Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Never heard an atheist say they don't want God. That would suggest someone believes in God but deosn't want God to be part of their life, which means they wouldn't be an atheist as they believe in God. Can you give a quote?

Depends what you mean by “reject” I suppose. Vlad just skips the gap from “god” to “belief in god” in the hope no-one notices, but as an atheist I “reject” the belief in god because I can see no good reason to have that belief. I can’t though “reject god” in the sense that as an atheist I can think, “I know you’re there god, now bugger off”. See also the stupidity of “goddodging” as if you can “dodge” something you don’t think to be there at all.

Worth noting by the way that in theory at least you can be a theist and an antitheist. That is, you can believe in a god but at the same time conclude that you really wished he wasn't there.       

[Roses]

Er no, agnostic doesn't mean that

You have obviously misunderstood my post.

[Nearly Sane]

You have obviously misunderstood my post.

Nope, that would be you, and mine. Agnostic is not a midway position between having a belief in god(s), and not having a belief in god(s).

[Roses]

Nope, that would be you, and mine. Agnostic is not a midway position between having a belief in god(s), and not having a belief in god(s).

I have always said it is just possible that a god might exist somewhere. But I am very doubtful that any of the gods worshipped by humans actually exist.

[Nearly Sane]

I have always said it is just possible that a god might exist somewhere. But I am very doubtful that any of the gods worshipped by humans actually exist.

And again, you either have a belief in god(s) or not. If you don't then you're an atheist. You are an agnostic atheist.

[Roses]

And again, you either have a belief in god(s) or not. If you don't then you're an atheist. You are an agnostic atheist.

The definition of agnostic is:- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
synonyms: sceptic, doubter, questioner, doubting Thomas, challenger, scoffer, cynic.

That sums me up. For instance, it is just possible the Biblical god could exist, but I fervently hope it doesn't.

[Nearly Sane]

The definition of agnostic is:- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
synonyms: sceptic, doubter, questioner, doubting Thomas, challenger, scoffer, cynic.

That sums me up. For instance, it is just possible the Biblical god could exist, but I fervently hope it doesn't.

Indeed but you either have a belief in a god(s) in which case you are a theist, or you don't in which case you are an atheist. You are an agnostic atheist

[Roses]

Indeed but you either have a belief in a god(s) in which case you are a theist, or you don't in which case you are an atheist. You are an agnostic atheist

Rubbish, you have just made that up!

[Nearly Sane]

Rubbish, you have just made that up!

Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. It's been expressed as that on here by amongst others, bluehillside, Professor Davey, Gordon, BeRational, trentvoyager, Shaker, Dicky Underpants, wigginhall, Ippy, so just no.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

As NS says, a-theism is just the absence of belief in god(s), just as a-pixieism if the absence of belief in pixies, a-tooth fairyism is the absence of belief in the tooth fairy etc. Agnosticism on the other hand is a different category of belief, namely that statements about god(s) are unknowable. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.     

[Roses]

Floo,

As NS says, a-theism is just the absence of belief in god(s), just as a-pixieism if the absence of belief in pixies, a-tooth fairyism is the absence of belief in the tooth fairy etc. Agnosticism on the other hand is a different category of belief, namely that statements about god(s) are unknowable. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.     

Whatever!

[Dicky Underpants]

Whatever!

No, not "whatever!", unless you want to live in an Alice in Wonderland world where words mean whatever you choose to make them mean. NS and bluehillside are right. Just to amplify what blue said about "agnostic" (which NS also said you had misused). You continually use this in a very loose sense, supposedly to mean "it might be so, or it might not be so". That is not the classic definition given by the man who actually invented the term - Thomas Henry Huxley. He affirmed that "humans can have no knowledge except of phenomena" That is, all that we can know is of the natural world of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell and what we can actually investigate.

[Roses]

I know what I think, and if others wish to contest it, that is up to them.

[Samuel]

Noted, but in defence of roses words change their meanings over time. Gay never used to mean homosexual but it does now. In common parlance the word agnostic would widely be taken to mean 'unsure if god exists' or 'lacking certainty on the matter of whether god exists' or 'regognising that god might exist but possesing doubts on the matter'.

Anyway... is belief in god really a binary question? you do or you don't? to be binary in that way wouldn't the term god need to have a consistent meaning?

[Dicky Underpants]

The devil existing as a separate entity from God is clearly illustrated in book 1 of the old testament and in the description of Christ's temptations during forty days in the wilderness.  The Christian bible illustrates that this world has fallen under the power of the evil one, and God has achieved victory over this evil through the suffering and death of Jesus.  But evil still exists and in order to be delivered from the power of evil we need to accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

We are currently in the season of Lent, in which we are encouraged to practise self denial in order to strengthen us against the temptations of evil.  Humans have been given the freedom to choose, and we often succumb to temptation by doing something which we know to be wrong, yet we still do it.

I agree that there are now many Christians who no longer believe in the devil - and it worries me.  It also worries many of my fellow Christians including our local priest.  It is the Devil's greatest ploy to convince people that it does not exist.

I mistakenly cited Isaiah 47 in my above post. Apologies. I should have of course cited Isaiah 45. Here is the relevant text for you to contemplate:

" I am the LORD, and there is none else.
 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Isaiah 45: 6,7

And there you have the classic statement that God is the author of evil as well as good, irrespective of speculations about the Devil.

You might also like to consider a few texts from 2Samuel:

"But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him."

1Sam 16:14

similarly

1Sam18:10
1Sam19:9.

Now, as Jeremy has already pointed out, there is no direct reference to the Serpent in the garden of Eden being the Devil - the text simply says that the Serpent proved to be the most subtle beast  in the garden. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the text itself that God lied, and the Serpent told the truth.

In any case, the OT is pretty lean on references to Satan: he appears in the Book of Job, but there he is given completely free reign by God to do as he wills . He is certainly not in open rebellion. The only reference in the OT to Satan having started to act as a totally independent entity is in the book of Zechariah.

As for the New Testament - you cite Christ's temptation in the wilderness. You must know that many Christians interpret this in a metaphorical way as the speculations of a very gifted individual contemplating on just how he might deploy those gifts - to his own personal aggrandisement, or for the benefit of others. In any case, a literal interpretation will simply not cut it. We are told that the "Devil bore him up into a very high  mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth"
. I hardly need point out that even from the top of Everest, the kingdoms of ancient Peru (for example) would be hidden from view, let alone places antipodean to the supposed viewpoint of the two personages.

I don't suppose it's much use recommending a critical study of how the concept of the devil developed in the Bible, nonetheless I will do so (hope springs eternal). The Devil by Peter Stanford is an extremely readable and informative account by a former Catholic (not sure what he calls himself now, maybe liberal Christian of some sort - anyway, he's a damn good religious critic). Might stop you seeing bogeymen at every turn.

[BeRational]

Rubbish, you have just made that up!

No he is correct.

Theism is about belief, and Gnosticism about knowledge.

This has been covered many many times on here.

I am an agnostic atheist, and I think most atheists are.

[Roses]

When it comes down to it I am just me. My experience of Christianity has shaped the way I think about the faith. I have to admit that in the back of my mind there is the thought what if the ghastly, 'you must be 'saved' or burn in hell', which was drummed into me as a child, has any validity, I am burnt toast!

[Dicky Underpants]

Noted, but in defence of roses words change their meanings over time. Gay never used to mean homosexual but it does now. In common parlance the word agnostic would widely be taken to mean 'unsure if god exists' or 'lacking certainty on the matter of whether god exists' or 'regognising that god might exist but possesing doubts on the matter'.

Samuel
Fair enough, but this so completely weakens the force of Huxley's original definition (which has a philosophical import way above the wishy-washy use you mention) that this feeble modern use should certainly be resisted, and the original definition emphasised. I'm not sure that every linguistic use should pass unchallenged, though, and maybe the fact that we can no longer use gay to mean "happy and bright" is not altogether an improvement (In the old Polari slang, they used the word "bona"*, I think. At least that was Latin, and didn't actually take over a modern English word). And "gay" has also developed another (pejorative) meaning in some circles (not just homophobic ones) - something like "uncool" or lacking in style (no doubt the street-wise will bring me up to date). All that aside - if anyone ever tries to tell me that "I was like", meaning "I said" or "I thought", is a useful development to be encouraged: then it's pistols at dawn mate!!

Anyway... is belief in god really a binary question? you do or you don't? to be binary in that way wouldn't the term god need to have a consistent meaning?

Agreed about the lack of consistency in the terminology used about "god". That is why sticking to the phenomena of the natural world is important - that's all we have a methodology for investigating. All the rest - God, gods, spirit, life forces, supernatural - can safely be lumped together as being beyond investigation.

*I quite like "omi-palone". Fantabulosa!

[Nearly Sane]

Noted, but in defence of roses words change their meanings over time. Gay never used to mean homosexual but it does now. In common parlance the word agnostic would widely be taken to mean 'unsure if god exists' or 'lacking certainty on the matter of whether god exists' or 'regognising that god might exist but possesing doubts on the matter'.

Anyway... is belief in god really a binary question? you do or you don't? to be binary in that way wouldn't the term god need to have a consistent meaning?

Yep words change but in some sense they need something beyond solipsistic meanings to allow discussion. In the predominant sense here, agnostic isb't a midway between theism and atheism .

And  while there are multiple definitions of god(s) an individual at one time either believes or not in whatever they think a god is, so yep binary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

All that aside - if anyone ever tries to tell me that "I was like", meaning "I said" or "I thought", is a useful development to be encouraged: then it's pistols at dawn mate!!

Just to note that the use of "like" can be unfortunate. "They were shagging like rabbits" for example in standard parlance meant they were going at it hammer and tongs. Da yoof version of, "they were shagging, like, rabbits" on the other hand means they had an unhealthy interest in our furry friends!

[Nearly Sane]

When it comes down to it I am just me. My experience of Christianity has shaped the way I think about the faith. I have to admit that in the back of my mind there is the thought what if the ghastly, 'you must be 'saved' or burn in hell', which was drummed into me as a child, has any validity, I am burnt toast!

Do you believe in god(s)?

[Nearly Sane]

No he is correct.

Theism is about belief, and Gnosticism about knowledge.

This has been covered many many times on here.

I am an agnostic atheist, and I think most atheists are.

Just to note I'm an ignostic atheist.

[BeRational]

Just to note I'm an ignostic atheist.

Okay, noted

[Nearly Sane]

Okay, noted

Thank you for your noting.

[jeremyp]

Nope, that would be you, and mine. Agnostic is not a midway position between having a belief in god(s), and not having a belief in god(s).

To be fair your post was ambiguous. You didn’t say which term you thought LR doesn’t understand until she selected the wrong one.