My Beliefs- GDR

Oh, sorry, your source must be wrong if you are right...

quote:

---

though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".

---

Or perhaps now we ought quibble over the usage or definition of "disbelief".Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

That's just not true. The meaning of atheism has been evolving independent of any input by me. Would it be better if I linked to four dictionaries?ATHEISM | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Atheism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Atheism - definition of atheism by The Free DictionaryI also included the etymology of the word from wikipedia in an edit to my last post to you. Did you read it?Oh, here's your comment:

quote:

---

Oh, sorry, your source must be wrong if you are right...

quote:

---

though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".

---

​

Or perhaps now we ought quibble over the usage or definition of "disbelief".

---

And that's exactly what I'm talking about; The word used to mean the belief that gods didn't exist, but lately its been being changed to a more palatable definintion that is the less committed "disbelief in God".If the word didn't fit you, and you're complaining about how people are still using the "old" definition and how the word shouldn't even have to exist, then why not just come up with a new word? Why go throught the trouble of re-defining it? No, I'm not saying you can't change the meaning, dictionaries are descriptive rather than proscriptive, I'm just curious why you are. Especially when you bitch about how the word is used. It makes sense to me to just use a different word in that case. 99%? From my perspective there are a lot more of the belief-atheists than the non-belief-atheists. Poke around on youtube and r/atheism for while. There's tons of teenage-acting bigoted assholes who denounce god and call themselves atheists. Hell, there's even whole atheist movements specifically to seperate themselves from those people. That's a lie. But you have to clarify that you don't hold the belief that god does not exist, but rather you simply do not hold the belief that he does. The fact that you have to clarify shows that you know there's other usages of the word. Why continue to use a word, with an update to its definition, if you'd rather the word didn't exist? Defining atheism as the belief that god doesn't exist isn't incorrect. And if I kept calling myself a christian and bitching about how I get associated with those things, then I would understand why you would ask me why I kept calling myself a christian. Except for the fact that you have to keep restating your position as a lack-of-belief because the word means something different to other people. And yet you continue to feed the problem by spreading the usage of the word as a label for yourself and then having to go back and "correct" people. Non-believer, agnostic, skeptic, heathen, "I don't believe in god", "I'm not religious".But then, those don't provoke the same reaction as: "I'm an atheist". And I suspect that's part of the lure. I knew it. And apparently it makes you feel better than us as well.So you're just an elitist troll. Thanks for answering my inquery

Yes, let's.ATHEISM | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

quote:

---

the belief that God does not exist

---

Ok, that is inaccurate. One does not need to have an active belief that god does not exist in order to be an atheist.Atheism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

---

Huh. Would you look at that. Odd.Atheism - definition of atheism by The Free Dictionary

quote:

---

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods

---

Huh, there it is again. Strange.So which is it, CS, the word has actually changed or we need a different word? I mean, you are obviously the arbiter of what atheists ought call themselves, so which is it? I will concede that it was at one time widely used as a positive belief that god/s do not exist. Words, however, change usages. That could work. But non-believer in what? What am I a non-believer of? Bigfoot? Ghosts? Addresses knowledge, not belief. I answered this earlier. Addresses my worldview, not the speciific question about god. There is already a word for that that describes me: atheist. I am skeptic about much more than just gods. Help me define this? I don't understand why I would call myself a heathen in any sort of serious nature. Sure, i joke around and call myself a godless heathen, but that truly is to rile you people up. That's 4 words That's 3 words. Plus, there are those weirdo onbvious christians who say this same thing. Because the word does fit me and it is only religiousites that use it wrong. I'll give you a chance to change your mind if you really want to go with basing your views on fucking /r/atheism and youtube as if they are really descriptive of all atheists. if you want a better grasp on rational atheism on reddit, go to /r/trueatheism. /r/atheism is a cesspool of misguided youths who I agree are guilty of the shit you are accusing. It's a default subreddit and attracts the unwashed masses and A LOT of trolls.I mean really think about that..... The loudest voices are just that: the loudest. But if that is to be your argument, then have fun being lumped in with the Phelps clan and people like Faith because then you are exactly like them, right? You are all christians, right? But it isn't correct, either. It is inconclusive.I shall repeat myself again: does this describe you or no?

quote:

---

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

---

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

How can we believe there is a person behind this name Tangle when all we have is some words written in cyberspace as evidence. People who think they know this person could be making it up because they like the idea that this person Tangle exists, and somehow they are able to keep up the subterfuge indefinitely against everything we know about human nature, which is that surely they'd tire of a lie and abandon the effort, go back to fishing or whatever. Besides, this site known as EvC is just a lot of electronic marks that easily go poof under various kinds of electronic failure and can hardly be trusted to represent anything real.Well, there's a start.

There are really only a few points to make about all this nonsense.1. People call people that don't have a belief in god atheists. That's fine we all know what it means and atheists use the word too. It's a useful shorthand and what's more, it's in dictionaries!(And btw, atheist, from the greek, is a-without, theos-god. There had to be a word for god, before there could be a word for someone who doesn't believe in the god. But then you know this.)2. Some people - because they think they are being really clever - try to argue that atheism is a belief just like their beliefs in sky people. They do this in an attempt to say - well I'm not quite sure, but it's something to do with the 'you too', fallacy. Silly playground tactics.3. For people that are prepared to think honestly about this, rather than play word games, it's obvious that atheism is not a belief itself. It's simply a lack of belief. Like the derivation of the word a-theist - without god. Like being without car does not mean that I am with motorbike.If you still doubt this I want you to tell me specifically what the belief is that I have without using a negative to do it and to say it as simply as those that actually DO have a belief can say it'Tangle believes in ghosts'
'Tangle believes in Hobgoblins'
'Tangle believes in ........?"Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

That's proof that I don't exist? Really? That's the only evidence you think exists?Now take the correct approach - the one that we keep talking about - prove that I exist rather than insist that I prove to you that I don't. Imagine how you could gather enough evidence to prove that I do exist,. Don't bother I'll do it for you.We know that two avatars called Faith and Tangle exist - otherwise this conversation couldn't be happening. There would indeed, be nothing rather than something. We also know that there are real people behind the avatars because we also know that the avatars pass the Turin test. Additionally, we have our wider experience of internet forums, how they're built, who builds them and how they work. That is actually enough. If we doubt that we are going beyond reasonable doubt and into philosophical word play.But if we must go further we can. This site gathers our IP addresses when we log in. You can get mine from Percy. You can type that address into a search engine and it will tell you which ISP I use. You can then ask the ISP for my physical address. You can then get on a plane, find my house and demand to see my PC. My PC carries a record in it's browser of the username and password to the EVC forum. The username is Tangle. You now have me bang to rights.That's what atheists and scientists mean by following the evidence no matter where it leads. It wasn't a good start, now was it?

I think it is reasonable to draw a link between how science evolves and functions and how human understanding of God evolves and functions. The holy grail for science right now seems to be the search for the Theory of Everything, or the bringing the laws of relativity and QM into harmony. Newton’s laws were fine until Einstein shed more light on them and the world of QM was opened up.I suggest that our understanding of God has had something of the same type of history. We agree that Robert Wright has some great insights and we both appreciated his book The Evolution of God. I’ll requote what I had in the OP.

quote:

---

I guess materialist is a not-very-misleading term for me. In fact, in this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things in human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on.
But I don’t think a materialist account of religion’s origin, history, and future — like the one I’m giving here — precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.
It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the illusion, in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusionary.

---

So yes, we have shown that the vast majority of our views on the nature of God and how he relates to us has evolved over time. It isn’t so much that gods have been disproven or rejected it is that misunderstandings of His nature and how it is that He relates to the world have been rejected. So yes we have found that He isn’t throwing lightning bolts at us, yes we have found that eclipses have natural causes etc. I believe that our understanding of Him will continue to evolve.We have no way of proving that this is anything more than an illusion and maybe it is an illusion, but if so it is an illusion that sure makes sense of the world that I live in IMHO in a way that nothing else does. In some ways the question is broader than whether God exists or not. Maybe the question should be — is there an ultimate purpose for our existence that lasts beyond the time when this world comes to an end whenever and however that happens. It is interesting to note that whether or not this ultimate purpose exists the vast majority of live as those it does. Actually I started with the position that God exists and then came to Christianity. There are also a large number of events related to the Christian God in the Bible that I have concluded didn’t happen. No doubt. I agree that it is circular but I don’t think it is illogical to come to a belief in God in general by other means resulting in having an open mind about the resurrection. Nor, do I think it is illogical that once I believe in the resurrection to consider that in forming an understanding of the nature of God. Yes, if it is reasonably clear that the accounts were meant to be believed. We aren’t likely to agree on this but in the case of the Gospels much of what is in there is not an account of beliefs, but is written as an historical account of events and quotations. If the accounts said that they believed that Jesus was resurrected I would agree with you. There are however saying that it happened historically and that there were eyewitnesses and that these accounts have come from that source.Now we can choose to say they were lying, they were wrong, they were deluded or whatever we like but I don’t see how you can’t call it evidence. Is it conclusive? No. Is it something that we expect? No. Does it sound unlikely? Yes. However, it is possible that it is accurate and many people have come to the conclusion that it is. If there were no written accounts we can probably safely say that no one would be Christian today. In order to go from nobody believing to millions believing must require evidence and the only that I can see that would constitute that evidence is the Bible. However, this is not an argument for the accuracy of the Bible and actually, the question of whether we can call it evidence or not is irrelevant. It is what it is, and we can choose to believe all of it, none of it or parts of it. I get that although you just seem to assume that theists subjectively deciding what we want to believe. It is possible for us to believe in God without starting from a position of wanting to believe it. C S Lewis for that matter referred to himself The Most Reluctant Convert. Absolutely, and it is one possible explanation. I guess I’d go back to my Robert Wright quote. Our understanding of God is evolving and we are concluding that many of the attributes that we have attributed to him over the years are wrong.

I still think it's a good start.Try this one: Prove that a dead relative of yours ever existed, a grandparent, anyone.Then prove to me that Charles Darwin's wife existed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Such a good start that you've had to abandon your claim that I can't prove that I exist and change the question to proving that my grandfather existed. Brilliant.Well ok. I assume that you accept that I had a grandfather or you unaware of how babies are made? The fact that everyone has to have a grandfather is normally enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I too had a grandfather, but heyho.I can show you my family tree, find his birth and marriage certificates and my father's birth certificate showing his father's name. I can show his pictures with my father, the letters he wrote to his wife from the war and his decorations and mentions in despatches as a stretcher bearer in the trenches of France. You can talk to my dad about him and he'll tell you of his life. I can tell you which pub he drank in, what tobacco he put in his pipe and how he took me to school as a boy.You want more? I can show you his death certificate, take you to his grave and you can even dig him up, take a DNA sample and see if it's a match to mine. Happy yet? It's the same process as above. Start with ancestors.com.How silly are you going to get with this? You are prepared to believe the maddest ideas, not just without evidence but with evidence that flatly contradicts those beliefs but you're questioning my ability to prove that my grandad existed? You're bonkers.

The scientific conclusion is always one possible explanation. Whether we are talking about the age of the Earth, the existence of Bigfoot, the evolution of complex life, things that go bump in the night or anything else — The scientific conclusion is ALWAYS one amongst many possible answers or explanations.But the important point about scientific conclusions is that we have every reason to consider such conclusions to be the most accurate and reliable conclusions available. Certainly we have every rational reason to consider objectively evidenced conclusions superior in terms of reliability and accuracy to those derived from faith and premise based circular reasoning.Now of course one might choose not to adopt the rational evidence based conclusion for some reason. One might choose to forego accuracy and reliability and instead adopt a different approach. One might start with the premise that Bigfoot exists and then, through a process of circular reasoning, conclude that every otherwise unexplained animal carcass found in the Pacific North West qualifies as mounting evidence of Bigfoot activity. Some, for example, might start with the premise that the bible is literally true. Those who start with that premise then go on to dispute the scientifically derived age of the Earth and argue that science provides just one possible explanation which they consider inferior to their own preferred biblically derived answer.Or one might instead decide to start with the premise that a less defined relatively mysterious god exists. If that premise is adopted then circular reasoning demands that every more concrete godly entity previously and erroneously invoked by humanity is evidence of human misinterpretation of the 'real' God that is premised to exist. Each theistic retreat into vaguety becomes further evidence of God’s unfathomable nature. And, in a pique of circular reasoning, human belief in the existence of gods becomes itself evidence upon which to justify belief in the true God (especially if the beliefs in question are documented or held with considerable conviction). Belief as evidence upon which to base belief. Throw in things like belief in the resurrection of Christ based on the premise that some sort of loving God exists and we have circles within circles and a fleet of carts lined up before a herd of horses. If you want the most accurate and reliable explanation available why would you choose any other?If accuracy and reliability of conclusion are not your main concern then fair enough. But let’s not pretend that all possible explanations are equally justified in terms of achieving accuracy and reliability.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That made me laugh pretty fucking hard.- Oni

It isn’t just a matter of looking at awe at the world around me. If I am the result of unintelligent evolution then there is no reason for me to feel awe of my surroundings. Why would I feel anything at all? Sure it’s an argument of incredulity but so is the argument that the idea of God is too incredulous to be believed.As I said to Straggler it isn’t that the gods that we believe in change. It is the attributes that we attribute to God have evolved and continue to evolve. Just as we are progressing in our scientific knowledge we are progressing in our understanding of God IMHO. I assume that you have faith that you should live your life to some code, presumably a moral one. You presumably have faith that that code has simply evolved naturally through socialization over the centuries.I have faith that there is one underlying reason for our sense of morality and it is God. I frankly believe that the God explanation is more plausible than the non-God explanation. On that we obviously are at opposite ends of the spectrum.You and some others like to throw around the term nonsense, daft etc. Do you not think it is just a tad daft to believe that sentient moral life could just happen to evolve without intelligent input from mindless atoms?

It seems like we've all gone over this in other threads.If you view it on a scale (1) being: I believe there is a god and (7) being: I believe there is no god, then a (2) is still a theist and a (6) is still an atheist.There's no doubt that some people on the internet or friends you may have use the word for shock value, but so what? That makes sense as more and more atheists are coming forward.- Oni

There is a plethora of empirical evidence on which to evaluate whether the claim that a dead person was resurrected is A) Likely to be true B) Likely to be a case of myth, embellishment, delusion, hoax, wishful thinking, Chinese whispers and all sorts of other deeply evidenced human proclivities.Look - If I told you that I was going to leap out of my 10th floor window because I genuinely believed that in 3 days time I'd be resurrected would you really shrug and say that there is no empirical evidence upon which to discount such a conclusion?

Of course the gods we believe in change. There are thousands of 'dead' gods. The beliefs have changed for sure - we no longer stone people and burn atheists and so on. But those changes have absolutely nothing to do with a further understanding of God. They've changed because secular society and science has made them look foolish. You have absolutely no further information - you have the same 2,000 year old book and nothing new has happened since then. Science progresses because we get more and more information, religion has had no further information since the bible was written. You can therefore only make 'progress' by re-interpreting ancient texts to suit the world we now find ourselves in. That is not new knowledge, that's the rationalisation of old knowledge. I live to a moral code because I feel that it is right and because our secular law mostly requires it. I also have 'faith' in it. That is I think that it's the best way of organising a society. It has nothing to do with atheism or religious faith in invisible beings. You throw this word 'faith' about as though it only has a single meaning.Anyhow - I don't need faith to accept the evolution of codes of behaviour in society, I can see it how it evolved by studying human history and other social animals. All you are saying is that is what you believe. I can only shrug. I say it's nonsense and daft because that is the least offensive way of saying what I really think of it. It's important to understand that a lot of non-believers find that beliefs like Faith's are highly deluded and quite dangerous and beliefs like yours are childish but thankfully not as harmful. I have no wish to cause offence - that's just the way it is. On the rare occasions I find myself at a church service I want to scream at the pure garbage that is being trolled out as though it was fact to people who have never questioned it. Luckily it's gradually dying out - at least in the developed world. No I don't. I just think it's amazing. Like television, controlled nuclear fusion and heart surgery.