Humanity and God

[BlackSheep]

The crux of the matter is in the words in bold. It takes someone to broach the subject in order to think about it. As you say, no one is born with the knowledge of god, it is learnt.

And you are right I am apathetic about the matter. I have no interest in gods, no need for one, no particular thoughts about them. They are exactly the same to me as a character in a fiction book, if they make for an interesting story I will take time to read, if not they irrelevant and discarded as a waste of my time. But above all I have absolutely no need or desire to create one. That I am happy to leave up to the theist, their god, they get to create it. I the atheist am more than content with just pointing out the flaws in their reasoning if they ask my opinion. Or if they make the silly mistake of putting the word, "thoughts" at the end of their monologue.

For someone who is apathetic about gods, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time being worried about people who do not believe in them. If you have no wish or need to define them then don't. Other people were raised with the idea of god(s) and it become ingrained and it takes some effort to come to grips with no gods. For most people superstition and religion are traps then tend to fall into without analysis and so they analyse. If you don't great, but don't presume to tell others what their place is.

As for who considers most it seems to me you are still in the stage of needing a god to be an atheist otherwise why create one.? Me, not so much. Been there done that and recognise an exercise in futility when I see one.

To be an atheist requires you have no belief in god(s). The OP does not create a god in the slightest. It simply outlines the one she is familiar with and explains how she does not believe in it.

To you it would be an exercise in futility because you are apathetic about gods, You are apatheistic. We are not. we are atheist. Now if you change all your comments to refer to apatheisim then I would be much more inclined to agree.

[Jack]

SoylentGreen's position seems to resemble ignosticism more than atheism.

[BlackSheep]

The claim of not knowing god is based on the idea that every combination of a god is possible at least as far as imagination goes. I have no idea what a persons god is until they tell me which particular imaginary possibilities they have chosen to represent their god. Therefore I can honestly make the claim that I do not know god.

You are far to fixated on the minutiae of what people believe. One could do the same thing with a real thing or event. At one point most Europeans did not believe in gorillas. The fact is that they did exist. The odd notions that people had of gorillas is not really pertinent to their existence. Gorillas did exist. The same thoughts can be used for god(s). They exist or they do not. The subtleties of what people believe is not the point.

Yes I have a general idea of the concept, which as I have pointed out numerous times means absolutely nothing and while may be helpful information when creating your own (and there is no guarantee that even that is true) god a general idea does nothing to support an atheist stance. Just as it did nothing to support the Stance of atheism in the OP.

Then do not claim "That i have no clue as to what a god is."

I could ask a hundred different people to describe gorillas and likely get 100 different descriptions. I could argue that all those gorillas do not exist, but if I take the essence of those descriptions I could likely match it to the species called Gorilla. Likely many of the details would be wrong. Most of those people, if not all, could look at a gorilla and say there is one and when they see some details are wrong they would even admit that they were wrong, but that defiantly is a gorilla.

Now if I did the same thing with bigfoot, I imagine most would say no the gorilla is not bigfoot even though again their descriptions again would vary. We don't need every detail too do these things. We need a general definition.

[BlackSheep]

SoylentGreen's position seems to resemble ignosticism more than atheism.

I agree. That is more likely than my suggestion of apatheism, but he thinks that he is an atheist and that other atheists are similar.

[SoylentGreen]

Then you are not an atheist.
.

Claims with out backing are worthless. If you have a reason foe making such a claim then tell us.

Not being an atheist that makes perfect sense, but you are trying tell us atheists our place.

Do not know why you make such an assumption and I am not trying to tell any one their place. People are free to heed my advice or not, matters nothing to me.

I have the image have gleaned from many, many theists including myself when I was one. I have standard definitions that capture the essence of what most believe. In many cases for me to know I do not believe in gods, do not need any specific details. For example my skepticism does not accept the of spiritual things, such as spirits, ghosts, souls and yes, gods.

I to have images, I to along with theists ans atheists alike am quite capable of using my imagination. But unlike you i understand that those images are worthless. That no matter how hard i try, any attempt to deconstruct god based on those generalities will fail.

The details beyond them being spiritual are not really relevant to that

There you are very wrong, when it comes to debating god the devil is always in the details.

Being an atheist I agree, but it would seem you would not agree with what you said. You are making a general statement about god, and without confirming t with everyone on the planet. One could argue that you have created a partial definition of god.

My point however was how does it lack definition until I say:

"Now someone can come a long and say from my point of view you are not an atheist, because your definition does not match what believe god(s) to be. In that case we can agree to disagree or work on trying to agree on how t bring that definition into the discussion."

I cannot think of any better way to say it than I already have.
Whatever definition you or I create can only be our own personal definition. No other god but your own js harmed in the attempt to deconstruct. You actually need a theist to come along and point out why your definition does not work. When you discuss the subject with someone who believes then, and only then, can you begin to deconstruct other gods. And every individual has their own particular version, even if you manage to convince one theist to question their belief, it still leaves you with millions of theists to go.

But you already agreed with "Whether the inexperienced will fall does not mean anything in terms of this debate"

One can easily argue that all debate is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps you may think so, a position I will leave you to defend, I have not found that to be so.
The particular point here is that attempt made in the OP is a good example of how to give a failed argument against god. It is a good argument but one that is easily smashed by any theist worth their salt in a debate.

[SoylentGreen]

SoylentGreen's position seems to resemble ignosticism more than atheism.

I have no problem with that, And it does not mean that I cannot take an atheist position when presented with a god.

[SoylentGreen]

I agree. That is more likely than my suggestion of apatheism, but he thinks that he is an atheist and that other atheists are similar.

Nonsense, where have I made that claim?

[BlackSheep]

Claims with out backing are worthless. If you have a reason foe making such a claim then tell us.

I thought it was clear based on what I responded to, but I shall explain.

You stated "Because it is not a case of I don't believe in X, it is a case of I do not know of x" when we were talking about gods. You have made similar claims more than once. You claim that you do not know god(s) rather than not believing in them. Atheism is not believing in god(s) so you do not seem to be a simple application of your own words.

Do not know why you make such an assumption and I am not trying to tell any one their place. People are free to heed my advice or not, matters nothing to me.

It was not really an assumption, it was simply listening to the word you were saying and realizing they did not match with your claim of being an atheist.

I to have images, I to along with theists ans atheists alike am quite capable of using my imagination. But unlike you i understand that those images are worthless. That no matter how hard i try, any attempt to deconstruct god based on those generalities will fail.

And why do they fail? It is because they do not take into account every little detail of every believer? How that differ from any other word with a definition that does not have mathematical exactness?

There you are very wrong, when it comes to debating god the devil is always in the details.

They are not relevant to what I said. You can argue how my lack of belief in spiritual things fails or how details are necessary for it but please support your claim.

I cannot think of any better way to say it than I already have.
Whatever definition you or I create can only be our own personal definition. No other god but your own js harmed in the attempt to deconstruct. You actually need a theist to come along and point out why your definition does not work. When you discuss the subject with someone who believes then, and only then, can you begin to deconstruct other gods. And every individual has their own particular version, even if you manage to convince one theist to question their belief, it still leaves you with millions of theists to go.

All definitions are a personal definition even if we accept one that belongs to another and they are prone to change, but like any other definition we can come up with generalizations that people will accept. In some cases we will need more than one, and in some cases we can not deal with certain exceptions, but again if you have an issue with this then you should have an issue with every definition.

Perhaps you may think so, a position I will leave you to defend, I have not found that to be so.
The particular point here is that attempt made in the OP is a good example of how to give a failed argument against god. It is a good argument but one that is easily smashed by any theist worth their salt in a debate.

No it could not be smashed by an theist worth their salt. They could claim that the definition given does not match their idea of god and then we could define it and go from there. That is how debates go.

[BlackSheep]

Nonsense, where have I made that claim?

It was not a simple claim. Throughout this thread you have been claiming what was not an atheists place to do. It seemed pretty clear to me that you felt you were an atheist and you were doing it the right way and yet your word clearly denote you are not an atheist.

[BlackSheep]

I have no problem with that, And it does not mean that I cannot take an atheist position when presented with a god.

Of course you can so can a theist, but the atheist position is that they do not believe in any god(s), where you seem to be unwilling to make that claim. You wish to see every theist's claim and then reject it at that point. In fact theists often make arguments against god(s) that are not the ones they worship. It does not make you anymore an atheist than t does them.

[SoylentGreen]

I thought it was clear based on what I responded to, but I shall explain.

You stated "Because it is not a case of I don't believe in X, it is a case of I do not know of x" when we were talking about gods. You have made similar claims more than once. You claim that you do not know god(s) rather than not believing in them. Atheism is not believing in god(s) so you do not seem to be a simple application of your own words.

You appear to keep missing the point that I have said nothing that stops me from being an atheist. Once someone describes a god I am quite capable of disbelieving the description given.

It was not really an assumption, it was simply listening to the word you were saying and realizing they did not match with your claim of being an atheist.

I am starting to doubt that you are listening. You appear to be doing your best to ignore the fact that I have repeatedly stated that i can take the position of atheist once a theist describes their god.

And why do they fail? It is because they do not take into account every little detail of every believer? How that differ from any other word with a definition that does not have mathematical exactness?

Yes exactly because it fails to take in details. Details such as no one actually made that argument except her. This is not rocket science , mathematical exactness is not required. This is people giving opinions and attention to detail stops people like you ignoring the statements made by me.

They are not relevant to what I said. You can argue how my lack of belief in spiritual things fails or how details are necessary for it but please support your claim.

I can only guess at what claim you are referring to. If it is the claim I made in reference to this "spiritual 'thing" of yours then the claim was "god lacks detail"
Which you fortunately provided a good example of.

I have the image have gleaned from many, many theists including myself when I was one. I have standard definitions that capture the essence of what most believe. In many cases for me to know I do not believe in gods, do not need any specific details. For example my skepticism does not accept the of spiritual things, such as spirits, ghosts, souls and yes, gods. The details beyond them being spiritual are not really relevant to that.
.

The problem is that I have never met a theist who believed in a generic god, nor have I ever met someone with a belief in spirituality who lacked specific details of that belief. So such knowledge as you have generic and unspecific means nothing.

All definitions are a personal definition even if we accept one that belongs to another and they are prone to change, but like any other definition we can come up with generalizations that people will accept. In some cases we will need more than one, and in some cases we can not deal with certain exceptions, but again if you have an issue with this then you should have an issue with every definition.

And again I state I have no difficulty with the concept that once someone lets us know what their definition is we can begin an argument about god. It is not the definition I have problems with so I have no issue, the issue is all yours.

No it could not be smashed by an theist worth their salt. They could claim that the definition given does not match their idea of god and then we could define it and go from there. That is how debates go.

Of course a theist can, quite simply. All a theist has to do is deny that she is referring to his god, that her belief is nothing more than a strawman of his position. What can she do, insist that her version is the one true god? A difficult position for someone who claims to an atheist, don't you think?

[SoylentGreen]

It was not a simple claim. Throughout this thread you have been claiming what was not an atheists place to do. It seemed pretty clear to me that you felt you were an atheist and you were doing it the right way and yet your word clearly denote you are not an atheist.

Also through this thread i have given a rebuttal every time you made that unsupported assumption. I understand your inability to provide even one statement by me that backs your claim because there isn't one. I wonder when you will admit that this is nothing more than your assumption, and has nothing to do with anything I have said.

And Yes I am doing it the right way when i point out that a particular technique of debating will lead to a failure.