Fed up of non believers

[Cyclone]

I do not know if I am an atheist, as I do not know what god is. I do believe that it is an unknowable quantity, though I do not know this. I have all kinds of thoughts feelings and perceptions on the matter ... do any of these constitute a belief in god (even though I am not using the label 'god' in my own mind)?

 

Is it required that we know what we're talking about when we say 'god', in order to know if a person is an atheist or not; and so if god is an unknowable quantity, doesn't that make the word atheist (and the word god for the matter) meaningless?

 

Aren't you describing yourself as an agnostic?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 09:32 ----------

 

No.

 

If you believe in god, whether you know what it even is, then you are a theist. Otherwise you are an atheist.

 

And if you are in a state of neither active belief nor active denial?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 09:33 ----------

 

Oh, and I read the OP and then jumped to the end, how did this become about theism instead of about ghosts?

[Waldo]

I'm not trying to describe myself as anything.

 

I think I'm more or less trying to highlight the inadequacy of language to describe and address such esoteric subject matter. I find it lacks something in way of granularity. It's like taking a digital photograph of a landscape, where there are say 256 intensities per R-G-B component, then considering such a photograph to be a true and accurate representation of the landscape.

 

We are perhaps assuming that 'god' is something that can be rendered in to a three letter word, and cognitively grasped. It really seems meaningless to me, but that doesn't mean the landscape (going back to previous analogy) does not exist.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 09:45 ----------

 

Oh, and I read the OP and then jumped to the end, how did this become about theism instead of about ghosts?

 

Come on! This is Sheffield Forum, you should know by now that was bound to happen! ;-)

Edited March 3, 2014 by Waldo

[mjw47]

Aren't you describing yourself as an agnostic?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 09:32 ----------

 

 

And if you are in a state of neither active belief nor active denial?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 09:33 ----------

 

Oh, and I read the OP and then jumped to the end, how did this become about theism instead of about ghosts?

 

It was a brilliant transformation ,and I have to take my share of the blame as I deliberately introduce the magic agnostic word, which aroused the definition squad from their watchful slumber.

[milquetoast1]

And if you are in a state of neither active belief nor active denial?

 

Then you are in a simultaneous state of being without belief and without denial.

 

Without belief in god/gods = atheist

 

I don't deny the existence of god/gods, but I'm still an atheist.

[Waldo]

If one knows god directly, but does not engage in the act of belief, then he is an atheist?

 

Possibly Jesus was an atheist, if he didn't mess around with any of this believing (speculation) nonsense?

[RootsBooster]

 

When your children are born, they are born without knowledge or language, but it does not mean they are without spirituality. It is an intuition.

How do you know that?

If one is certain that they are not a theist, then it does not automatically means that they are an atheist.

Of course it does, that's the very definition of atheism!

It seems to me that, in your mind, of whatever information and knowledge you hold, need to pigeonhole him into a particular position. THIS Is what he is fighting you on. He already stated that he is "neither this, nor that". He just "is" right now. And who can challenge a man about his belief than he himself ?

He's stated several times that he doesn't believe in any gods. His position of agnostic atheism doesn't pigeonhole him, he is still free to be any number of other things in life.

Surely it is his choice, and not for you to judge what he is, but for him to tell you who he is ? I do not understand why you must give him a label. Which is the whole point of social antagonism, and the kind that the OP is speaking of.

 

If he says that "My name is Mike, and I am a believer", then just accept it. Why the need to challenge this ?

his user name is mjw47 and he says he is not a believer, can you just accept that?

There can be a grey area of non-conclusion, or non-definitive and limiting position to hold.

Of course there can, but in terms of belief, you either do or you don't. Mjw47 doesn't believe in any gods.

The analogy is like, I say I am a woman, I have the attributes of a woman, but you keep labelling me that I am not because you found out that I work in IT say, which is a man's career. So these two pieces of premise do not add together, and you think that this is not then true or plausible or possible. How about just acknowledging them separately for what it is? It does not have to link together.

 

It's like that experiment with Dr Emoto. He did literally said a blessing. Those sound waves did hit that area and its environment. The lake did then change and life did grow from that place for the first time in many years. Do I conclude that he is Jesus, or a reincarnation of Jesus? No. But, those things that he did, those are true premises and true facts. There does not have to be a theory to link it all sometimes, although it seems that you are more comfortable in knowing if that is the case.

You say you don't like labels but you use them all the time. Labels are a way of communicating identities, qualities, traits and descriptions without having to go into a full description about something.

 

Trying to sweep them aside with ambiguous, feel-good vaguery just won't work. See how far you get in a day without using labels. How would you tell someone that you need to make a phone call to a relative? Would you act it out in theatrical gestures?

 

If somebody, from information you have given them about yourself, calls you "spiritual" or "artistic" do you get annoyed with them for labelling you?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 10:06 ----------

 

This might make what I have said clearer.

 

Disbelief in God is different to belief that God doesn't exist, so if you don't believe in God, you disbelieve.

Waldo has a point, if you don't believe, you don't necessarily disbelieve...

 

 

This describes the most basic level of disbelief: you don’t actively believe my claim, but you don’t deny it either. Many atheists take this position with respect to theistic claims when those claims are too vague or incoherent to adequately evaluate. Obviously such claims don’t merit rational belief, but there simply isn’t enough substance to say anything more about them.

 

The most basic level of not believing would simply be absence of belief. It's quite possible (but unlikely, in the Western world) that somebody could go through life without ever coming across the concept of gods. They would have an absence of belief but not necessarily disbelieve.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 10:09 ----------

 

I do not know if I am an atheist, as I do not know what god is. I do believe that it is an unknowable quantity, though I do not know this. I have all kinds of thoughts feelings and perceptions on the matter ... do any of these constitute a belief in god (even though I am not using the label 'god' in my own mind)?

 

Is it required that we know what we're talking about when we say 'god', in order to know if a person is an atheist or not; and so if god is an unknowable quantity, doesn't that make the word atheist (and the word god for the matter) meaningless?

I've never heard of a god (in the theistic sense) that isn't a powerful, supernatural being. Do you believe in any powerful, supernatural beings?

 

If not, you're an atheist.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 10:10 ----------

 

If one knows god directly, but does not engage in the act of belief, then he is an atheist?

 

Possibly Jesus was an atheist, if he didn't mess around with any of this believing (speculation) nonsense?

 

How can you know there's a god but not believe in it?

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 10:13 ----------

 

And if you are in a state of neither active belief nor active denial?

Then you are an atheist, most likely an agnostic one

[ivanava]

The most basic level of not believing would simply be absence of belief. It's quite possible (but unlikely, in the Western world) that somebody could go through life without ever coming across the concept of gods. They would have an absence of belief but not necessarily disbelieve.

 

Which according to the dictionary is the same thing as disbelief, disbelief isn't the same as believing that something is false, its just an inability to accept that it is true and you can't accept that something is true if you haven't considered the matter.

[RootsBooster]

Which according to the dictionary is the same thing as disbelief, disbelief isn't the same as believing that something is false, its just an inability to accept that it is true and you can't accept that something is true if you haven't considered the matter.

 

There's a small difference, the guy who lives without ever coming across the concept of gods, he is simply without belief.

There's no inability to to accept the truth about something he has never come across, until he does come across it.

[mjw47]

Professor William L Rowe was wrong because gnostic/agnostic refers to knowledge and not belief. Also, not all atheists disbelieve in god, but all atheists lack belief in god.

 

 

 

This is a logical fallacy...

 

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

 

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word 'agnosticism' and said, "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

 

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

 

Also from that link...

 

"Agnostic atheism

 

The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.

 

Agnostic theism

 

The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence."

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:35 ----------

 

I question that "fact".

 

Evolution is driven by natural selection, but has no 'purpose'.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:43 ----------

 

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

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

 

---------[6]"

 

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

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:50 ----------

 

[/[6]"

 

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

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 01:53 ----------

 

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

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

 

For heavens sake we're not talking about his judgement as to the meaning of life, we're talking about his considered opinion on the descriptions to explain, as simply as possible, the positions taken by the various viewpoints involved.

 

'Though reliable authorities are correct - more often than laypersons.'

 

No S**t Sherlock, are they really?

 

Now, whilst I know logic is not a particular strong point of yours, lets try and introduce it shall we.

 

Taking into consideration Occum's Razor,who do you think is most likely to be correct in defining beliefs, a man who has spent his lifetime working in the field in question and is in possession of relevant degrees, or alternatively a bunch of argumentative numpties on Sheffield Forum?

 

I admit it's a bit of a tough one, but having given it due consideration I'm leaning slightly toward the man who actually knows what he's talking about.

[RootsBooster]

For heavens sake we're not talking about his judgement as to the meaning of life, we're talking about his considered opinion on the descriptions to explain, as simply as possible, the positions taken by the various viewpoints involved.

 

'Though reliable authorities are correct - more often than laypersons.'

 

No S**t Sherlock, are they really?

 

Now, whilst I know logic is not a particular strong point of yours, lets try and introduce it shall we.

 

Taking into consideration Occum's Razor,who do you think is most likely to be correct in defining beliefs, a man who has spent his lifetime working in the field in question and is in possession of relevant degrees, or alternatively a bunch of argumentative numpties on Sheffield Forum?

 

I admit it's a bit of a tough one, but having given it due consideration I'm leaning slightly toward the man who actually knows what he's talking about.

Why did you abandon the dictionary definition of atheism and go with someone's opinion instead?