Secular Nativity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are assuming your conclusion.

How?

[Nearly Sane]

How?

That there is an 'ultimate and fundamental'. That this is the only one god. That gods cannot exist that are not 'ultimate and fundamental'. That those people who believe in such gods are wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

And Again If there are endless versions You cannot have seen them all.

Once again, My interest is in the Ultimate and fundemental, so intellectually I rule out that which is not fundamental and ultimate from being fundamental and ultimate.

Circular reasoning

[SteveH]

You seem to be saying then that an agnostic atheist must acknowledge the possibility of God and hence the possibility of encounter but that it is impossible for them to engage with God.

I hate to say it but that makes your belief indistinguishable to a priori God evasion

Misse of "a priori".
I also think you're misunderstanding the word "agnostic". An agnostic is not just someone who does not personally know whether God exists or not, but someone who believes that God's existence is unknowable in principle. (Fun fact; the first person to call himself an agnostic (after TH Huxley, who coined the term) was Huxley's friend, Charles Darwin.)
And finally, you seem to be regarding God as an object in the universe, like the moon or a beetle or Nigel Farage. Whatever God is, God must surely be either less  or much more than that; either nothing st all, or the ground and  meaning of all existence.

[Stranger]

And Again If there are endless versions You cannot have seen them all.

And.....?

Once again, My interest is in the Ultimate and fundemental, so intellectually I rule out that which is not fundamental and ultimate from being fundamental and ultimate.

And my interest is not in delving into unfalsifiable superstition.

You are applying blatant double standards. You can't falsify multiple gods, any more than I can falsify many of the vast number of versions of an "ultimate and fundamental" God, yet you want me to take your baseless idea seriously while you refuse to consider other, equally baseless, ideas.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That there is an 'ultimate and fundamental'. That this is the only one god. That gods cannot exist that are not 'ultimate and fundamental'. That those people who believe in such gods are wrong.

I think those things are argued else where on this forum. Meaght and I were discussing his notion that someone who does not believe in God cannot engage with God.

[Nearly Sane]

I think those things are argued else where on this forum. Meaght and I were discussing his notion that someone who does not believe in God cannot engage with God.

And you then assumed all of the above in your position which is exactly begging the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And my interest is not in delving into unfalsifiable superstition.

That doesn’t seem commensurate with your presence on a religion ethics message board

You are applying blatant double standards. You can't falsify multiple gods, any more than I can falsify many of the vast number of versions of an "ultimate and fundamental" God

If you can point me toward a pantheon run along purely democratic lines I’d be very interested in that but not as interested as I am in how all of this helps atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you then assumed all of the above in your position which is exactly begging the question.

No, I just suggested he turned his intellect to the possibility of them existing. He cannot start with my working assumptions but he is trying to argue that he cannot change from his to mine. He must address my assumptions surely other wise we are talking at cross purposes.

[Gordon]

If you can point me toward a pantheon run along purely democratic lines I’d be very interested in that but not as interested as I am in how all of this helps atheism.

Atheism is simply an absence of theistic beliefs: so no 'help' is required thank you.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I just suggested he turned his intellect to the possibility of them existing. He cannot start with my working assumptions but he is trying to argue that he cannot change from his to mine. He must address my assumptions surely other wise we are talking at cross purposes.

No, you assume your conclusions as the starting point that he needs to accept in order to be acting in 'hood faith' for you. You also haven't addressed why it is your assumptions which are not consistent across theists that should be used. As ever you don't even appear to grasp the very basic logic of your position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you assume your conclusions as the starting point that he needs to accept in order to be acting in 'hood faith' for you. You also haven't addressed why it is your assumptions which are not consistent across theists that should be used. As ever you don't even appear to grasp the very basic logic of your position.

He knows what God I believe in he chose his argument based on God. The word gods were never mentioned.

I do not start by saying what he should accept I said he should start by exploring aspects of God.

His assumption was that you can't engage with God if you don't believe in God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you assume your conclusions as the starting point that he needs to accept in order to be acting in 'hood faith' for you. You also haven't addressed why it is your assumptions which are not consistent across theists that should be used. As ever you don't even appear to grasp the very basic logic of your position.

I start by thinking he isn’t going to accept anything! You need to explore intellectually to start with and as it is “My God” we are talking about there is no point me suggesting he starts at cup cakes and daisy chains. Do you red what people post?

[Stranger]

If you can point me toward a pantheon run along purely democratic lines I’d be very interested in that...

What has democracy got to do with anything? I'm just pointed out your own inconsistency. Unless you think you can somehow falsify all possible versions of multiple gods, then you are being hypocritical to tell agnostic atheists that they should be carefully considering your version of God, while you just dismiss the gods.

...but not as interested as I am in how all of this helps atheism.

Why would you think it would, or that atheism needs any help? I'm just pointing out how inconsistent you are being.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What has democracy got to do with anything? I'm just pointed out your own inconsistency. Unless you think you can somehow falsify all possible versions of multiple gods, then you are being hypocritical to tell agnostic atheists that they should be carefully considering your version of God, while you just dismiss the gods.

Why would you think it would, or that atheism needs any help? I'm just pointing out how inconsistent you are being.

First of all when Meaght asked me about how a non believer could engage with God, God was singular. There was no mention of God’s or pantheons. I presume he was talking about a single God I.believe in.

Why is a democratic pantheon relevant? There is no high God in a pantheon Of that nature.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I start by thinking he isn’t going to accept anything! You need to explore intellectually to start with and as it is “My God” we are talking about there is no point me suggesting he starts at cup cakes and daisy chains. Do you read what people post?

[Stranger]

First of all when Meaght asked me about how a non believer could engage with God, God was singular. There was no mention of God’s or pantheons. I presume he was talking about a single God I.believe in.

Why does that matter? You made a general statement about agnostic atheists:

As an agnostic atheist you don’t know there isn’t a God.
To me that should impose an intellectual duty to accept and entertain the possibility of the existence of God and ponder what this ultimate thing is like.

This raises the question of whether you are a strong atheist, with respect to polytheism, or an agnostic atheist? If the former, then on what basis can you be so sure, and if the latter, then you are being hypocritical.

Why is a democratic pantheon relevant? There is no high God in a pantheon Of that nature.

Stating the bleedin' obvious about what it means, is not telling me why you think it relevant.

[Maeght]

No, I just suggested he turned his intellect to the possibility of them existing. He cannot start with my working assumptions but he is trying to argue that he cannot change from his to mine. He must address my assumptions surely other wise we are talking at cross purposes.

One of us is making this more complicated than it is ......

I have not said that I cannot change my mind, indeed I accepted I might be wrong in my atheism. What I am saying is that someone who at any moment does not have a belief in God cannot engage with God, they can engage with the idea of God and may change their position from being atheist to being theist and then they can engage with God - or feel they do rather.

It's Maeght rather than Meaght by the way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why does that matter? You made a general statement about agnostic atheists:

Apparently, I’m to.ask which definition of agnostic atheist you mean.

This raises the question of whether you are a strong atheist, with respect to polytheism, or an agnostic atheist? If the former, then on what basis can you be so sure, and if the latter, then you are being hypocritical.

I’m up for it....on another thread though. Hypocritical about what? I’m a monotheist. Whether gods with lower case g exist, I don’t know. It depends what you are talking about.I’m happy to discuss why I think the one less god argument is ‘suspect’

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One of us is making this more complicated than it is ......

I have not said that I cannot change my mind, indeed I accepted I might be wrong in my atheism. What I am saying is that someone who at any moment does not have a belief in God cannot engage with God, they can engage with the idea of God and may change their position from being atheist to being theist and then they can engage with God - or feel they do rather.

It's Maeght rather than Meaght by the way.

Yes I think what you are saying is fair, clear and succinct and tallies with  similar notions in Christianity.

[Maeght]

Yes I think what you are saying is fair, clear and succinct and tallies with  similar notions in Christianity.

Great. So this brings us to the question of 'God dodging'. Do you accept that in the scenario I have laid out, not engaging with God isn't dodging God, as you seem to suggest (often). Or have I misunderstood you on that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Great. So this brings us to the question of 'God dodging'. Do you accept that in the scenario I have laid out, not engaging with God isn't dodging God, as you seem to suggest (often). Or have I misunderstood you on that?

The engagement with God is a response to the encounter with God some will commit and some not commit. Intellectual commitment is not christianity. God dodging is imv an observable thing. My own experience is of believing there was a god, encountering God trying to avoid God and eventually committing to Christ.
Remember. One's atheism isn't an inoculation against God's existence atheists think it is.
Further to an intellectual exploration of concepts such as ultimacy I would recommend people check there emotions, are there trigger words for you that come from the theist lexicon. Why do they trigger you.

[Maeght]

The engagement with God is a response to the encounter with God some will commit and some not commit. Intellectual commitment is not christianity. God dodging is imv an observable thing. My own experience is of believing there was a god, encountering God trying to avoid God and eventually committing to Christ.
Remember. One's atheism isn't an inoculation against God's existence atheists think it is.
Further to an intellectual exploration of concepts such as ultimacy I would recommend people check there emotions, are there trigger words for you that come from the theist lexicon. Why do they trigger you.

But you accuse atheists of God dodging not people who have had an encounter with God and who believe in him.

What examples of me being triggered do you have or are you thinking of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you accuse atheists of God dodging not people who have had an encounter with God and who believe in him.

I have met people in the church who say they had encountered God and publicly still professed atheism.

What examples of me being triggered do you have or are you thinking of?

I confess to not knowing a great deal about your emotions. There are occasions where some will propose the craziest ideas on this board where it seems the criterion for proposal is not to involve the possibility of God in any way or shape.

[Maeght]

I have met people in the church who say they had encountered God and publicly still professed atheism

But you accuse atheists on here of God dodging.

I confess to not knowing a great deal about your emotions. There are occasions where some will propose the craziest ideas on this board where it seems the criterion for proposal is not to involve the possibility of God in any way or shape.

I didn't ask about my emotions but about examples of me being triggered.