Athiesm and the definition of a god.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-12-10 02:53pm

Is it impossible to be an athiest unless one has a definition of a "God"?

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2002-12-10 03:00pm

Well, the most basic definition of a god would be a being capable of transcending physical laws. Anything less would merely be a highly advanced being, would it not? While many may not think of it in this way, the general concept is probably the same.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-12-10 03:26pm

There are dozens of definitions for 'god' throughout human history. You don't have to pick any one particular one. An atheist thinks they're all lies.

As an atheist, I don't believe in gods. I have a definition of what a god should be, but I have a definition of what a goblin should be, too. Hell, I have a definition of what a Crotch Diverted Spasm Modulator should be, and I just made that up (and wouldn't B&B be proud).

Religionists could very well decide that a giant space booger is going to hit the earth in ten years, and if you don't believe it, they'll call you an Aphlegmist and say that you're going to Handkerchief and be stonewashed for eternity.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-10 03:37pm

Stephan Roberts wrote:I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-10 04:07pm

Stephan Roberts wrote:I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

While I do like this quote, it is very flawed. Most religionist dismiss other dieties not because of logic or rational, but because their god and/or holy books say so.

I prefer:

George Will wrote:Intellectual rigor annoys people because it interferes with the pleasure they derive from allowing their wishes to be the fathers of their thoughts.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-10 04:34pm

I like the Joe Campbell quote that I posted a couple of days ago.

As for the thread subject, it is ridiculous to say that you must define something in order not to believe in it. Burden of proof, definition, etc. is invariably on the party claiming the existence of something.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-10 05:22pm

Wicked Pilot wrote: While I do like this quote, it is very flawed. Most religionist dismiss other dieties not because of logic or rational, but because their god and/or holy books say so.

Yet, how many Christians do you know that claim their God is the most logical choice (*cough* Jack Chick *cough*)?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-10 05:33pm

Yogi wrote:Is it impossible to be an athiest unless one has a definition of a "God"?

I don't think so. An atheist probably doesn't even need to acknowledge the existence of the concept of a god in the first place.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-10 05:34pm

Well, of course the concept exists, but atheists really don't give a shit. None of the concepts of God have any real objective merit. They're all hearsay.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-10 08:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:I like the Joe Campbell quote that I posted a couple of days ago.

As for the thread subject, it is ridiculous to say that you must define something in order not to believe in it. Burden of proof, definition, etc. is invariably on the party claiming the existence of something.

While I'll admit I am biased on this topic (since I am one of those who is not an atheist), I find it useful to know what I don't believe. Not necessarily as far as the burden of proof goes (people saying "tell me what you don't believe, and I'll tell you why you still believe what I believe" just piss me off), but so that I can organize my thoughts better. For example, I don't believe that the world consists solely of thought and idea, as David Hume proposed. I don't believe an observer is required for something to occur (in other words, the tree does make a sound if it falls in the forest and nothing is there to hear it). I realize this is probably red herring, since it goes off-topic and doesn't really address the original question, and I agree that if you're going to say "I don't believe in your God," the people who believe must define that God, or else they can shift meanings around to trap you.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-12-10 08:56pm

A god is a supernatural being, supposedly. Now, go along with me, if a god existed since before the universe, that would make him/her natural facets of all that exists and therefore completely natural and nothing special. If a god popped into existance after the universe formed, he would still be a natural facet. So i guess a good definition of a god is a living entity which did not come from preexisting materials.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-10 09:04pm

Just for kicks, I looked up "god" at dictionary.com.

Here goes:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

and

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. "

seem to be the most wide-reaching and most used definitions. My favorite, however, is: "A very handsome man."

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-10 11:35pm

The Dark wrote:My favorite, however, is: "A very handsome man."

In that case, Mike Wong must be god.

Though, you're right, burden of definition is on the side of the party making the claim. It gets really annoying when they say that God exists, and then whenever you prove that their God doesn't exist, they just change the definition and claim you were making strawmen out of their arguments. This is why I prefer debating fundies: at least we agree on what we're talking about.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-11 03:41am

data_link wrote:
The Dark wrote:My favorite, however, is: "A very handsome man."
In that case, Mike Wong must be god.

Though, you're right, burden of definition is on the side of the party making the claim. It gets really annoying when they say that God exists, and then whenever you prove that their God doesn't exist, they just change the definition and claim you were making strawmen out of their arguments. This is why I prefer debating fundies: at least we agree on what we're talking about.

I understand what you mean. As an aside (I don't think you intended this to be aimed at me, but it gives me an opening), I do want to apologize for any shifts in views I have made. I'm a second-year religion major, and still learning what is considered proper theology within the church. If it can be logically reasoned from the philosophical assumptions made within the church, then I accept what is said. Of course, I'm still jokingly referred to as the heretic within my Christian Beliefs class...I hope they're joking

.

Actually, debating fundies is fun. It's sorta like dealing with a bad puppy, you discipline them for doing something wrong, do it again when they're wrong again, and eventually they either realize they're wrong and correct their ways or you put them out in the yard and only pay attention to them when they start barking too loud. And even then it's only to yell at them to shut up

.

MirrorUniverseSpy1 · Post by **MirrorUniverseSpy1** » 2002-12-11 05:05am

I agree with Chan. My thoughts exactly.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-11 12:15pm

I'm God. Didn't you all know that?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-11 05:49pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:I'm God. Didn't you all know that?

Ah. In that case, by order of the physics police, you are under arrest for genocide, conspiracy to commit mass murder, violating the principles of logic, and performing miracles without a license. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attourney. If you cannot afford an attourney, one will be provided to you by the commonwealth at no cost to you. Do you understand these rights? Good, let's go, fucktard. You have a lot of explaining to do.

Shrykull · Post by **Shrykull** » 2002-12-14 12:13pm

Well, the most basic definition of a god would be a being capable of transcending physical laws. Anything less would merely be a highly advanced being, would it not? While many may not think of it in this way, the general concept is probably the same.

Did you know that Wiccans insist that magic is natural that there's nothing supernatural about it, go figure.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-14 12:41pm

I thought Slarti was God?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-12-14 01:47pm

Okay, we've hammered out what a god is. What, then, is the person who keeps track of the gods and does their paperwork? Well, a Small Godskeeper, of course. And MirrorSpy, you need to do this form. In triplicate.

ZAROVE · Post by **ZAROVE** » 2002-12-15 08:58pm

God, as defined,is the creator and genetive force of the Universe, as understood in Jewish ansd early christian writings. The idea of "supernatural" was as forgign to them as " quantum Physics" , God was nto seen as supernatural but the wellspring form which nature flowed.

To the pantheon of greece th same appies, thee gds, though not the origionators of the Universe, where the living embodiment of nature, not a supernatural entity removed form it. Indeed, with no Zeus there woudl nbe no lightning, with no demeter no harvest and growth, without Thanatos no death-ect...

As to the deity of " the christian God" - ( which also is in muslim and Jewish faiths ) he is the origioator in charge of and in controle of all things.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-15 11:10pm

ZAROVE wrote:God, as defined,is the creator and genetive force of the Universe, as understood in Jewish ansd early christian writings. The idea of "supernatural" was as forgign to them as " quantum Physics" , God was nto seen as supernatural but the wellspring form which nature flowed.

To the pantheon of greece th same appies, thee gds, though not the origionators of the Universe, where the living embodiment of nature, not a supernatural entity removed form it. Indeed, with no Zeus there woudl nbe no lightning, with no demeter no harvest and growth, without Thanatos no death-ect...

As to the deity of " the christian God" - ( which also is in muslim and Jewish faiths ) he is the origioator in charge of and in controle of all things.

And what does any of that have to do with the original thread subject, regarding the silly notion that atheists must define God in order not to believe in him?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-15 11:11pm

ZAROVE wrote:God, as defined,is the creator and genetive force of the Universe, as understood in Jewish ansd early christian writings. The idea of "supernatural" was as forgign to them as " quantum Physics" , God was nto seen as supernatural but the wellspring form which nature flowed.

To the pantheon of greece th same appies, thee gds, though not the origionators of the Universe, where the living embodiment of nature, not a supernatural entity removed form it. Indeed, with no Zeus there woudl nbe no lightning, with no demeter no harvest and growth, without Thanatos no death-ect...

As to the deity of " the christian God" - ( which also is in muslim and Jewish faiths ) he is the origioator in charge of and in controle of all things.

You idiot! I'm God! Didn't you read my previous post?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-15 11:25pm

There is no God. Only Goddess. And I get to fuck her up the ass.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-12-15 11:41pm

Dammit Mike, is there any topic you WON'T turn towards ass-fucking? LOL

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Athiesm and the definition of a god.

Athiesm and the definition of a god.

Re: Athiesm and the definition of a god.

RELOGATIONS

Re: RELOGATIONS

Re: RELOGATIONS