Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[Jack Bauer]

Slightly off topic now but I would be interested in hearing why some of our religious members do believe in god (or other deity). Assuming this can be done in a sensible manner.

 

[Ryan-3]

No I am not. I neither reject, accept or define an absence of belief in God(s)...

Humanist? Just be happy that we're here and make the best of it we can.

 

[estebanrey]

A) To express an position, you must first be aware of such a position. That is self evident.

Non-sequitur. A dog may not realise it is a dog or have any concept of an animal kingdom existing, that doesn't stop it being a dog.

Some sentient being that has no concept of God is 'non-theist', 'godless', 'without God'...a.k.a a-theist. There is no imperative need to introduce a knowledge of the subject/choices.

B) No I have not...that is an assumption or misinterpretation on your part. I have clarified this enough already..I made no such limitation..in fact quite the contrary.

You stated it as a legitimate definition here...

So, basically unless you are an atheist...in the definition that a God doesn't exist as a definitive

Animals are not atheist or theist...you cannot reasonably apply anthropomorphic philosophical positions to non-humans who have no way to express them.

Theism and atheism are binary, you are either one or the other. There are lots of concepts animals don't understand but it doesn't stop them being so. A snail has no concept of a backbone, it doesn't stop it being an invertebrate.

It's like saying a rock is atheist. Its pointless....

It being pointless doesn't make it any less true.

I am not introducing it..it is inherent in the philosophical position. You are either misreading or misrepresenting the position of being active...the active part is the ability to express the philosophical position coherently. The 'lack of belief in Gods' is the simple position of not agreeing with the Theist, so thereby a common definition of Atheism, and the one you are trying to express is a lack of belief in theism....by definition an active position.

You are trying to argue that an absence of something is the existence of something, it's not. As has been explained to you with the analogy that not collecting stamps isn't an activity.

For it to be inactive you would simply 'lack belief'..there would be no active knowledge of Theism or its related concepts, and I have yet to meet or hear an Atheist define their atheism just as a 'lack of belief' without defining the belief to which the lack applies....I would say that would classified (if it can be classified at all) as agnosticism.

That doesn't disprove my position though. I'm saying anyone that has no concept of a God or gods is by definition an atheist AS WELL AS people [you describe] who know of the concept and choose to reject it. Something or someone that has no concept of God also has no concept of Atheism but, again, that doesn't mean they aren't one (see dog analogy above).

 

[D.P.]

^^^Yes,
"Theism and atheism are binary, you are either one or the other. "

They are just labels.

 

[Castiel]

Theism and atheism are binary, you are either one or the other.

I am neither....that you believe a rock is an atheist negates the point of continuing such a discussion anyway as we clearly have a fundamental differing of views on the valid application of the relevant philosophical positions.

The rest I have already addressed in other posts, you are simply restating the same arguments and same misinterpretations of statements ignoring the context and/or subsequent clarifications and replies. Argumentum ad nauseam.

Like I said, you can believe whatever you wish...We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[Glaucus]

Theism and atheism are binary, you are either one or the other. ).

What utter nonsense.

 

[estebanrey]

I am neither.

What utter nonsense.

Do you believe in a God?

It's a yes or no question and differs from "Is there a God" where "don't know" is an acceptable option.

 

[Glaucus]

Do you believe in a God?

It's a yes or no question and differs from "Is there a God" where "don't know" is an acceptable option.

You may want to read up on definitions of atheism and realise what nonsense you are sprouting.

 

[Castiel]

Do you believe in a God?

It's a yes or no question and differs from "Is there a God" where "don't know" is an acceptable option.

I have yet to formulate a valid, coherent definition for what constitutes God...therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve...the question has no meaning until a valid coherent and universal definition is presented.

 

[estebanrey]

You may want to read up on definitions of atheism and realise what nonsense you are sprouting.

I've read more definitions of atheism than you've had hot dinners. Now answer the question....

"Do you believe in a God?"

I have yet to formulate a valid, coherent definition for what constitutes God...therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve...the question has no meaning until a valid coherent and universal definition is presented.

So the answers 'no' then. You do not believe a God exists therefore you are atheist.

I'm not asking you about probabilities or whether your think he could exist, I'm asking you whether you believe one does (in any form). As soon as you said "I have yet to" that means 'no' in the same way someone who has yet to take a driving test yet is a non-licence holder.

 

[Glaucus]

I've read more definitions of atheism than you've had hot dinners. Now answer the question....

"Do you believe in a God?"

The question has no bearing on what you said.

At least define which version of atheism you are using. And you obviusly haven't read them all as you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Castiel]

So the answers 'no' then. You do not believe a God exists therefore you are atheist.

The answer is not No...Whether I believe or disbelieve would depend entirely upon the presentation of a coherent universal definition of the subject of the question....you assume a position I have not expressed as I have not expressed a position on the existence or non existence, like Schrodingers Cat, the answer could equally be both until the presentation of a coherent definition of God(s)...therefore I am not an atheist nor theist. I made no expression of probabilities, how can I, there is no cogent question to answer...it certainly isn't analogous to a driving licence..a driving licence is a well defined, universal item....God is not. They are fundamentally different.

ignosticism:

The philosophical position that beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of God (capitalized) all assume too much, especially because there is not just one universal definition of the word "God" or because the concept of "God" is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable; also called "theological noncognitivism".

 

[Glaucus]

The answer is not No...Whether I believe or disbelieve would depend entirely upon the presentation of a coherent universal definition of the subject of the question....you assume a position I have not expressed as I have not expressed a position on the existence or non existence therefore I am not an atheist nor theist.

I think you've blown his small mind.

 

[estebanrey]

The answer is not No...Whether I believe or disbelieve would depend entirely upon the presentation of a coherent universal definition of the subject of the question....you assume a position I have not expressed as I have not expressed a position on the existence or non existence therefore I am not an atheist nor theist.

I already included 'in any form' in the last question so no it doesn't depend. You either believe in some kind of God (in any conceivable manner you can construct) or you don't.

You keep trying to turn a question of belief into one of knowledge/likelihood and thus missing the point.

Look at it this way, I can believe that my parents always made decisions in my best interest without 'knowing' objectively whether they did or not.

ignosticism:

The philosophical position that beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of God (capitalized) all assume too much, especially because there is not just one universal definition of the word "God" or because the concept of "God" is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable; also called "theological noncognitivism".

None of the above suggests 'ignosticism' is mutually exclusive from atheism.

 

[Castiel]

I think you've blown his small mind.

Perhaps. It's not that difficult to understand though. I'm sure he will find another way to express the same repetition of his position though...despite the fact that I have said we have fundamentally different perspectives on this and therefore should agree to disagree.

 

[Castiel]

I already included 'in any form' in the last question so no it doesn't depend.

To put it as simply and succinctly as possible...Without a coherent universal definition, the question is meaningless..it assumes too much to be objectively answered...therefore I expressed no definitive position...therefore I am neither Atheist or Theist.

This is my position. Take it or leave it.

None of the above suggests 'ignosticism' is mutually exclusive from atheism.

Perhaps this will give you more insight into the position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

To quote:

"God" does not refer to anything that exists.
"God" does not refer to anything that does not exist.
"God" does not refer to anything that may or may not exist.
"God" has no literal significance, just as "Fod" has no literal significance.

Therefore I have not expressed anything that could be defined within the parameters of Theism or Atheism. Which is not surprising as I am neither.

 

[estebanrey]

Without a coherent universal definition, the question is meaningless..it assumes too much to be objectively answered...therefore I expressed no definitive position...therefore I am neither Atheist or Theist.

This is my position. Take it or leave it.

Again, I've allowed you to construct God to mean virtually anything you want so no the question is not meaningless. I'm asking you the question as many times as you can conceive of supernatural beings with any number of powers you wish to include in the scenario.

I'm offering you a question that offers limitless pre-requisites and extra information you want to add.

So do you believe in any form of God no matter how you choose to construct him/her/it?

 

[Castiel]

Again, I've allowed you to construct God to mean virtually anything you want so no the question is not meaningless.

That makes the question meaningless...as, for example...I could define and construct God to be synonymous with the Universe..and I can say I believe in the Universe...does that make me a Theist..or if I am an Atheist as you keep labelling me...does that imply by association that the Universe doesn't exist...

 

[estebanrey]

That makes the question meaningless...as, for example...I could define and construct God to be synonymous with the Universe..and I can say I believe in the Universe...does that make me a Theist..or if I am an Atheist as you keep labelling me...does that imply by association that the Universe doesn't exist...

Hence why I said you could define God as 'virtually' anything you wanted. Once you start using it as a by-word for the Universe or the Big bang then sure it borders on flippancy but moreover a desperate attempt to reconcile scientific knowledge with a belief in a deity.

By 'God' I mean any being, be it in man's image or glowing blob of goo that has an affect on the universe. Something that is seperate to fully understood scientific processes or entities.

 

[Castiel]

By 'God' I mean any being, be it in man's image or glowing blob of goo that has an affect on the universe. Something that is seperate to fully understood scientific processes or entities.

Then the question is still equally meaningless...you are asking me to invent my own proposition (and now introducing artificial limitations on how I can express that proposition) and then answer it.....

Like I said, we fundamentally disagree here...asking increasingly desperate questions is not going to change that...you may as well accept my answer or agree to disagree if you cannot accept it.