rationalskepticism.org

DefineGod wrote:Hi Aggie! Thank you for responding to my post.
I guess the proper thing to do would be to reply to your replies.

My dictionary defines "faith" as"

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

What is the difference between strong belief and average belief? The "dubious" psychological definition of apprehension is included here, meaning a "mode of consciousness that is simply aware" So are we saying, in essence, spiritual awareness?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprehension_%28understanding%29
Using this definition, can we agree that faith will be the belief in God based on spiritual awareness, rather than proof or evidence?

The words "mental abstraction" mean a "conception" which my dictionary defines as:

the way in which something is perceived or regarded

So from your explanation you see your "strong belief in God" as a "strong belief in something that is perceived or regarded as "God" which most people define as the God of the Old Testament. Am I correct in assuming that you believe in this concept of God?

I do agree with this first statement. However, I am not most people. I cannot let you assume that I believe in a concept of the God of the Old Testament without first letting you describe what that generally entails. I can say that through my first post I was previously attempting to avoid, at least initially the "behavior" of God without first coming to an agreement (or at least an understanding) on characteristics of the "being" who's behavior we are discussing.

Well seeing that I don't believe he exists or ever did exist, I'll leave the describing to you.

Now to the meat portion! As I understand it Atheism is the the lack of belief, or in my argument, the rejection of faith in God, or gods whereas Theism is the belief in God or faith in God. Having attempted to read through some of the posts and garner interpretations of atheism/theism argument, I have concluded that much of the argument is a lack of mutually defined terms.

Because there is no definite set of rules for atheism, and note, it is spelt with a lower case "a" there is also no clear definition of what atheism is. Each person who discards the existence of gods, and who does not accept the Bible as anything other than an anthology of old writings, has their own personal definition of what their atheism means. As I've described it, that is my worldview. As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural being of any sort, and that includes the God of the Old Testament, Allah, Jehovah, El, Zoroaster, Zeus, Mithras, Thor, Odin, or any other incarnation of an unseen deity. And because I reject the existence of these beings, I therefore also reject the idea that the person on who the new Testament may be based was anything other than an itinerant teacher during the early part of the first century CE. As for other gods, the people who worshipped them, made effigies of them, these have existed and do exist today, I have a collection of Egyptian ones in my study. They have no magical powers, they are merely little dolls on stands.

You are correct that there is a "lack of mutually defined terms." Trying to get atheists to agree to a set system would be the same as trying to standardize the behavior of cats.

I appoligize regarding my specific ignorance on atheism, (with a lower case "a" ) I am happy to debate your personal view on atheism. Since I cannot claim to speak with authority on other people's beliefs, I assume you are making the same point here. I do not disagree with you that the Bible is in fact an anthology. (Is that really disputed here?)
I do see you use the words "deity" and "worshiped."
So I will ask do you use deity as synonymous with godhead? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/godhead
I use worship as the act of showing reverence http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worship
Cats have a special place in all our hearts.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120302105741AASehwx

I use "deity" as shorthand for the things people worship, whether that be mythological "old men in the sky" or even cats.

Theism is faith in God or ultimate concern in the the symbol for all that exists.
Atheism then becomes, lack of being ultimately concerned about the symbol for all that exists.

No, not true, atheism is merely a blanket term used by theists to describe people who don't believe in the supernatural.

A person who "practices" atheism must have, by definition, faith in something else besides God. In my experience, it has most often been the case that faith is put into good government, "humanity," or some form of enlightened Marxism. (Do Atheist become theists temporarily to pontificate upon what the term God includes?) I sure don't know!

Again, not true.
Personally, I only have faith in things I can interact with using my five senses. When I see storm clouds, I have reasonable faith that it will rain. When someone tells me a house is haunted, I will sleep in it at midnight, without any fear that ghosts will attack me. When someone tells me that a few drops of arnica in a bottle of water, or lanolin, will heal some or other disease, I don't accept it, simply because there is no evidence that arnica has any magical healing powers. It is derived from the daisy flower and supposedly heals bruises. I know that bruises are healed by the action of the workings of the liver, and that they are healed by the actions of my blood functions, I prefer to accept what I've learnt from science.

I have read some older posts, Can I accurately state that you believe that atheism cannot exist without theism? (Because you need theists to define what you are/are not.) I will apply that when you say five senses, you include all sensory organs/abilities that are currently possessed by humans. I will also assume that you include measurement systems used in science which are imperceptible otherwise. I am a behavioral scientist by trade. My definition of God includes science. We are created in HIS image (through the process of evolution.)
I see no real conflict within this paragraph.

Except that as has been already pointed out, evolution is a natural process, whereas creation is magic. The two don't equal each other. I don't believe in magic. I also don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it as the most logical and reasonable explanation for the existence of life on this planet. Who know, life on another planet may have happened in a completely different way. I don't know that life exists elsewhere, I would imagine it should but I don't work on suppositions, imaginations, and thumb-sucking. When someone shows evidence of life elsewhere, that would be great. Otherwise, as far as I've been told, this one is where life evolved.

Arguments that atheism is not a system of beliefs and merely the rejection of God, gods. etc is, of course, valid. However, I will assume that many people will choose not use the above definition of God when describing themselves as atheists as it implies that they reject existence. Please if you reject the above definition give a new one before arguing against it.

How can I reject existence, when I can feel the computer on my lap, see the TV in front of me and feel the cool air from the air conditioner on my skin, I exist, this time and day exists and I can take a photograph as evidence of my existence. There is no such evidence for God, therefore I do not accept his existence.

I also urge that if you are merely rejecting the old man/intelligent designer/benevolent actor/supernatural anthropomorphism or judgment giver designations of god, that you give other reasons for rejecting this definition other than "GOD IS DEAD" or "Man made God" or "religion poisons those who believe, man!" I am aware that this definition of God as a symbol of "that which exists" precludes many atheistic visions of what "God" is.

Unfortunately man did make all gods. As a long-time student of history and having qualifications in the discipline of Ancient History, I can show you some evidence for this creation of God if you want it. However, I can start by referring you to the Old Testament. That tome contains a plethora of evidence for the creation of gods by men, if you would only read it critically from cover to cover.

I agree, It would be silly to reject existence. (although I believe there have been some interesting ideas regarding this) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#Philosophy
As for evidence of God- DefineGod. That is what its about eh?!
I see nothing particularly unfortunate about man made gods.
Man has been able to produce quite a few mahrvelous things. https://slapchop.com/
I don't claim to have read the bible from cover to cover, I think there is some rather droll historical "begetations" in some sections. I prefer to be more flexible.

I suggest that you make the effort. I accepted the challenge in 2010 and I've read parts of it more that twice since then, I'm working on analyzing it, just taking a break from that at the moment. But if you want to argue from authority, take the trouble to read it.

I do not wish to debate specific behavior of either side, merely the abstraction of the arguments. I see the same behavioral arguments everywhere I go. I am excited to see some intelligence that, for at least the time being, avoid behavioral mini treatises.

Unfortunately you will find a lot of very intelligent arguments against God here. I suggest you cover yourself in a thick skin and learn from the big brains on this forum. If after a few weeks of vigorous debate you are at least convinced that we don't agree on even what the word "atheism" means, you will have learned something.

I again don't see anything unfortunate about intelligence especially when it will help us to formulate a greater understanding of truth. I sincerely thank you for you post and look forward to continued open discussion.

I don't think there are any ultimate "truths" I do think it's all relative. And I'll explain my reasoning so you can see what I'm saying. If I stand in my garden facing someone else, and we both look behind each other, one of us will see the Indian Ocean, the other will see green sugar cane fields. We are both telling the truth when we say "I can see the Indian Ocean/green cane fields" because we are looking from our own perspective. Hence, relative truth.

When I use the word "unfortunately" I'm referring to the inevitable slanging matches that always result of this sort of discussion. Someone will come in with insults about atheists being dishonest or something, and someone else will come with theists being idiots for believing in whatever it is they happen to believe in. Which is why I said put on a thick skin and brace yourself, and you will learn. Don't be put off by the swearing, slanging, snideness. I like talking to intelligent people who take the trouble to do some research.