possess in order to have started the universe.

Dades

I wouldn't say "god" has a clear definition, but it implies at the very least that we can even attempt to define whatever that "unknown thing" is. Which we can't.

Naz_st

stevejazzx wrote: »

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

Essentially, are you asking whether it's possible to be an "atheist deist"? I've wondered about this a few times. I think it is both linguistically reasonable (a-theism: rejecting a personal God + Deism the belief in a non-personal, 'creator' of some description) and not necessarily contradictory (reject monotheistic Gods, but believe in a first "cause"/"creator").

Given the very wide range of definitions for "God", while I don't think it's innaccurate for someoone who holds the above position to label it "God", it is confusing.

stevejazzx

I imagine that something which 'starts' a universe is a 'God' in some sense if it knowingly did it? The problem here is definitions. Trying to second guess something obviously way out of our grasp is and then applying human like qualities to it i.e 'knowingly did it' doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. However if one starts with an assumption that as sentient beings any higher being (which a universe starter is by default in this assumption) is also at least sentient or able to understand such.
If this is a persons reasoning is his position irreconcilable with atheism? It's an interesting question I think.

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

I imagine that something which 'starts' a universe is a 'God' in some sense if it knowingly did it? The problem here is definitions. Trying to second guess something obviously way out of our grasp is and then applying human like qualities to it i.e 'knowingly did it' doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. However if one starts with an assumption that as sentient beings any higher being (which a universe starter is by default in this assumption) is also at least sentient or able to understand such.
If this is a persons reasoning is his position irreconcilable with atheism? It's an interesting question I think.

I don't think knowingly doing it would make it a God. One of the characteristics that few disagree on is that a God must be omnipotent but in order to knowingly create our universe something doesn't necessarily have to be omnipotent, it has to be exactly powerful enough to create our universe. For all we know we're just an experiment run by a lab technician in a larger universe where the creation of our universe is an easy thing to do

ScumLord

Id' still call whatever started the universe god and whatever allows the universe to work god. I don't know what god is but's it's certainly not some disgruntled ex Jew zombie. It could be literally anything, and until it's got a better name I'll use god.

Galvasean

ScumLord wrote: »

Id' still call whatever started the universe god and whatever allows the universe to work god. I don't know what god is but's it's certainly not some disgruntled ex Jew zombie. It could be literally anything, and until it's got a better name I'll use god.

If it could be anything then why label it 'god', a word which (okay, clearly defined was a very poor choice of woords) has many connotations attached.
'Something' is a much more appropriate word IMO.

Osgoodisgood

stevejazzx wrote: »

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

Perhaps you are describing pantheism? The universe is god and all that. Perhaps this isn't what you meant and if it isn't I'll just butt out.

I don't really see how one can define oneself as an atheist and yet attribute the creation of the universe (or of anything else for that matter) to some supernatural form. I don't understand the 2 positions but I'm not at all bothered by such a dichotomy.

stevejazzx

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Perhaps you are describing pantheism? The universe is god and all that. Perhaps this isn't what you meant and if it isn't I'll just butt out.

I don't really see how one can define oneself as an atheist and yet attribute the creation of the universe (or of anything else for that matter) to some supernatural form. I don't understand the 2 positions but I'm not at all bothered by such a dichotomy.

I don't think it's pantheism actually. I think it's more like some kind of atheist spiritualism. (waits for fruit!:D) Norin summed it up pretty well by calling athiest desim but that is quite poncy. Imagine telling someone that you were an athiest deist - sounds like life of brian.
The crux of it is a hypothetical someone who categorically believes all mainstream religions and gods are hogwash but who, for one reason or another, believes in a higher being.

Galvasean

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think it's more like some kind of atheist spiritualism. (waits for fruit!:D)

Osgoodisgood

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't think it's pantheism actually. I think it's more like some kind of atheist spiritualism. (waits for fruit!:D) Norin summed it up pretty well by calling athiest desim but that is quite poncy. Imagine telling someone that you were an athiest deist - sounds like life of brian.
The crux of it is a hypothetical someone who categorically believes all mainstream religions and gods are hogwash but who, for one reason or another, believes in a higher being.

Yes, you're probably right. To each their own. I don't think the label is important anyway is it? Even something as "funky" as atheist spiritualism, is going to require explaining at some point and my interest in justifying my total lack of belief in gods, goblins and giant ocean going arks is usually zero.

stevejazzx

Galvasean wrote: »

Wow. Thats a particularly disgusting photograph.

Zillah

This is a turnip.
*gestures at turnip*
I'm going to call it God.
I believe in God.
Therefore I am no longer an atheist.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

This is a turnip.
*gestures at turnip*
I'm going to call it God.
I believe in God.
Therefore I am no longer an atheist.

Your turnip can create universes can it?
No wait, it can't. So calling it God is really is not deserved. Although I do like turnips, particularly pureed with carrot and parsnip, a little double cream fresh thyme salt and pepper..that's actually quite an awesome combination..maybe a turnip can be god. I see your point.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote: »

Your turnip can create universes can it?

Doesn't matter. The issue is there is something being entitled "God" without being identified as God.

Basically your friend is stupid or real-life trolling you.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

Doesn't matter. The issue is there is something being entitled "God" without being identified as God.

Basically your friend is stupid or real-life trolling you.

Hmm

Firstly I tried to be nice with you. Your turnip comparison is the only thing that is stupid. Stephen Hawking and Einstein essentially convey the outlook I described.
It's not me or a friend, it's hypothetical as expressly stated from the start and then reiterated some posts later. Perhaps read the thread?
Secondly accusing a poster who has been on these threads for five years of trolling in the forum where he posts most and whose opinion is usually in sync with most other regular posters is on your part is, if we're bringing out the 's' word, silly.

Dades

I think Zillah was accusing, not you, but your 'hypothetical question poser' of being stupid or of trolling you - which is a bit pointless I'd have to agree!

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Your turnip can create universes can it?
No wait, it can't. So calling it God is really is not deserved. Although I do like turnips, particularly pureed with carrot and parsnip, a little double cream fresh thyme salt and pepper..that's actually quite an awesome combination..maybe a turnip can be god. I see your point.

What exactly are the characteristics that something must have to be called a God? As I said earlier, our universe could have been created by a lab technician in a larger universe where such things are easily achieved.

Or it could be that the creation of the universe is naturally possible despite what we think. We say nothing can be created or destroyed but maybe for every piece of matter there's a corresponding piece of anti-matter and some day they'll all crash back together and there will once again be nothing until they separate again. Would you call the separation of matter and anti-matter God?

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

I think Zillah was accusing, not you, but your 'hypothetical question poser' of being stupid or of trolling you - which is a bit pointless I'd have to agree!

Ah you know it's fair enough - I know Zillah can be a bit abrasive but the trolling insinuation ("...or real-life trolling you") was a bit much TBH. He has a lot of anger that young man:).

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What exactly are the characteristics that something must have to be called a God? As I said earlier, our universe could have been created by a lab technician in a larger universe where such things are easily achieved.

Even if it turned out that it was easy to create universe that wouldn't change the scope of how we define it as of now.A future revelation that something is different from what we thought doesn't make the meaning (in terms of how it was felt) different historically. In the future if we find out that all dead are not dead at all that they just different energy fields then that's great but it doesn't mean that right now we shouldn't think of them as dead. In the same way if 'creating a universe' makes you a 'god' in a hypothetical assumption now then that is not invalidated by a future revelation that universe creation is trivial. If we apply your logic across the board then nobody deserves a title for anything becasue futures peoples might invalidate it?

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Even if it turned out that it was easy to create universe that wouldn't change the scope of how we define it as of now.A future revelation that something is different from what we thought doesn't make the meaning (in terms of how it was felt) different historically. In the future if we find out that all dead are not dead at all that they just different energy fields then that's great but it doesn't mean that right now we shouldn't think of them as dead. In the same way if 'creating a universe' makes you a 'god' in a hypothetical assumption now then that is not invalidated by a future revelation that universe creation is trivial. If we apply your logic across the board then nobody deserves a title for anything becasue futures peoples might invalidate it?

Not exactly. Things can be labelled wrongly but just because that possibility exists does not mean that we can't label anything for fear that we've labelled it wrongly. If something currently matches the criteria for a given label we can give it that label with sufficient confidence, bearing in mind that the label might be removed if new evidence comes to light

The problem here is that no one can quite agree on what the criteria for a God are. I say something must be omnipotent before it can be called a God but you say it can be called one if it can create a universe. Omnipotence is not necessarily required to create a universe, it has to be exactly powerful enough to create a universe, so the ability to create a universe does not make something a God in my estimation.

Before we can label something "God", we must first decide on the criteria by which we judge something to be a God or, as was said above, we could point at a turnip and call it God or point at a God and call it a turnip. So by what criteria do you judge something to be a God?

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So by what criteria do you judge something to be a God?

Whatever you want it to mean. Zillah says a turnip, i would say something different and so on.

A turnip is a turnip.

God is what ever you say it to be, therefore it is correct to call the unknown, "God" if you desire because the meaning of the word itself is unknown.
Unless of course you are a christian or a jew or a member of an organised religion. Then someone else's definition of "God" is the one you use. And that's easy to argue against!

However if you are an atheist and use the word "God" to describe the unknown, in a way you are re-claiming the word. Keeping it real so to speak

oeb

stevejazzx wrote: »

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

I think that if they try in anyway to personify this 'something', especially by claiming that the universe was created by an act of will in some way, then they are probably more of a deist than an athiest.

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

Whatever you want it to mean. Zillah says a turnip, i would say something different and so on.

A turnip is a turnip.

God is what ever you say it to be, therefore it is correct to call the unknown, "God" if you desire because the meaning of the word itself is unknown.
Unless of course you are a christian or a jew or a member of an organised religion. Then someone else's definition of "God" is the one you use. And that's easy to argue against!

However if you are an atheist and use the word "God" to describe the unknown, in a way you are re-claiming the word. Keeping it real so to speak

If that is the case then it is impossible to be an atheist because anything in the universe can be God. Is God the only word that can be applied to everything in existence or could I pick, say, cheese and call every person, place and thing cheese?

Reminds me of this:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/south-park-south-park-marvin-on-marklar/1999091525

stevejazzx

oeb wrote: »

I think that if they try in anyway to personify this 'something', especially by claiming that the universe was created by an act of will in some way, then they are probably more of a deist than an athiest.

I don't think so, I think there's a distinction.
Steve Weinberg sums it up here:

Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.

I don't think that Weinburg is correct though about this 'preserving the meaning of words' thing because as we know from the world around us the definition of words does change from time to time just like scientific theories change as they come to mean something else or are better understood. So I don't find it altogether inappropriate when a physicist labels something 'god' as it approaches a conveyance of thought that no other 3 letter could.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ah you know it's fair enough - I know Zillah can be a bit abrasive but the trolling insinuation ("...or real-life trolling you") was a bit much TBH. He has a lot of anger that young man:).

No dude I wasn't accusing you of anything! I took your initial reference to a "someone" as a person you had actually encountered rather than purely hypothetical.

My turnip simile was just a way of expressing my opinion that the proposal is only a problem due to clumsy semantics. I can't grasp why someone would label an unknown something as God without intending it to mean God in the sense that it is usually used. Calling it God when you don't intend to imply most of the characteristics associated with God strikes me as rather bizarre. It's a bit like if I said that I believed an unknown something created the universe and wanted to call it a ghost...would this belief conflict with my stated position of not believing in ghosts? After all, I don't intend to attach the common attributes implied by the word ghost to this unknown...

In such a scenario I could only respond by saying "Why the hell are you even calling it a ghost?"

EDIT: Although pondering it a bit more I see your point in relation to the Einsteinian God. Frankly I find their use of the word God to be quite misleading and foolish. I suppose they mean it in the sense of the "search for God" or the wonder they feel pondering the glory of the universe, to peer into it's depths and "touch the face of God". I think there's far better ways to describe this sensation. One that won't lead to theists trying to claim them as their own.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

No dude I wasn't accusing you of anything! I took your initial reference to a "someone" as a person you had actually encountered rather than purely hypothetical.

Cool. I knew you weren't that harsh..I tihnk!

Zillah wrote:

My turnip simile was just a way of expressing my opinion that the proposal is only a problem due to clumsy semantics. I can't grasp why someone would label an unknown something as God without intending it to mean God in the sense that it is usually used. Calling it God when you don't intend to imply most of the characteristics associated with God strikes me as rather bizarre. It's a bit like if I said that I believed an unknown something created the universe and wanted to call it a ghost...would this belief conflict with my stated position of not believing in ghosts? After all, I don't intend to attach the common attributes implied by the word ghost to this unknown...

In such a scenario I could only respond by saying "Why the hell are you even calling it a ghost?"

Ah you see I didn't want to get it down entirely to smeantics. Of course you can take a linguistic higher ground here and just say god means god but
what I was attempting to say was something like what Naz St. describes here:

naz st wrote:

]
I think it is both linguistically reasonable (a-theism: rejecting a personal God + Deism the belief in a non-personal, 'creator' of some description) and not necessarily contradictory (reject monotheistic Gods, but believe in a first "cause"/"creator").

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If that is the case then it is impossible to be an atheist because anything in the universe can be God. Is God the only word that can be applied to everything in existence or could I pick, say, cheese and call every person, place and thing cheese?

Reminds me of this:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/south-park-south-park-marvin-on-marklar/1999091525

It just makes it easier to explain what it is or at least to have a starting point with points of refereance that you can start to explain with. Or you could call it a turnip or simply the unknown. Whatever.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote: »

Naz St. describes here:

Well, for one there's nothing stopping a Deist God from being personal, albeit an entirely disinterested one.

I think the word 'God' is far too weighted with certain connotations to be usefully applied to anything other than a mighty, personal entity. I wouldn't go so far as to include omnipotence/omniscience in the usage, as while Thor and Zeus were extremely potent entities, they were never described as having total power.

So whatever thing we are discussing here, unless it's a personal entity, using the word "God" is a very poor choice, simply begging for confusion and misinterpretation. Whether we're referring to "unknown creative force behind existence", "general sense of awe and wonder at the complexity and grandeur of the universe" or simply a sense there's "something more", we need different ways of describing these.

Whether we like it or not, the religious and their sky-daddy have claimed the word God for millennia, and I think trying to take it back is a doomed and unnecessary battle.

In conclusion, I feel Einstein and Hawking are being lazy linguistically. Probably because their mighty brains are filled with more important thoughts that the finer points of communicating their immense ideas with lesser minds.

Dades

Zillah, I'm intrigued that you've referred to Einstein in this thread as being both foolish and lazy!

</OT>

Zillah

I've also called revered scientists irrational for believing in God. I don't idolise. Einstein was one of the greatest minds humanity has ever seen, a theoretical physicist beyond compare, but that doesn't mean he's infallible. If he tries to communicate his feelings on the grandeur of the universe, and fails to accurately communicate those feelings via a foolish choice of words, leading to theists declaring him a believer, then yes, he was foolish in that instance.

Don't take my observations out of context, I by no means intend to imply that I think Einstein was generally a fool.

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

It just makes it easier to explain what it is or at least to have a starting point with points of refereance that you can start to explain with. Or you could call it a turnip or simply the unknown. Whatever.

But surely if God can be whatever you want there is no point of reference? Does the word God have any definition to you or criteria by which something can be called a God?

Skrynesaver

I would reason that the force which created the universe, if sentient, eternal and omnipotent comes fairly close to what people generally consider god to be

Then if you add a prurient interest in the mating habits of one species on one planet to the mix you have what most religious people consider to be god.

While I have difficulty giving credence to any of the first set of conditions I could envisage your hypothetical friend holding the first set true and the second false.

In my opinion that would make them an agnostic atheist rather than an atheist deist, whatever that might be.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

I've also called revered scientists irrational for believing in God.

from this we learn
1. Your sense of reason is imperfect.
2. You don't need to be perfectly rational to be a good scientist.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

from this we learn
1. Your sense of reason is imperfect.
2. You don't need to be perfectly rational to be a good scientist.

...

mark renton

The Ego is God to an Atheist

Stercus Accidit

john47832 wrote: »

The Ego is God to an Atheist

Care to expand on that?

mark renton

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Care to expand on that?

In most cases it will be agreed that god cannot be proved or disproved - on the christian side their belief is that outside of themselves, standing by their god, wheras atheists stand by themselves and their belief is their knowledge

kiffer

john47832 wrote: »

In most cases it will be agreed that god cannot be proved or disproved - on the christian side their belief is that outside of themselves, standing by their god, wheras atheists stand by themselves and their belief is their knowledge

So in other words it's a pointless sound bite?

mark renton

kiffer wrote: »

So in other words it's a pointless sound bite?

The phrase "sound bite" is a perfect example of a superior ego - to a humble person it would be a point of view

Stercus Accidit

john47832 wrote: »

In most cases it will be agreed that god cannot be proved or disproved

Agreed, god conveniently cannot be proven or dis proven, this combined with pascals wager is a nice manipulative argument for the pro belief crowd, and is a useful way to argue for religion when confronted with people who don't fully grasp logical deduction.
In reality, 'god' is wholly immeasurable, there is no known variable, no fact or evidence of any kind, and by most definitions 'god' exists outside the realms of our universe and its laws of physics. This means that there are infinite possibilities for something that cannot be measured, there are no known variables or rules, so the possible answers to what exists outside our universe are also infinite, right up from vengeful christian god, to flying spaghetti monster, to matrix style computer to nothing at all.

In light of the infinite possibilities, it is logical to not believe in any one of the infinite possibilities, including a god.

- on the christian side their belief is that outside of themselves, standing by their god,

That is belief, yes, faith, yes, logical conclusion based on evidence? no.

wheras atheists stand by themselves and their belief is their knowledge

The 'ego' as mentioned in your above post, going by the Freudian definition as the logical self conscious and cognitive intellectual part of the psyche, would be more important a thing to an atheist than a faith based belief in something without any evidence or measurable trait whatsoever.
Belief implies in these discussions often something which you live by, and is faith based, what is your god, your belief, I don't think the ego is the belief of the atheist. Atheism is purely a lack of belief in a deity, most atheists also don't believe in anything outside of logical conclusion through measurable evidence, including a 'matrix' style universe, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I don't think there are any required beliefs for an atheist, other than by definition, that there isn't a god. A good atheist will arrive at this conclusion through logic, which will also exclude belief in other superstitious entities or immeasurable 'beliefs'.

Of course, the Freudian 'ego' outweighs any illogical faith or beliefs system, but as a system of beliefs, there is far more to it to your average atheist, social responsibility, the desire to do the right thing etc. can be explained to be elements of the ego, as an evolutionary trait but as a 'belief' system purely on a par with religious 'belief', no, not in my opinion, its totally different to have an illogical faith based set of ideals over logically based ones.

Stercus Accidit

john47832 wrote: »

The phrase "sound bite" is a perfect example of a superior ego - to a humble person it would be a point of view

Ah so 'ego' to you is arrogance, well in that case what a waste of my time.

Faith is unsubstantiated blind belief in something, to not believe without evidence is logical and intelligent.

Faith is for the stupid, whether you accept blindly what others say humbly or not is irrelevant, to insult those who have thought things through for themselves by accusing them of arrogance is the most arrogant and stupid thing you could do.

Dades

Lads, don't me start throwing out infractions.

Play nicer, and everybody stop making provocative generalisations.

mark renton

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Ah so 'ego' to you is arrogance, well in that case what a waste of my time.

Faith is unsubstantiated blind belief in something, to not believe without evidence is logical and intelligent.

Faith is for the stupid, whether you accept blindly what others say humbly or not is irrelevant, to insult those who have thought things through for themselves by accusing them of arrogance is the most arrogant and stupid thing you could do.

Yes arrogance to me is a sign of a superior ego - to refer to a post as a "sound bite" to me is an attempt extract all meaning from a point of view, an ideal way to massage the ego

Faith is not a blind belief and not for the stupid - its for the needy, which all people become at one point in life - lack of belief indicates to me a lack of need, lack of need to me shows self sufficiency - an ideal playground for a superior ego