by real one 168 Replies latest jw friends
Nark
If you're intent on dividing mankind in two sides (I personally don't see any need for that, you might wonder why you do?), taking belief in "gods" (theoi) as the prime criterium seems a very odd choice. That puts you on the same "side" as Baal or Kali worshippers, and many Buddhists (whose religion and philosophy are more similar to yours than you may think) on the other "side"...
Words do have common meaning. That is the "intent" isn't it?
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant distinguished between three different degrees of belief and consent -
1.) opinion, which admits that it is both subjectively and objectively insufficient
2.) faith [or conviction], which is subjectively sufficient, but not objectively sufficient
3.) knowledge, which is both subjectively and objectively sufficient.
On the question of God's existence, both believers and non-believers alike will fall into either category number one or number two. That is to say that their position or stance will range from an opinion to a strongly held conviction concerning the existence or the non-existence of God. However, no lucid, sane, rational person can claim to have knowledge - a subjectively and objectively sufficient credence - about the existence or non-existence of God. This is becuase it is impossible to have objectively sufficient credence in regard to the existence, or the non-existence, of God. The key word here is objective. People have a right to their subjectively and objectively insufficient opinions. Moreover, they have the right to profess subjectively sufficient, but objectively insufficient, convictions or "faith." However, a caveat should be extended when people start to proclaim a subjectively and objectively sufficient knowledge [as defined by Kant] of God.
Many believers in the "Almighty" will glady claim that they don't believe in Zeus, or Athena, or Isis, etc. Well, to them I offer the following definition of the word atheist - An atheist is simply someone who believes in one god less than you believe in.
I like the unicorn analogy. Most people do not believe that unicorns exist. There are legends and myths surrounding them and some people who will claim to have seen them. But there is no factual evidence to suggest that unicorns exist. However, you come across that logic where one cannot prove that something does not exist. So there are people that believe in unicorns, for whatever reasons they have for doing so.
So you have the unicorn athiests, so to speak. They do not believe in unicorns. Never have never will. No proof that they existed beyond the imaginations of some creative people. Then you have the theists. These are people who feel as though they have proof, at least inwardly, that unicorns exist.
Lastly are the people who don't really believe in unicorns, never think about unicorns, and if you asked them if they thought unicorns existed, they would say "of course not." However, these people are not unswayable. If you can present to them enough evidence that there are unicorns, they might think differently. Their minds are not closed to the existence of unicorns.
Deputy,
I will leave others to convince you that a theist can be atheistic towards other Gods not of his choosing. I fear you will get trapped in a logical quagmire before the debate is up!
However on this point:
I don't believe it's as "dark" as some would claim.
The use of the word 'claim' is interesting, as it does not speak the truth of the situation. You sentence should read in order to be consistent, 'I don't believe it's as dark as some would believe". Think about it.
So what do you do with Romans 1? Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Yes, what do we do with it.
1) We have a few choices. The first and most obvious one is to conclude that this is a statement of a religious mind, written in an unenlightened age, in a country full of religious fanatics, without the benefit of science to help the statement on its way by a person who truly believed that he was being used as a mouthpiece of some unseen being.
2) Another option is to take the words as true and conclude that God is a brutal and sociopathic liar. I state this against a backdrop of the fact that everything he 'designed' depended on the killing of other creatures, from microbe to blue whale in order to to survive. In order to facilitate such a Universal Killing Field, God introduces the idea of camouflage so that some are cunningly deceived into death, poisons so that some are brutally injected with toxic chemicals before being eaten, brute force so that some, like the Praying Mantis grabs its prey and eats it head-first, while it is alive. The thing this all has in common is a violence far removed from puffy clouds and gorgeous sunsets.
3) Conclude that in order for life to survive the process of evolution finds its own common level, unaffected by human emotion or Sky Gods and does what it must to ensure survival of the species, including our own.
I am sure that you wil have other options to add. ;)
HS
Atheism is about denying all forms or identities of spiritualism, not just (a) God
While this does happen to be true of many to most atheists,
it is not actually contained in the tag "Atheist".
"Atheist" is specifically commenting on the subjects non-belief in
god. There are may be many things that fall into the category
of "god", but spiritualism as such does not- technically.
In theory, you could in fact be an atheist and still believe in
ghosts, although I would consider this an odd, unreasonable,
and logically inconsistant position. (but no one holds those, right? )
Maybe a better word would be "naturalism"?
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance;
specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for
all phenomena
[inkling]
Many believers in the "Almighty" will glady claim that they don't believe in Zeus, or Athena, or Isis, etc. Well, to them I offer the following definition of the word atheist - An atheist is simply someone who believes in one god less than you believe in.
After attending to many informal discussions between a polytheist and monotheist(s), it struck me that monotheists use the very same logic in passionately rejecting polytheism as atheists use in debunking theism. So it can rightly be defended, as other posters did, that we're all to a certain extent atheists.
The philosophical underpinnings of the rhetorical argument in Acts 17:22-31 is also quite interesting, with respect to the object of theism. Although Paul claimed to have special revelation, he is represented as identifying a mere placeholder for unknown gods as pertaining specifically to his god, what he construed to be the only "true" God. Despite what specific gods may be worshipped (e.g. Zeus, Apollo, Demeter, Aries, etc.), Agnostos Theos is the one that he takes as relevant to the true object of theistic worship. It seems that unless you share his Christian revelation of God, the less you claim to know about God, the better it is for him to recognize that you recognize his God.
HS
2) Another option is to take the words as true and conclude that God is a brutal and sociopathic liar. I state this against a backdrop of the fact that everything he 'designed' depended on the killing of other creatures, from microbe to blue whale in order to to survive. In order to facilitate such a Universal Killing Field, God introduces the idea of camouflage so that some are cunningly deceived into death, poisons so that some are brutally injected with toxic chemicals before being eaten, brute force so that some, like the Praying Mantis grabs its prey and eats it head-first, while it is alive. The thing this all has in common is a violence far removed from puffy clouds and gorgeous sunsets.
What's the matter? Don't like your place in the food chain? Maybe you just don't have enough knowledge to judge God's ability to run the universe.
The use of the word 'claim' is interesting, as it does not speak the truth of the situation. You sentence should read in order to be consistent, 'I don't believe it's as dark as some would believe". Think about it.
I meant what I said. I believe it does speak to the truth of the situation. I believe atheist are not being honest with themselves.
Rapuzel
Well, to them I offer the following definition of the word atheist - An atheist is simply someone who believes in one god less than you believe in.
If we can define words any way we like language would have no meaning. I don't buy your definition.
Deputy Dog,
I believe atheist are not being honest with themselves.
A provocative statement.
As you seem to be a person interested in honesty, perhaps you might then attend to the issues I raised regarding Romans and what we can learn about God from the Killing Fields that he 'designed'.
What's the matter? Don't like your place in the food chain?
I do not like it, or dislike it, I accept it without reservation. This seems to be the difference between the two of us. I can live with reality, and you seem to need to your fantasies.
It was your good self that actually introduced the concept of being able to tell God's character, or at least part of it, from his 'creation'. I am merely asking you to validate your comments, which you seem unable to do.
HS
