Atheism vs Religion

Omentum

Ok i know its been done to death.....what id like to achieve here is something very different in an attempt to escape the back and forth between the two. Although i have a feeling it will inevitably reduce itself to that..

Here is the fundamental questions?

Do atheists actually know what they disagree with, when often religious people dont know what they believe in.....

How can you argue against something when essentially you dont know what you are arguing against?

Is the definition of god too vague to argue against?

What is it to be atheist?

Captain Chaos

The answer to question 4 answers questions 1-3 perfectly. Atheists generally know more about both sides of the fence they are discussing than the religious people that are discussing the topic with.

Galvasean

Omentum wrote: »

What is it to be atheist?

Not believing in any God(s).
Anything else is up to te individual.

It almost sounds like you're hinting at ignosticism: since the concept of God is often poorly defined trying to argue against it is often futile.

Undergod

Omentum wrote: »

Do atheists actually know what they disagree with, when often religious people dont know what they believe in.....

Speaking personally, yeah, I'm pretty knowledgable about the religion I was raised in, and I have an interest in religions in general. I was quite devout when I was young, and often know things that religious people I talk to don't.

Omentum wrote: »

How can you argue against something when essentially you dont know what you are arguing against?

Well, as pointed out above, I, and presumably other atheists, are familiar with religion. That's kinda irrelevant though. I don't know what material Russel's teapot is made from, or what pattern is printed on the outside, I still doubt that it's there.

Omentum wrote: »

Is the definition of god too vague to argue against?

There are many different definitions of god. While I wouldn't say I argue against them all, exactly, I don't believe in any of them. That they might be "vaguely defined" is not going to make it more likely for me to have a belief in them.

Omentum wrote: »

What is it to be atheist?

To disbelieve in god or gods. That's the only common factor, but that has been explained many times before and no doubt will be covered again before this thread is out.

Omentum

So what is god?

Everyone is missing the point, i have asken religious people what is god too, and no one can answer.

If you belong to a faith or religion surely you should believe in the same thing.

IMO the problem with all of this is the definition of god.

Really i guess the question to both sides should be, what is god, or what is god not?

If you disagree with the term god, what is it the definition of what you disagree with?

If you believe in god, what is it you beleive in?

Omentum

Undergod wrote: »

There are many different definitions of god.

So what is yours?

In order to not believe in something you must know what that is.

BrianOFlanagan

Omentum wrote: »

So what is god?

God is a supernatural being that is both above our level of understanding and not from our world. In some cases god or gods connect directly with their followers to influence their existence but mainly they are seen as a director or chessmaster, moving the pawns to do their will from a place we cannot visit until we die and reconnect with our chosen god.

In other words god is like a manager or a boss though most likely just a homicidal control freak with a penchant for suffering and natural disaster.

Omentum

BrianOFlanagan wrote: »

God is a supernatural being that is both above our level of understanding and not from our world. In some cases god or gods connect directly with their followers to influence their existence but mainly they are seen as a director or chessmaster, moving the pawns to do their will from a place we cannot visit until we die and reconnect with our chosen god.

In other words god is like a manager or a boss though most likely just a homicidal control freak with a penchant for suffering and natural disaster.

Ok....is that a scientific definition? Or a religious one or an individual one?

Omentum

Omentum wrote: »

Ok....is that a scientific definition? Or a religious one or an individual one?

There's no such thing as a scientific definition of god, because god isn't a scientific hypothesis.

Zillah

gvn wrote: »

There's no such thing as a scientific definition of god, because god isn't a scientific hypothesis.

The hypothetical non-interventionist God of deism, perhaps. The God of every major religion, the one that listens to prayers and performs miracles, is definitely a scientific hypothesis. It's just a really really bad one.

Beruthiel

Omentum wrote: »

Do atheists actually know what they disagree with

Personally, I do not believe in a sky god who watches every single thing I do and takes note so I can be punished/rewarded later.

when often religious people dont know what they believe in

Silly them.

How can you argue against something when essentially you dont know what you are arguing against?

There is much to argue against. An interventionist god. A god who will make you pay for your behaviour. A god who dictates the way you should lead your life. A god who expects you to believe in fairytales.

What is it to be atheist?

The freedom to think critically for yourself without the shackles of wishful thinking and fairytales.
Right now, I'm dealing with a friend who recently lost her partner.
She's religious and has her head melted. She goes round and round in circles trying to work out why god took him away so young. Why god took this decision. Why god did this to her.
If she keeps this up, she's going to have a nervous breakdown.
How much easier and simpler it is to just know thats it. End of.
Utterly devastating but at least you can move on from a solid point without melting your head with the reasons why.

bnt

Sometimes we get theological types complaining that atheists aren't willing to debate sophisticated theology with them. Well ... they have a point there, but they've missed a more important point: to debate the sophisticated theology, we'd have to assume the validity of the basic theology - and we don't. Besides - on your question about the definition of "god", there's a major divide between what e.g. Catholic cardinals believe vs. what the average Catholic church-goer here in Ireland believes.

That's been the case from the very start of Christianity, or at least since the Councils of Nicaea. I've read about Cardinals who have a extremely sophisticated definition, and you have Grauniad writers like Terry Eagleton who attempt to redefine it as "everything annd nothing", but the local church-goer recites the "Apostle's Creed" every weekend.

So why should Christians worry about how atheists define "God"? Whatever we say, theologians will say we don't know enough about their sophisticated theology, and it's all a waste of time. Such Christian theologians might want to start by finding a definition shared with and understood by their fellow Christians.

BrianOFlanagan

Omentum wrote: »

Ok....is that a scientific definition? Or a religious one or an individual one?

An individual one, I thought that was the point? The definition of god will vary from person to person and since no one can categorically prove that any definition is right or wrong then isn't it really just pointless? Reminds me of the london bus campaign:

Undergod

Omentum wrote: »

So what is yours?

In order to not believe in something you must know what that is.

I disagree. Do believe that I'm wearing a Chendigula?

But to humour you: I don't believe that our current understanding of the universe, based on observation and experiment, requires any type of external creator to have created the universe or to have created life; nor do I believe that there is a higher intelligence which punishes humans' behaviour, either during their lifetimes or in any hypothetical afterlife.

Turtwig

Omentum wrote: »

What is it to be atheist?

The rejection or lack of belief in the assertion by others about the existence of an immortal supernatural entity or entities with supernatural powers and abilities who's character is deemed to be holy,spiritual, sacred etc.

Do atheists actually know what they disagree with, when often religious people dont know what they believe in.....

Nope they don't but they don't have to. All they have to do is point out religious folks don't have a clue themselves. (Which the majority of them deny - probe the religious' God concept and it usually falls apart like a house of cards.)

Is the definition of god too vague to argue against?

Yes and no. Almost every poster here is ignostic. However, even with the vagueness of the definitions it is still possible to scrutinise and point out the flaws in such definitions. On a more relevant level though there has been thousands of years of theological study and the God's of the main monotheistic
religions are very well defined. So vagueness isn't really an issue for the vast majority of cases.

eoin5

The only useful definition I can see in this context is a personal, interventionist god. Otherwise we could be talking about a very handsome man...

Omentum

gvn wrote: »

There's no such thing as a scientific definition of god, because god isn't a scientific hypothesis.

Hypothesis is a loose term....there are scientific theories though

Omentum

BrianOFlanagan wrote: »

The definition of god will vary from person to person and since no one can categorically prove that any definition is right or wrong then isn't it really just pointless?

Well if you call yourself a catholic or an atheist, it certainly isnt individual. By the very nature of it, you consign yourself to an opinion against or for.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

The hypothetical non-interventionist God of deism, perhaps. The God of every major religion, the one that listens to prayers and performs miracles, is definitely a scientific hypothesis. It's just a really really bad one.

Yeah, that's true. I suppose I was just considering the loose, ill-defined concept of a god; one that is essentially deistic, as you said.

Omentum wrote: »

Hypothesis is a loose term....there are scientific theories though

Well if the concept of a god isn't a scientific hypthesis then it's certainly not a scientific theory. Theory > hypothesis.

Omentum

Beruthiel wrote: »

Personally, I do not believe in a sky god who watches every single thing I do and takes note so I can be punished/rewarded later.

Either do I.....

Beruthiel wrote: »

An interventionist god. A god who will make you pay for your behaviour. A god who dictates the way you should lead your life.

Again it boild down to the definition of God, and as another poster pointed out, most people either dont know or assign themselves the liberty to personalise god.

MY POINT is religious people (of many faiths) believe in a god that they cannot define....and atheists deny the same, despite not knowing what they deny..

For me the word God has been misused and taken from us as humans to mean something (like Beruthial says) akin to a sky god. A god outside of ourselves and some entity in the sky. Even though that in itself is a conformist view and a buzzword.

Omentum

gvn wrote: »

Theory > hypothesis.

How?

Pygmalion

I don't believe in supernatural beings.
I understand "god" to refer to a supernatural being which is conscious and has played a role in the creation of matter and/or interfered with human society.

It could be argued that my definition also applies to unicorns and ghosts, but since I don't believe in them either this doesn't really cause a problem.
There are other definitions of "god" out there too, most of which I also lack belief in.

I think the problem is that "god" seems to mean a different thing in every religion, and a lot of people would rather invent their own vague definition than accept that they don't believe in one.

Omentum

Pygmalion wrote: »

There are other definitions of "god" out there too, most of which I also lack belief in.

Which ones do you believe in? You say most....

And herein lies the problem......

Do atheists believe in anything? What does it mean to believe in something?

"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof"

Omentum

Omentum wrote: »

How?

A scientific hypothesis is basically an untested, best guess explanation for an observed phenomenon or set of phenomenon. A scientific theory is basically an explanation for an observed phenomenon or set of phenomenon that makes testable predictions. If a hypothesis explains all of the facts it sets out to explain and makes testable predictions, it's practically a theory.

In common language the word theory is essentially equivilant to the word hypothesis in scientific language. A scientific theory is higher in the "pecking order" than a scientific hypothesis.

Pygmalion

Zillah wrote: »

The God of every major religion, the one that listens to prayers and performs miracles, is definitely a scientific hypothesis. It's just a really really bad one.

But each religion has their own idea of what it is to be "god", so it's not a well-defined hypothesis, it's a ton of conflicting definitions, which individually could be considered hypotheses.
They tend to have common themes, most, if not all, theistic religions, accept that gods are supernatural, but there are contradictions in their definitions (or even contradictions within a single religion's definition).

Omentum

gvn wrote: »

A scientific hypothesis is basically an untested, best guess explanation for an observed phenomenon or set of phenomenon. A scientific theory is basically an explanation for an observed phenomenon or set of phenomenon that makes testable predictions. If a hypothesis explains all of the facts it sets out to explain and makes testable predictions, it's practically a theory.

In common language the word theory is essentially equivilant to the word hypothesis in scientific language. A scientific theory is higher in the "pecking order" than a scientific hypothesis.

According to who though?

Omentum

Omentum wrote: »

According to who though?

According to the scientific method...

Pygmalion

Omentum wrote: »

Which ones do you believe in? You say most....

I disbelieve in all supernatural beings, as I've said.

However I've heard people claim that the universe itself could be considered a god, or that nature could be considered one, or that the physical laws that bound us can be considered a god etc..
I believe in those things (i.e. I believe that the universe and nature exist, and that we are bound by physical laws), but I don't consider them to be gods.

Do atheists believe in anything? What does it mean to believe in something?

"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof"

I believe that I exist, I believe that you exist, I believe that this website exists.

I believe that it's good to be nice to people and that we should have certain rights and responsibilities, but I don't believe there's a supernatural basis for these rights or responsibilities, I just think that acknowledging and enforcing them will make society a more enjoyable place to live in, which I believe to be a noble goal.

Omentum

The problem with religious faiths claiming the word god is that it inhibits atheists or others form exploring the idea that there is something more to it all.....and i guess thats my point.

However i also see the flip side of that.

IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO DEFINITION.

How can you deny or believe in something that no one can define.....?

In order to do either you must know what it is you are you are talking about....

That is why i say that atheism is in itself a form or religion...(watch the alarm bells ring!!).

Atheists do not know what they disbelief. The EXACT same as releious people do not know what they really believe......

2 sides to the one messed up coin

eoin5

Omentum wrote: »

The problem with religious faiths claiming the word god is that it inhibits atheists or others form exploring the idea that there is something more to it all.....and i guess thats my point.

However i also see the flip side of that.

IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO DEFINITION.

How can you deny or believe in something that no one can define.....?

In order to do either you must know what it is you are you are talking about....

That is why i say that atheism is in itself a form or religion...(watch the alarm bells ring!!).

Atheists do not know what they disbelief. The EXACT same as releious people do not know what they really believe......

2 sides to the one messed up coin

I just did... just above there...

Undergod

I reject the idea of "supernatural" itself; if something exists, then it should be observable. If it's observable, it must be interacting with physical things. If it's interacting with physical objects, it's natural! That's not to say ghosts and such definitely don't exist, it's partly a linguistic quibble, and I'm saying that if ghosts do exist, then we ought to be able to examine them in some way.

Omertum, do you understand my point about the Chendigula?

Omentum

Pygmalion wrote: »

I disbelieve in all supernatural beings, as I've said.

However I've heard people claim that the universe itself could be considered a god, or that nature could be considered one, or that the physical laws that bound us can be considered a god etc..
I believe in those things (i.e. I believe that the universe and nature exist, and that we are bound by physical laws), but I don't consider them to be gods.



I believe that I exist, I believe that you exist, I believe that this website exists.

I believe that it's good to be nice to people and that we should have certain rights and responsibilities, but I don't believe there's a supernatural basis for these rights or responsibilities, I just think that acknowledging and enforcing them will make society a more enjoyable place to live in, which I believe to be a noble goal.

As do I my friend.....

But belief by its defintion means lack of proof...... The very definition of this thread What does it mean to believe

I think also that atheists and religious people somehow think they own the word God.....and in doing so defy the majesty of the universe.....

Essentially they are 2 sides of the same coin, ying and yang.

Atheists claim religion destroys societs (as do I) and religous claim atheism destroys society (as do I!).

Somewhere in between lies the truth

antiskeptic

Omentum wrote: »

How can you deny or believe in something that no one can define.....?

Ask Pygmalion. He believes in all kinds of things no atheist can define.

Pygmalion wrote:

I believe that it's good to be nice to people and that we should have certain rights and responsibilities, but I don't believe there's a supernatural basis for these rights or responsibilities, I just think that acknowledging and enforcing them will make society a more enjoyable place to live in, which I believe to be a noble goal.

Edit: oops, I see you already have.

Omentum

eoin5 wrote: »

I just did... just above there...

Thats YOUR definition....

Undergod

Omentum wrote: »

Atheists do not know what they disbelief.

Disbelief (or believing in something's absence) is not the same as a lack of belief. I never said I disbelieved anything.

If I define God as:

Any supernatural entity which is supposed to have created the universe.

I can reject that claim and believe that God does not exist.

You can add more to the definition if you want. But, even if you do so, at the definition's very core will be the above. As long as I reject the core of the definition I can safely reject the rest.

For example: you could say that God is a supernatural being who created the universe in a number of sneezes.

I don't have to know the number of sneezes to reject the claim, as I already reject the claim's core.

Simple enough?

Omentum

gvn wrote: »

According to the scientific method...

So according to science theory is greater than hypothesis??

Pygmalion

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ask Pygmalion. He believes in all kinds of things no atheist can define.

We can't define the word "enjoyable"?

It's one thing to claim we can't have morality without religion, but are you saying we're incapable of knowing what it means to enjoy something?

Omentum

gvn wrote: »

If I define God as:

Any supernatural entity which is supposed to have created the universe.

I can reject that claim and believe that God does not exist.

You can add more to the definition if you want. But, even if you do so, at the definition's very core will be the above. As long as I reject the core of the definition I can safely reject the rest.

For example: you could say that God is a supernatural being who created the universe in a number of sneezes.

I don't have to know the number of sneezes to reject the claim, as I already reject the claim's core.

Simple enough?

Meh Being....really? Load of bollix....as is the attempt to not define it....

I dont mean to be rude....but where is the atheist definition of the word God....and if there is one....do you consign yourself to it?

Are you an atheist?

renko

Without wanting to offend anyone, my belief is that religion is a human reaction to self consciousness. It has provided a very useful basis for shared moral values, but also a basis for conflict when others don't share those values. For me, there's enough reason in my finite life to 'be good' other than, god, heaven, hell, reincarnation etc...

But that's just me.

Omentum

If you are an atheist.....OR a religious person....

Where is the defintion?

If you base everything on science....where is the scientific defintion?

If you base everything on faith....where is the defintion?

By its very nature, in order to do either, you MUST have a definition?

EDIT: Actually in order to anything you MUST know what it is you are going to do....

Definition is paramount and essentially the ultimate truth....right?

Omentum

Omentum wrote: »

So according to science theory is greater than hypothesis??

According to the scientific method, yes. A theory is higher in the pecking order of science than a hypothesis, just as a hypothesis is higher in the pecking order than a conjecture.

Omentum wrote: »

Meh Being....really? Load of bollix....as is the attempt to not define it....

I dont mean to be rude....but where is the atheist definition of the word God....and if there is one....do you consign yourself to it?

Are you an atheist?

Can you point out a flaw or contradiction in my definition?

Yes, I'm an atheist. I reject anything which is claimed to be supernatural. As long as God is supernatural, then it doesn't matter how many bells and whistles he has, I'll still automatically reject him. Why? Because I reject the core assumption.

eoin5

Omentum wrote: »

Thats YOUR definition....

Yep!

You're saying that I don't know what I believe in. In what way will a consensus make any difference to my understanding? I'm as clear as can be.

Pygmalion

Omentum wrote: »

But belief by its defintion means lack of proof......

No it doesn't.

I think also that atheists and religious people somehow think they own the word God.....and in doing so defy the majesty of the universe.....

Not really, everyone here has accepted that the word has many meanings, and most were quite careful to point out that it's only their own understanding of the word they're talking about, not a universal truth.

You're hearing what you want to hear.

Essentially they are 2 sides of the same coin, ying and yang.

You haven't really explained how, you've just argued that since the English language is a bit ambiguous we must not know what we believe or don't believe.

Atheists claim religion destroys societs (as do I) and religous claim atheism destroys society (as do I!).

Ok, so everyone is a bastard.
You haven't really given a reason or offered a solution apart from a more standardised dictionary being needed.

Somewhere in between lies the truth

I'm sure it does.

Omentum

Undergod wrote: »

Disbelief (or believing in something's absence) is not the same as a lack of belief. I never said I disbelieved anything.

I agree......

However hot is the opposite of cold, bad the opposite of good....

again its all defintions....

I dont think you can base anything on anything without knowing what that is...

Omentum

Pygmalion wrote: »

Not really, everyone here has accepted that the word has many meanings, and most were quite careful to point out that it's only their own understanding of the word they're talking about, not a universal truth.

So why be an atheist then....if you are an atheist then you are something other than an individual....you belong to a GROUP with ideals.....im not saying that is wrong or right

Pygmalion wrote: »

You haven't really explained how, you've just argued that since the English language is a bit ambiguous we must not know what we believe or don't believe.

Every language is ambiguous.....this is my point.

Language in itself is divisive....as is the word God.....This is the point.

Omentum

gvn wrote: »

Can you point out a flaw or contradiction in my definition?

Yes....its your defintion..
If you are an atheist, where is the atheist definition....and if there is one do you whole heartedly agree with it?

Omentum

If you are atheist.....

Where is the definition of the word god?

eoin5

Omentum wrote: »

I dont think you can base anything on anything without knowing what that is...

You're talking about the philosophy of "knowing". We use the concept to add permanence to our lives. It doesn't seem to hold any explicit truth, there's always a maybe however unlikely.

I know I went to the shop yesterday: maybe you were hallucinating.
But I got milk and its in the fridge: maybe someone else got it.
But I don't live with anyone else: maybe the landlord put it there while he was fixing the oven and forgot....

etc.

Pygmalion

Omentum wrote: »

So why be an atheist then.... if you are an atheist then you are something other than an individual....you belong to a GROUP with ideals.....im not saying that is wrong or right

I understand the word "god" to have a certain meaning, and I don't believe that there exists any being(s) which fulfill this meaning.
That alone makes me an atheist by my understanding of the word, I didn't make a choice to become one.

I use the word to describe myself because 99.9% of the time people understand exactly what I mean by it and don't seek to argue about the dictionary with me.