Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Anduril
I disagree. It depends on the definition of "God".

Please clarify.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
(2) - The structure of my statement may have indicated that to YOU; however, I don't think my sentence reads that way at all. However, since YOU did, let me clarify - of course, using an insulting term doesn't make a reply irrational! It just makes it unpleasant. I was objecting to your lack of an explanation. Again, can we retire this and just move on to whether or not atheism is a belief system?

Sure.

More:
(3) - Please do not speak to me in that manner ("either you will provide some other reason(s) to support your claim of irrationality, or you will drop it"), unless you just wish to waste your virtual breath. I have no intention of doing anything that you ask me to, especially if you ask it in that manner, unless it agrees with what I think is the right thing to do. I have done many things for other Entmooters with whom I have "talked" to on the various threads, because we have treated each other with kindness and respect, and I like them. However, you have not earned any right to dictate to me. I will consider polite requests from you, though.

It wasn't a dictation or a request; it was merely the options that I saw were open to you. You ended up wanting to drop it.

More:
(4) Since you say that a 'legion of individuals' have made the same mistake, perhaps the 'mistake' is not on everyone else's side - perhaps you need to learn to express yourself a little more clearly.

Perhaps. However, I have stopped counting the number of times I have been mistaken for a strong atheist.

More:
(5) Yes, I am aware of the meaning of that term. However, I think what YOU thought was my "straw man" wasn't - again, shall we just drop this and start over?

Sure.

More:
(6) Uh, perhaps in YOUR humble opinion, but you certainly didn't answer to MY satisfaction, because you never addressed what I wanted you to.

On the contrary, I did address your question, in point form.

More:
Again, I think it was a double misunderstanding -shall we just drop it and start over?

Sure.

More:
SO - all this aside, is there anything in particular that you would like to discuss with me? If so, could you please restate it so we can start again fresh

Perhaps. Going back to one of your posts in the original thread:

*snip*

What, you know that there's not a God?

*snip*

It has become clear that your position that atheism is a belief system would imply that such an assertion would not be based on knowledge, but belief. My current position, however, has nothing to do with issues of epistemology. But before I comment further, do you hold that all atheists believe there is/are no God/gods?

[Andúril]

BoP:
Please clarify.

Sure.

Some define "God" with incompatible attributes. In the same way that an object that is both a square and a circle cannot exist in reality, proposed deities with definitions that involve illogic cannot exist.

You didn't really need clarification, did you?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Anduril
It has become clear that your position that atheism is a belief system would imply that such an assertion would not be based on knowledge, but belief.

Are you implying that a belief system is outside the realm of 'knowledge'? Again, I need you to clarify your statements. You have implied that you don't believe () atheism to be an ideology. I would like to know why, if this is the case.

[Coney]

Look at all these posts!

Be back to this thread tonight.

BTW anyone have a link to a decent online bible?

[Andúril]

BoP:
Are you implying that a belief system is outside the realm of 'knowledge'?

Not at all.

More:
Again, I need you to clarify your statements.

My statement refers to the following posts from RÃ*an:

*snip*

What, you know that there's not a God?

*snip*

*snip*

my point being that a person cannot KNOW that there is no God.

*snip*

RÃ*an's position is that the non-existence of "God" cannot be known - evident in hindsight through an element of rhetoric in the first quote - but only believed. I merely stated what I thought her position was so that she could agree or disagree.

More:
You have implied that you don't believe () atheism to be an ideology. I would like to know why, if this is the case.

Atheism is not something that can be generalized in such a way. Using your definitions, atheism is not necessarily:

• the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
• a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
• imaginary or visionary theorization.

Weak atheism may fall under the definition

• an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory]

...but first I must ask you to elaborate on the nature of this "orientation". And just out of curiosity, which dictionary this entry comes from.

New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:
ideology n. [Fr. idéologie, f. as IDEO- + -LOGY.] 1 The branch of philosophy or psychology dealing with the origin and nature of ideas. arch. 2 Ideal or abstract (esp. impractical) speculation. arch. 3 A system of ideas or way of thinking pertaining to a class or individual, esp as a basis of some economic or political theory or system, regarded as justifying actions and esp. to be maintained irrespective of events. Freq. w. specifying wd.

Atheism, when referred to in its correct sense, does not fall under 3. 1 and 2 are archaic.

[Andúril]

Coney:
*snip*

BTW anyone have a link to a decent online bible?

Bible Gateway

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Andúril
Sure.

Some define "God" with incompatible attributes. In the same way that an object that is both a square and a circle cannot exist in reality, proposed deities with definitions that involve illogic cannot exist.

You didn't really need clarification, did you?

God is an incredibly vast being, beyond any feeble attempts at understanding which the greatest of mankind can make. God is so vastly above and beyond us that we cannot possibly understand him. An analogy I've heard before goes something like this: Suppose that we, as mankind, had width, and length, but no depth or height. Suppose that we were a two-dimensional being. We lived in a two-dimensional world, and that's what we were; 2D. Now suppose that we chanced upon a Being which had three dimensions? How could we possibly hope to understand this Being? God transcends all of human understanding.

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
*snip*

God is so vastly above and beyond us that we cannot possibly understand him.

*snip*

Yet you understand that God

• is an incredibly vast being
• is beyond any feeble attempts at understanding which the greatest of mankind can make
• is so vastly above and beyond us that we cannot possibly understand him, and
• transcends all of human understanding.

...and you use an analogy to help explain your "understanding", as if you understand what you're talking about.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To recognize that something is beyond your understanding does not require understanding, in and of itself; rather, it requires the lack thereof, and acceptance that there are things greater than you in the world.

Anyway, which specific "conflicting" traits do you refer to?

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
To recognize that something is beyond your understanding does not require understanding, in and of itself; rather, it requires the lack thereof, and acceptance that there are things greater than you in the world.

In order to understand that X cannot be understood, one must assume that X cannot be understood, since aspects of X which determine its understandability, cannot be understood, and are assumed!

You do realize that those points listed above are assumptions, don't you? Since you can't understand your deity, you can't know if those points are true.

Let's try one. Explain how you know that your god is "an incredibly vast being". Make sure that you include the premise "God cannot be understood" in your argument.

More:
Anyway, which specific "conflicting" traits do you refer to?

Well, that depends. One illogicality, for example, is the co-existence of strong omnipotence (the ability to perform all syntactically possible actions) and additional characteristics which necessitate the inability to perform certain actions. For instance, some will say that their deity cannot lie. Yet they still define the deity as strongly omnipotent.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding what your saying up there.

But about the second part; God is All-Powerful, but He binds Himself by rules He has created, such as not lying.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Andúril
Using your definitions, atheism is not necessarily:

• the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
• a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
• imaginary or visionary theorization.

I believe that it does. You are needlessly splitting hairs.

Anduril:
Weak atheism may fall under the definition

• an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory]

...but first I must ask you to elaborate on the nature of this "orientation".

Again, splitting hairs.

My definitions were culled off an online dictionary, in conjuction with an anthro text book.

*****

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
Date: 12th century
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "I-dE-'ä-l&-jE, "i-
Variant(s): also ide·al·o·gy /-'ä-l&-jE, -'a-/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: French idéologie, from idéo- ideo- + -logie -logy
Date: 1813
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

From: Merriam-Webster dictionary online.

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding what your saying up there.

Look at it this way:

You propose that "God" is inconceivable, and the reasons for this are that he "is an incredibly vast being", and is "so vastly above and beyond us". Surely you realize that "God" has become conceivable, since you know or understand something about him?

If you really cannot understand "God", how could you possibly know that he "is an incredibly vast being", and is "so vastly above and beyond us"?

More:
But about the second part; God is All-Powerful, but He binds Himself by rules He has created, such as not lying.

The illogic is simple to demonstrate:

The term "all-powerful" refers to strong omnipotence - the ability to perform any describable (syntactically possible) action. An entity who is all-powerful can do all things.

The pool of abilities that are open to such a being include such illogical things as creating a vegetable that is both fully an apple and granadilla at the same time. In light of this, the concept of weak omnipotence was adopted: the ability to perform all actions without extending to illogical scenarios. A weakly omnipotent being cannnot create a vegetable that is both fully an apple and granadilla at the same time.

A strongly omnipotent being can lie. A weakly omnipotent being's pool of abilities depends on

• The amount of independant illogical scenarios that exist, and
• the attributes of the being

What was intended by apologists as a handy concept to explain away the blatant problems of the illogic involved, this concept unfortunately encompasses far more than "God", and is now practically useless as a stand-alone characteristic.

It is clear that you are talking about strong omnipotence (unless you actually meant "God is kinda All-Powerful").[list=1][*]If God is all-powerful, then he can lie.[*]God cannot lie.[*]Therefore, God is not all-powerful.[/list=1]If additional premise a: "God is all-powerful" is included in the syllogism, then "God" becomes an illogical concept.

Weak omnipotence can help you out.

[Andúril]

BoP:
I believe that it does.

You believe that weak atheism - the lack of belief in God or gods and most applicable definition when referred to generally - is an ideology?

Come on BoP! You know that strong atheism isn't the only type of atheism - why do you continue to use such a blanket label?

More:
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Entry 2a is irrelevant here, but 2b deserves attention:

NSOED:
doctrine n. LME. [(O)Fr. f. L doctrina teaching, learning, f. DOCTOR n.: see -INE.] 1 The action of teaching or instructing; a lesson; a precept. LME (obs.) b Preaching. (obs.) 2 That which is taught; instruction; a body of teaching, esp. that concerning a particular subject or set of beliefs; a dogma, a tenet; a political or ethical principle. LME 3 A body of principles or tenets, a system of beliefs; a theory; a branch of knowledge. Now rare or obs. 4 Learning, knowledge. (obs.) 5 Discipline. (obs.)

"Tenet", in 2, may be applicable to strong atheism only. There are no tenets in weak atheism.

More:
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
Date: 12th century
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

I do not deny that strong atheism is a belief. But such belief is not applicable to weak atheists.

See here for more info.

[Coney]

You folks are really getting down to the brass-tacks here

Complicated business this Christianity (or lack thereof)

Pops off to read some of the Bible........ta for the link Anduril

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I already told you; realizing that something cannot be understood is not really understanding it. The two cannot be reconciled. Recognizing that something is above and beyond you does not make it on the same level as you.

As I stated before; God has the power to do anything, but He binds Himself by certain rules. And also, as I have stated before, God cannot be understood by humankind.

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
I already told you; realizing that something cannot be understood is not really understanding it. The two cannot be reconciled. Recognizing that something is above and beyond you does not make it on the same level as you.

How do you know that (along with other characteristics) something is "above and beyond you", if you have no understanding of that thing?

Why not address my points?

More:
As I stated before; God has the power to do anything, but He binds Himself by certain rules. And also, as I have stated before, God cannot be understood by humankind.

God either has the ability to lie, or does not. Both states of affair cannot obtain simultaneously.

Don't you see how illogical the concept of strong omnipotence is?

It's ironic, really. You state that "God cannot be understood", yet you understand that God (who cannot be understood), is strongly omnipotent.

[Hasty Ent]

What a fascinating thread, with wonderfully provocative posts. However, I have a question that maybe one of the Christian mooters can answer?

Mahatma Gandhi said:
"There is nothing in the world that would keep me from professing Christianity or any other faith, the moment I felt the truth of and the need for it. Where there is fear, there is no religion...If I could call myself, say, a Christian, or a Mussalman, with my own interpretation of the bible or the Koran, I should not hesitate to call myself either. For then Hihdu, Christian and Mussalman would be synonymous terms. I do believe that in the other world there are neither Hindus, nor Christians nor Mussalmans. There all are judged not according to their labels, or professions, but according to their actions, irrespective of their professions. During our earthly existence there will always be these labels. I, therefore, prefer to retain the label of my forefathers so long as it does not cramp my growth and does not debar me from assimilating all that is good anywhere else."

Now, since it appears that he didn't believe in the Christian god exclusively, should one assume that he is now in hell?

(anyone interested in more info on Gandhi, ck out www.mkgandhi.org)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
[B]What I dislike most about many religions is that they seem to say there can only be one Truth. This is somewhat of a continuation of what I was saying in the first religion thread. . .

. . .It makes me sad to see how so many people think their Truth, and their way, is the only true way and everyone else is wrong. Is there not room for more than one absolute truth? I know that does not sound logical, but I think it makes sense, in some way. If I, for example, believed that when I die I will be reincarnated, and what I will be in my next life depends on my actions in this and past ones, then that is what would happen. Say I lived a righteous life according to my belief system, and I was something else in the next life after I died. Then someone else believes in the Christian god and that they will go to Heaven when they die, because they lived a righteous life and accepted god, and they died and went to heaven. There is more than one thing that could happen, depending on your beliefs. Does that make any sense?

Well, EG, I can understand your feelings, but I don't think it makes sense if you think it through. I think math is an excellent analogy - it's like saying "Can't everyone get an "A" on the test, even though we all came up with different answers for the question 'what is 2 + 3'?"
There are things that are a matter of opinion ("I really like this dessert!"), and there are things that have several answers ("which of these letters are vowels? a, b, c, d, e, f"), and there are things that by their nature are either true or untrue ("The God of the Bible created the world".) I believe that if you think it thru, what you're really saying is something like the various gods (and perhaps an empty spot for the atheists ) are all sitting somewhere, anxiously waiting to see if anyone will believe in them. If I believe in the Christian God, then He will be freed up to interact with me; if you believe that you will be reincarnated, then you will, even though the Christian God objects to this concept. This idea basically says that each person is their own god.

Instead of this idea, I believe that it makes sense that there is an absolute truth about the way things are in the universe, and that the Bible describes this absolute truth. So, IOW, the Christian God exists whether or not people believe in Him.

In the Bible, it says that God desires that all people would be saved, and that no one will have an excuse for not believing in Him (because He is absolutely just and fair); that He reveals Himself to people through nature and through the moral law written on people's hearts and through the witness of believers (like some of us here at Entmoot ) and things like that. One character attribute of God that is stated over and over is that He is just. The old complaint of "well, what of those people on a desert island somewhere that never heard of Jesus? How can they be saved?" is not a valid complaint, for Abraham (who came WAY before Jesus showed up on earth) was stated in the Bible to have been made righteous (which is what 'saved' means) through his faith. The Bible states that everyone who is saved is saved [by faith, through Jesus, but it is not limited to just repeating the "sinner's prayer" from some pamphlet (I think it would be a fairly safe bet to say Abraham didn't say the sinner's prayer from a pamphlet but we have it on God's authority that he is saved.)

Why can't we all get along? Why can't more than one religion live side by side without each one telling the other they are wrong? It's happened in the past. It's certainly possible, neh?

Well, according to the Bible, we can't all get along because of our sin nature. It would sure be nice, though, if we could, but again, it is not real. And if you have an illness (sin nature), denial or hoping that it will just go away is NOT the best way to deal with it; acknowledging that there is a problem and seeking out help is what is the wisest course of action is.

Also, one particuarly 'beautiful' idea is that gods, etc, only exist because people beleive in them. When no one believes in them, they cease to exist.

Why is that beautiful to you? I certainly wouldn't like a god that is subject to my whims. I think the God of the Bible is incredibly beautiful. I think it's probably beautiful to you because it's comfortable. One thing that God is NOT is tame and comfortable (although He is very comfortING). He loves us too much to leave us in the awful state we're in, and so for Christians, He purifies us and makes us more Christlike through various trials, among other things. For the non-Christians, he also loves them too much to leave them alone and 'comfortable' - and one very good way to shake them out of their false complacency (which leads only to ruin) is trials. Trials tend to make you think alot.