Theists and Atheists help me with logic about God!

[g2k]

All I'm saying is that GODs' standard defines an "apatheistic christian" and a [true] apatheist, as a liar/murder/deceiver. Further it says that they [both] will be counted as the atheists, non believers, etc.

Ahh... Now that is very interesting...

Oh the irony...

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Ahh... Now that is very interesting...

Oh the irony...

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

These are not MY judgments they are GODs' judgments. In fact that specific scripture you quote is telling the elect to NOT substitute their judgment for GODs' judgment.

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

They wanted Jesus to condemn her UNDER THE LAW, but the LAW says that both the man AND the woman are to be brought to the authorities. So they were breaking the law too.

Jesus said that his purpose, at that time, that "season" was to "save that which is lost", [the elect].

If you die in your iniquity, failing to obey GODs' standard, you may be "destroyed" in hell. But that isn't GOD destroying "the wicked" it's GOD destroying YOU.

The second coming of Jesus won't be the "season" for saving [the elect], it will be the season for destroying the wicked, who are upon the earth, scripture says.

[nooby]

Artie no it is not me coming up with an un-official version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

that every religion is a cultural product
created by the human community that practices it

and he most likely got it from Ludwig Feuerbach
who is seen as the father of modern anthropology.

that every religion is created by the human community that worships it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feu ... tianity.29

Feuerbach has a shorter definition in that book from 1841 so it is a well established view that Guthrie confirmed from his research and since then no new research has shown any of these guys to be wrong.
view and not something that I came up with. So it is the latest or current view among anthropologists.

it shows how utterly remote from research the logically locked atheists are.

[Artie]

Artie no it is not me coming up with an un-official version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

that every religion is a cultural product
created by the human community that practices it

Theism isn't a religion. It's just the presence of belief in the existence of god(s). Nothing to do with religion. You can be a theist with no affiliation with any religion. Of course some people think religions are a cultural product so what? That has nothing to do with the different classifications of theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. The name of your original post is "Theists and Atheists help me with logic about God!" it says nothing about religions. You aren't asking people who believe or don't believe in religions you are asking theists and atheists. I am helping you "with logic about God". That is what I am doing. So don't complain about atheists being logical!

Here is a different way of explaining:

"An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.

A theist gnostic is someone who believes in a god/gods and thinks that the existence of gods can be known. This position is usually referred to as just ‘theist‘, since people who believe in gods, usually also think that their existence can be known.

An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.

A theist agnostic is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real."

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

[Artie]

By asking a believer if they believe in God one ask them
about something that they have no way to relate to or know about
God is by definition beyond human comprehension so what is going on? .

Sure they can answer that they believe in the God of the Bible
or the God of that particular religious tradition they belong to
or some theology they come with on their own

but logically one ask about something that is beyond human knowledge.

Is that not very odd why would one ask them
about logically impossible things that they can have no idea about?
The believer have no way to know such things so why ask them?

Or I am so lousy at logic that I have messed up everything and
you can sort it out in easy to grasp 1. 2. 3 there you have it explanation.

You have messed up everything. Instead of believer you should say a person of faith. A person of faith doesn't care about logic. He can believe whatever, logical or not. That is the whole point of having faith.

Faith is belief in revelation, inspiration or authority such as God or the Bible. Rationalism is belief in logic, reason and evidence. Many atheists are rationalists.

[greengeek]

I suspect there is another category - 'untheist ungnostic' - someone who has insufficient facts about the existence of gods and who has no idea about whether or not it is even possible to find evidence of supernatural beings/powers, or to correctly measure such evidence if it was available..

Such a person - in the absence of faith or evidence - might fall back on logic as a means of evaluating their position on such matters.

[Artie]

I suspect there is another category - 'untheist ungnostic' - someone who has insufficient facts about the existence of gods and who has no idea about whether or not it is even possible to find evidence of supernatural beings/powers, or to correctly measure such evidence if it was available..

That is a strong agnostic.

Such a person - in the absence of faith or evidence - might fall back on logic as a means of evaluating their position on such matters.

Then he would be a rationalist and a strong agnostic.

[greengeek]

That is a strong agnostic.

Not at all. An agnostic, as you said above is someone who "thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known". By contrast an 'ungnostic' has no idea if it is possible to measure 'Gods' existence or not - and therefore no matter how interested he might be in finding out the truth, he is uncommitted either way (as opposed to an agnostic who has already made a decision).

Then he would be a rationalist and a strong agnostic.

No. He would be a rationalist and an ungnostic. He would have no idea if it is possible to know the truth of God - and would therefore choose to use his intellect/logic/rationalism to weigh the matter - regardless of which direction that evaluation took him in. Certainly not an agnostic viewpoint.

A person who is agnostic believes that God cannot be known.

Lots of people do not fit into that category. Any good scientist remains uncommitted until all facts are on the table.

[Artie]

That is a strong agnostic.

Not at all. An agnostic, as you said above is someone who "thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known".

A strong agnostic.

By contrast an 'ungnostic' has no idea if it is possible to measure 'Gods' existence or not - and therefore no matter how interested he might be in finding out the truth, he is uncommitted either way (as opposed to an agnostic who has already made a decision).

A weak agnostic then? "Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out." Wikipedia.

A person who is agnostic believes that God cannot be known.

A strong agnostic.

[nooby]

Artie the most strident atheists did not accept
that one could be only agnostic.

These atheists only allowed two logical options

1. You are either theist and that had specific criteria.
You had to really believe such a supernatural God existed.
These atheists did not allow that you saw God as a symbol or to be man made.

2. Everybody else except those under 1. are atheists.
Even believers that see gods as symbolic tools for political
and social and psychological cooperation.

3. There are no third options. Agnostic is
either a theist or an atheist you can not be plain vanilla agnostic
You are either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

I think there is something extremely wrong with these atheists.
They have very similar views as some fundy believers that
do see a lot of Christians as atheists due to them not living up
to the criteria the fundies have on literal take on the Bible.

Both are extremists in their views.

Most ordinary people realize one can be undecided on God
one don't have to decide either way at all. One can let it be
or see it as not my kind of interest or not something that motivates me.

I see all gods as man made. To me that is the most logical position.

[Artie]

3. There are no third options. Agnostic is
either a theist or an atheist you can not be plain vanilla agnostic
You are either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

There is no need for an agnostic to be either a theist or an atheist. There is no need for an agnostic to have any beliefs about gods. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively." Wikipedia. The whole point of having different names for these people is that agnostics have no beliefs either way about gods. If they do have any beliefs about gods in addition to being agnostics then we add theist/atheist. Can you name some of these "strident atheists"?

[nooby]

They where active on three different atheist forums.
I spent a whole year daily for some 4 to 8 hours a day.

had there been any chance they had seen any merit in your logic
that you use here then they had defended it as hard as you do.

they did not. I tried numerous ways to find ways to get them to accept
Agnostics, Undecided, Ignostics, Apatheists, Freethinkers or numerous other terms
but they insisted there where only two logical options.

I don't think they they like that I give you their usernames.
You could join the handful biggest such forums and claim
that agnostics are relevant position. Depending on which group
and how they perceive you they will either behave as I described
or in some individual way.

My description is through my personal filter so maybe they treat you better.

My impression where that they rather see me kill myself than them
accepting that one could be Undecided.

Choosing between me killing myself out of despair
over having no meaning in life due to
me can not accept to have too few choices they
rather accept me killing myself. Would be my fault
my lack of ability to grasp logic and not their too narrow logic.

i trust that my main basic view that all gods are man made
is the best explanation for the existence of gods in human culture.

I can mention one forum that where rather interesting.
reddit even have two agnostic subforums.
http://www.reddit.com/r/agnostic/commen ... _agnostic/
http://www.reddit.com/r/agnosticism/com ... subreddit/

So these see themselves as two different forms of agnostic
but that is not what the atheists allow.

[Artie]

i trust that my main basic view that all gods are man made
is the best explanation for the existence of gods in human culture.

I can mention one forum that where rather interesting.
reddit even have two agnostic subforums.
http://www.reddit.com/r/agnostic/commen ... _agnostic/
http://www.reddit.com/r/agnosticism/com ... subreddit/

So these see themselves as two different forms of agnostic
but that is not what the atheists allow.

I have never come across an atheist who wouldn't allow for agnostics so I can't comment. I just stick with the "official" classifications. Will check out Reddit.

[darkcity]

Greetings, I have just finished reading the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath.

Even Dawkins would admit he is ever so slightly agnostic - he would believe in God if presented with evidence, but "for all practical reasons" is an Atheist.

He also divides agnostics and into two groups
"Temporary Agnostic in Practice", someone who believes there isn't enough evidence either way and

"Permanent Agnostic on Principle" who believe the question can never be answered or is an invalid question.

I guess another group are those who haven't looked at the arguments or/and don't want to.

However, he narrowly defines belief in god and theism as a belief in a personal god that not only created the universe but takes an interest in human affairs. If you believe something like nature is god he'd call you a pantheist. If you think an intelligence set up the laws of physics or the universe (but takes no special interest in humans), he would call you a deist.

[linuxbear]

but the logical atheists does not seems to accept that
that one are neither believer nor disbeliever.

2. Weak atheism (neither belief nor non-belief in the existence of gods, no belief either way)

What is a "weak atheist" ? That's the first time I have heard that term. BTW. Your definition for weak atheist is the definition for an Apaththiest.
I am apathetic to the existence or non-existence of god/gods. I simply do not care and have no inclination to religion. "A Thiesm" is active non-belief, I am apathetic and do not care.

[Artie]

2. Weak atheism (neither belief nor non-belief in the existence of gods, no belief either way)

What is a "weak atheist" ? That's the first time I have heard that term. BTW. Your definition for weak atheist is the definition for an Apaththiest.
I am apathetic to the existence or non-existence of god/gods. I simply do not care and have no inclination to religion. "A Thiesm" is active non-belief, I am apathetic and do not care.

http://atheism.about.com/od/Types-Athei ... theist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_a ... ve_atheism
Better you read those sources directly than me trying to explain.

[rokytnji]

As usual. Bylaws and Classifications hem one in. Controlled by others has never
been my druthers.

Me. Not being a early bird or night owl for example.
I'm aroadrunner instead.

Though I think the terminology is crap and I take the details and throw them out.
I guess I am aRaelian if one
wants to throw labels on me. (it won't stick if within arm distance of me though)

The general idea seems more plausible than a sheep herder tale in the desert.
Or a roman enclave before the dark ages.
I think Hindus probably got it more right than others.
Was Odin or Zeus or Itzamná or the Burning Bush ET?
Betcha can't disprove or prove it. Gotta take it on faith.

[nooby]

linuxbear the term weak atheist
seems to have reemerged around 1974
it may be some 100 years old
from the days of Charles Bradlaugh the
Father of Rational Society.

then when he died very few seems to have cared about
these various versions of philosophical atheism.

When I grew up in the 1950 my Dad who where
a very adamant atheist had not heard of it.

But several authors did try to make it popular again
around 1973 to 1980 and they wrote books about

Weak atheism
Soft atheism
implicit atheism
Negative atheism
all these variants meaning almost the same.

weak seems to have survived the sifting process
of Wikipedia but negative atheism try to get a say too.

I think these thinkers are missing the point.

Faith in God is more like trust in a person.
God has promised you eternal life! Can you trust that promise?

Is it true that God did these promises if we care about his ways
or is it metaphorical stories made up to console those who care
about God?

I trust these stories have built in safe guards that they only work
if taken totally on faith that one are totally and absolutely serious about God.

So the story about God promising us eternal life is a kind of Placebo.

Faith only works if you really believe the "Pill" is a real Pill
with active substances and not a "sugar pill" just looking like the real one.

So the whole thing of asking if somebody are a believer or not
is either a believer wanting to share his or her faith with the other
or an adamant atheist that are so fond of logic that they only care about logic.

If logic is that good at solving things then you should be able to program
a computer to act like a logical atheist usually does.

If the logic of a strident atheist is absolutely unpredictable
Then can it really be referred to as being logical?
I don't trust all of us can do such logical thinking.
So that is why I asked you guys to help me out.

But

Artie your logic is killing me.
I know that that is not your purpose or goal most likely
you just try to be logical or try to correct some misunderstanding .
"Only here to help" as onother logical person express it.

Atheism don't give me a positive identity to lean on.

yes I know it never did promise to give meaning to my life
and I know that faith in God is a false belief.

Artie I will try to not respond to you from now on or in the future.
Your text take away all the hope on me finding an identity
that gives my life a meaning.

[Artie]

Artie I will try to not respond to you from now on or in the future.
Your text take away all the hope on me finding an identity
that gives my life a meaning.

OK. We evolved so the meaning and purpose of any life is to be and stay alive and procreate so life can continue to exist. We evolved morals and community living because that increased our chances of survival. Religions simply take the same meaning and purpose one step further and say that if we behave morally we'll live forever. What gives my life a meaning is trying to use logic, reason and common sense to make order out of disorder so as to improve chances of survival for as many as possible including myself. Then I serve my purpose.

[nooby]

Artie wrote

What gives my life a meaning is trying
to use logic, reason and common sense
to make order out of disorder
so as to improve chances of survival
for as many as possible including myself.
Then I serve my purpose.

if applying logic to your life give such a good effect
then that is a good thing indeed.

Whenever I try to use logic and rational reasoning
then the atheists tells me that I am very wrong
or totally irrelevant or dead wrong.

Logic only destroy the little joy I feel.

Maybe one need to be on your level of understanding logic
and that I am several levels below needed way of grasp the logic?

Or else I would feel like you too.

I usually compare it to wanting to sing with the others in a group
and each time you open your moth the others look very disappointed
and shake their head and tell me up front. If you fail to be on tune
then better be silent and never get back.

is it not odd that you being that good at logic fail to find a way
to suggest what kind of identity that would be logical for me to have?

I see all gods as man made. How could that be a failure?
To me it is the most logical take on God one can have.

[Artie]

is it not odd that you being that good at logic fail to find a way to suggest what kind of identity that would be logical for me to have?

I don't even know what you talk about when you say "identity" or what group you talk about. I am part of the group called humanity and me and all the others I work with or spend time with all live as I described.