h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From some discussions I've had recently on the Dawkin's site, I've begun to realise that one of my problems is that in order to define yourself as 'atheist', you need to have a proper definition of what 'God' actually is to be sure you are an 'atheist'.

I've mentioned on this thread in the past that when I first started primary school, we were taught that God is Love. That was pretty much it. I quickly decided I liked God. I still think that deep down, that is why I have a certain affinity with more liberal minded christians. If God is indeed Love; end of; I have no problem with being a theist.

With all these interminable discussions which go into the ins and outs of a magpie's a***hole, we sometimes forget that no-one has actually ever given a precise definition of what 'God' is...

>>"The destruction, murder, etc I find insane. You may be impressed, you're entitled to think what you like."<<

Impressive like a train wreck. I am reminded (I have probably mentioned it on here before), of reading the Chronicle of the Third Crusade. The crusade ended in dismal failure, so they had to reason out why God would allow this. The solution? Wicked sinners all turned into glorious martyrs. So you get this horrific situation where, whenever someone dies, the book celebrates it and praises God. Very creepy.

"you need to have a proper definition of what 'God' actually is to be sure you are an 'atheist'."

I don;t want to restart an old argument but you also have to define what you mean by atheist. The above holds true for the 'anti-theist' version of atheist but not for the literal meaning of atheist.

This is why I have problems with the 'there is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism' and 'atheism is not a belief'. Those who label themselves as atheist and declare that there is no god are quite open to being fundamentalist and are in involved in as much an act of faith as the theists.

I used to argue differently - that faith and fundamentalism cannot be applied to atheism. But I've encountered more and more people who categorically state there is no god and label themselves atheists so I've admitted defeat - the meaning has changed I think.

I suspected this point may come and the confusion between the two positions (even labeling them strong and weak doesn;t help much they are different) is one reason why I stopped identifying myself as an atheist (the other being that I think rationalist more accurately reflects where I am coming from).

Hi Effers,

Sounds like you might be an igtheist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igtheist

Gif

>>.. in order to define yourself as 'atheist', you need to have a proper definition of what 'God' actually is to be sure you are an 'atheist'.<<

That may well be true for some. For me, the word atheist retains the original, simple meaning of 'no (belief) in god(s)'

It isn't necessary to have any definition of god(s), just as it isn't necessary to have one of grablesnork(s), in which I also do not believe.

I agree that some avowed atheists are annoyingly strident, and appear to fit the 'angry atheist' label, but that does not mean I feel compelled to accept their particular perspective, just as I do not accept the theist claim that atheism is just another religion.

Anyway, as others have noted here, the word has far too much negative connotation, so I prefer to use it to describe a philosophical position, rather than as a self-description.

Whereas I hold the atheist world view regarding the non-existence of the supernatural, I do not refer to myself as _an_ atheist.

There are very few atheists around when death is imminent. Ask any soldier returning from a battlefield.

Novo

http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

Also, if death was imminent for me I would be shouting 'F**k, F**k, F**k' or 'Sh1t, sh1t, sh1t'.

Basically, I wouldn't have the time to ask the rational questions which is if there was a god why is he letting me die. If a god won't let you die of old age (which is of his design) then he really is a sadistic *(£&.

Well I think atheism, as it is so often universally defined, does rely on knowing what theism is.

These are two derivations given to me on Dawkin's place.

'The word atheist comes from the Greek word atheos.
A = without
Theos = God'

and,

atheism is a derivative of the French athéisme for &#945;&#952;&#949;&#912;&#945;, i.e. the state of lacking gods.

This all stems from the western Graec/European tradition of conceptualising things. How do you translate the English word God to a Tibetan Budhist monk or an Australian Aboriginal?

******

On this thread I have been repeatedly told what God does, eg he was born of a virgin, he rises again after dying etc, the Christian story. But never what *he is*.

It's a bit like when I asked WG to define life and he came up with some examples, eg dogs cats etc. But no definition.

I think one can call oneself an atheist in regards to the Abrahamic God once you know what he is.

Eg if I was a vegetarian, ( I'm not> I would be able to define meat and fish, and say that's what I don't eat.

There is no universalism of the idea of the supernatural. For many cultures it might be quite metaphorical. For *some* Christians it's quite metaphorical. Half of all this big debate has only arisen since the recent literalist phase of more extreme Abrahmics. The most you might get from a Muslim is 'God is Great'. How can one disagree with such a statement if they haven't defined what God is.

Why do Gods all have to be supernatural? Why can't they also represent things like feelings of mysticism and intense love. I think we are taking just one rather recent an arbitary idea of God when we call ourselves atheist. But even then no-one has yet defined God to me. Just what he supposedly does.

There seems to be an infinite variety of ways of defining god/gods in all the cultures of the world, but the Abrahmic one seems to have cornered the market, but even then, they all have different stories about him, even within each strand.

So until someone can exactly tell me what God is, rather than just what he does....that's yet another reason for me not joining in with this label lark.

(Waves to Novo. Good to have you here. And I reckon I'd be praying if death was imminent - not blaspheming unless I was in unbearable pain)

Oh and thanks for that link Gif. I'll have a bit of a read of it and think....(but why oh why do many of these type of articles have to written so 'dry as dust'?)

ffreEs;'The word atheist comes from the Greek word atheos.
A = without
Theos = God'>

Hence, before someone invented the idea of gods everyone was an athiest they just didn;t know it.

Abit like when Christians say: you do belive in God you just don't know it blah de blah.

>>Well I think atheism, as it is so often universally defined, does rely on knowing what theism is.
....
I think one can call oneself an atheist in regards to the Abrahamic God once you know what he is.<<

Of course, the first bit is easy: Theism is a belief in god(s) A theist is, therefore, one who claims to have such a belief.

A theist may even claim a personal relationship with their chosen deity(ies), which necessarily infers knowledge of who/what their god(s) is/are, yet very few seem able to provide a meaningful, (to others), definition.

At least, that has been my experience...

I've asked for a God definition countless times, on this thread and others, and on occasion in RL, and have yet to encounter a meaningful, coherent answer. Even the Jesuits, (bless their twisty little minds), are incapable of providing one.

The Argument from Noncognitivism is the argument that the word “god” is meaningless, and thus strong-atheism is justified by default.

ANC not only does not require a definition, it depends on there not being one. As soon as any attempt is made to provide a meaningful god definition, ANC is no longer valid. Of course, a defined god entity can be easily refuted by any of a number of other arguments, or rendered invalid because of fallacious reasoning.

Whether you wish to adopt the 'atheist' label or not is an entirely different matter, and for some may indeed require a god definition.
As previously noted, I dislike referring to myself as 'an atheist', as if I were a member of some dogmatic organization, but am quite comfortable taking the atheist position, either from ANC or by refuting existence claims regarding any particular deity

Look I'm sick and tired of this Abrahmic centredness.

For example lots of cultures talk vaguely about the 'ancestors'. Do they really mean that literally. We assume the whole world conceptualises things through 'English'. I've read that the ancient Greeks didn't neccessarily believe in their gods literally. They understood them to be personifications for psychological states, and 'stories' to explain the seasons.

I just don't believe that all people, for all time conceptualise god/gods in this black and white way. I suspect it's quite a recent phenomenon really...this complete convoluted literalism based on *written ancient scripture*.

I find it personally difficult I'll admit because I get these intense feelings of mysticism sometimes, connected with nature and feelings. I can see how easily they might be construed as something almost otherwordly. So I don't think atheism as it's sometimes talked about here is default for all people.

Some of our brains just work differently I'm afraid. And logical language just doesn't cover all the bases.

( for 3dots)

right on, effres!

the parallel world of the supernatural, the illogical and the spooky can be attested to by almost every human on the planet. just because somebody can explain in psychological terms what is happening to you does NOT mean they understand what is happening to you - the dog that licks your hand has imo a better understanding than all the psychologists and psychiatrists!

the fact is the human race - a bipedal naked ape - has gone from living in caves to flying into space. that is an achievement that demands a transcendental response, not a logical explanation.

Hi All (but especially Novo and Dots),

I've captured Novo and Dot's little exchange on atheist facing death on the Gifopedia - A42437478. This point has been raised and effectively countered, so after a while I'll move it to some sort of archive and/or incorporate it into the text of the entry. If Novo (or anyone else) has a counter-counter-point, then that goes in until it's answered also.

I've also added in a good example of someone who served on the front line during the First World War and remained an atheist.

Gif

Oh no!

It doesnt do anything of the sort if you understand evolution and physics you can see that there is no need or "place" or neiche for animistic spirits to inhabit or to evolve into they are cultural manifestations of the needsof pagan people to answer questions they cannot find the resources to look into to provide concrete answers. When you are hungry any food will do and when you are thristy and have nothing to drink sucking a dry pebble "feels" better.

When you are in emotional pain an opiate is a more secure and sure fire way to anagesia than working through your problems and riding yourself of the mental troubles.

Transscendental reesponses are not a demand they are a poor alternative to the actual answer, but when plagued by nagging doubt any answer will do.

When you are in a culture that forces people to fit-in the accepted answer is the one you have to parrot.

When you dont have the brain function available to *think* an easy answer is better than a complicated one.

When Im calm I can talk through problems and find an amicable solution. When adrenaline kicks in and IM stressed a fat lip for the other guy is the answer. I can only speculate but if I were in a fox hole and fear had sent so much adrenaline through my systemm that I couldnt think of a way out my lower brain functions might clutch at the bigG as a possible solution for my predicament.

There are millions of graves and and foxholes containing the remains of many people who the alleged bigG did not help out of their predicaments>

"Adelaide the catwoman...wearing a scary halloween mask!" - made me jump.

"The parallel world of the supernatural"

If the supernatural is parallel to the natural world - how is it supposed to intersect or interact with it?

quantum entaglement of course - thought everyone knew that!

(no really, that's what the Discovery institute is backing under the name of 'Non-materialist neuroscience ' - muppets).

I think my gripe is sometimes with the 'language' used. This essentially Greek philosophical idea, coming from the likes of Plato, of dividing the world into the two opposites of 'matter and spirit' which is lies at the foundation of more recent religions like Christianity.

The kind of mystical type feelings I get I enjoy. What I'm saying is that these are probably not so unusual. But that doesn't mean I immediately assign some sort of supernatural explanation as is understood by our culture. And that's my point, other cultures may well speak of spirits or however they get translated into English, and we then translate them into our way of understanding the spiritual, with our philosophical tradition. What evidence is there that they are meaning them in the way we interpret them through our prism of conceptualising things? It doesn't mean they literally believe these things like an 'Abrahamic' with all those books. Written language is a relatively recent phenomenon. And once written words are used, it's all too easy to re-interpret them in a way they were never intended in the first place It's just a *language* that can make sense in other cultural settings. Stupid universalism again. I just can't relate to it. They may very well have to do with the expression of feelings and psychological states, not real (sic), gods as conceptualised in our tradition

(I have no idea why you say right on effers, bcr, I've yet to find anything we agree on But if it makes you feel good...go for it. )