I concur with this 100%. This post exactly describes my lack of belief. 

Barrie Responds: Leaving out the other terms for the moment--what I'm asking is this: What is your personal concept of god that you then reject?

When you state "the entire collective concept of gods...," you are still making a blanket statement with no definition. You are not defining or explaining what it is that you believe others believe. You are just saying that you don't agree.

And that is what I'm trying to avoid in order to understand exactly what people DO believe about God--either in their belief that there is or is not a God.

I ask this question because so many people discuss God or if God exists or not--and rarely does anyone define what it is they are actually talking about.

I believe that there are as many huge differences of opinions between theists and theists as there are between theists and athiests.

I am also curious as to whether there are any disagreements between athiests and atheists as to the "God" they believe doesn't exist.

 In both cases, one group believes in "God" and one group thinks "God" is a fantasy or make-believe. And no one actually defines what it is they are talking about.

I am curious as to what agreements and/or disagreements may exist within each group, as well as between each group.

Be well & happy,

Barrie

Hi AiiA,

Barrie wrote: People who believe in God--may not all agree what God is.

AiiA Responds: Yeah, I've noticed the hate and killing.

Barrie Now Responds: I believe that more people have hated others and killed others because of their differing beliefs about God. But there are also huge numbers of theists who disagree about God--and don't hate or kill each other. That is, it is not intrinsic that IF you disagree about God--you will therefore hate or kill those with whom you are in disagreement. I know you are not saying this, but I'm just saying it for clarification's sake.

Barrie Had Written: 10 people may say they believe in God--but they all may have a different definition/explanation of what God is.Therefore, on the surface it seems they are in some sort of agreement--but depending on their beliefs about God--there may actually be spaces of disagreement between each of these 10 as there are between any one of them and an atheist.

AiiA Responds: It is because people are imagining different things. Why is that? Because there is no evidence of such a thing. Without any evidence, every theist has only his/her (or another's) imagination as a reference in formulating a definition/explanation of what 'it' is.

Barrie Now Responds: What you say is true only if the belief in God actually is soley a product of one's imagination. The truth of that statement is really your belief on the subject--that you accept as fact--as do all "believers" accept their beliefs as facts.

A believer in God may make the same argument about atheists--that it is only their imagination that is behind their lack of belief.

Each person makes sense when their viewpoint is seen thru the filter of their own beliefs.

All that said, the concept of God--whether accepted or rejected--still exists. And I am asking what is your concept of God that you reject?

Barrie Wrote: So, I'd like to pose the question: IF you belive in God--how would you define that God? And if you DON'T believe in God--how would you define what it is you don't believe in. Perhaps, some who do believe in God also wouldn't believe in the God as defined by some atheists.

AiiA Responds: I define the word 'god' as an imaginary being ignorant and/or mentally ill people believe in.

Barrie Now Responds: I believe many theists would agree with you--who also do not believe God to be a being at all. As for the terms "ignorant" and "mentally ill:" These terms only make sense when seen thru the filter of your beliefs.

What I mean is this: A believer in God may say that Atheists are either ignorant and/or mentally ill. Why? Because according to THEIR belief system--those are possible explanations concerning why people don't believe in God. For our discussion's sake, those would be the only two "slots" that atheists can fit into.

Likewise, the only two slots your belief system allows for theists--are those slots labeled "ignorant" or "mentally ill." Perhaps there are other reasons or explanations why people either believe or don't belief in God--that do not involve ignorance or mental illness?

AiiA Continues: I'm atheist - I hold the postulation of 'god' to be false.
P1 - If there's no evidence of a god, then the lack of evidence of a god is evidence that there is no god.
P2 - There is no evidence of a god
C - Therefore there is no god

Barrie Responds: People who believe in God do see evidence of God. It is not evidence that you may accept as evidence. But to them--it is evidence. Your concept of evidence, as theirs, may not be absolute. They may see evidence where you don't.

For example, a dead body is found. If there is no evidence or seems to be no evidence that a murder has occurred, it doesn't follow that a murder has not occurred. Evidence may be there but not yet seen or understood or discovered.

Also, one person may see evidence of a murder, while another person may reject this "evidence" as evidence.

What one person sees as "evidence" is only evidence based on their belief system about the nature of reality.

People have different beliefs about what the nature of reality is. Those beliefs dictate what is seen as evidence as what is not seen as evidence.

Someone who believes in God may say that prayer brought about some effect--and that effect is evidence of God. That fits their beliefs about the nature of reality. An atheist may not see that as evidence at all; may have a totally different explanation for the effect. Both may appear to be correct--from their perspectives. But does anyone really KNOW? I say that each side believes, first; and then takes their beliefs as knowing.

I say this because I believe that no group or person really knows the nature of reality--they each only have beliefs about the nature of reality--and then they assume that their beliefs are actually Truth or Absolute Truth.

In order to be function human beings, we all act if what we believe to Absolute Truths are actually Absolute Truths; and this includes the Absolute Truth that there are NO absolute truths.

Be well & happy,

Barrie

 This is essentially saying atheism = not(anything theistic). Why is this not a negative definition akin to supernatural = not(anything natural)?

This would allow for pantheism. From your posts I'm pretty sure you don't accept even that as a possibility.

you can call it anything you want, but i think it's a crystal clear statement. i see no need to revise or elaborate, other than to make something out of nothing purely for the sake of debate. 

Hi Magus,

Magus Writes:  The only reason I would make my own definition of god would be if I truly was doing just making stuff up. I don't make the definition of god, I am presented with many, and to those definitions I find no evidence, proof, or value in it's belief. 

Barrie Responds: I'm a little surprised because most people never try to define God in their discussions about it.  But given what you say above, then you would still have concepts or definitions of God--given to you by others--that you reject. So, what have been some of the definitions of God that have been presented to you that you have rejected?

 Magus Continues:  I shouldn't be defining god in the first place it should, if it exists, be capable of doing that all on its own. 

Barrie Responds: That's only if God existed in such a manner that it was capable of making such declarations; and if capable, it had the desire or intent to make it--and all people had the capability of hearing it. For example, people can't hear dog whistles--yet the sound exists. 

Magus Continues: I don't define the qualities of anything, I find qualities in things and those become their definition. 

Barrie Responds: Does anything exist outside of your capability of seeing it? Does love exist? How would you define the sound of a dog whistle? Or does it not exist because you can't hear it?

 Magus Continues: A rock is hard, not because I have defined the rock as such, but because the definition of hard (an abstract) is a quality the rock possesses. 

Barrie Responds: Is a rock hard? It depends upon how your look at it? On the quantum level, it is not even solid at all. Perhaps there are a variety of ways things may be perceived--and some may even contradict the others--yet all may be true.

Also, someone may try to use certain rocks as a tool to break into something--and these rocks may crumble in the attempt. Are these rocks hard?

I'm just saying that there may be a variety of ways things may be looked at--and one may not be wrong because it conflicts with another which is thought of as right.

Be well & happy,

Barrie

 Hi DJ,

DJ Had Written: "i believe that the entire collective concept of gods, higher powers, deities, saviors, angels, heaven, hell, devils and demons is entirely man-made and fictional."

Barrie Responded: When you state "the entire collective concept of gods...," you are still making a blanket statement with no definition. You are not defining or explaining what it is that you believe others believe. You are just saying that you don't agree.

DJ Comments on the Above Exchange: no offense, but i simply don't see how i could make my original statement any more clear, simple, direct, or to the point.

Barrie Now Responds: No offense, taken. But if you wish to be more clear--would you elaborate on some of the concepts of God that have been presented to you--for those would be the concepts that you reject and/or do not believe in. Thanks.

Be well & happy,

Barrie

that would be ALL concepts of god. did i miss any?

If someone says God exists to me and doesn't define it, I really don't see how the we can be discussing anything as there are many definitions give. There is the god of the Omni-Omni's. Has everything can do anything, not limited by the physical laws/time/space. This itself leads to many contradictions that have been discussed in other places of this forum.

There have also been gods that lack one omni or the other.

The Omni's: Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni benevolent, Omniscients (Note: These are all the ones I can remember at the moment)

There has also been the physical limited god. A god that is limited to the maximum physical constraints. As in a god that is the most powerful, but limited to what physics says most powerful can be.

There have been deistic gods. A god that set things into motion.

Multi God - Kind of like the god of X (X being some property, Love, hate, pain, joy, fun)

A god that is limited by logic. As in it can only do things that are logical

The evil god. A god who created the universe and made everything just to watch it suffer.

There are more but I cannot think of them at the moment so Ignore this line.

I define the sound of a dog whistle by its decibels and the vibrations it transmits. Define love...

I forgot the words can be described as. Is hard even a coherent word when talking about things on the quantum level? Anyway it was a simple example of what I was trying to point out, not something that should be picked apart, for semantics. We define abstract qualities, and when something has those qualities we can attribute those qualities to them. However this is based on the assumption that we both understand the language being used.

Thanks

[Edit: Fixed quotation]

 Hi DJ,

Why not describe a few concepts of God that come into your mind. Those would be some of the concepts, then, that you are rejecting. Again, I'm curious as to the concepts--and I'm a little surprised at how difficult it is to get people to be specific. If you remember some of the concepts--which details stand out the most clearly as concepts you reject.

Be well & happy,

Barrie

i think "ALL concepts" is sufficiently specific.

I literally laughed outloud when I read this, "how would you define what it is you don't believe in." How do you define ANYTHING you don't believe in? I don't believe in fairies. Fairies are what other people created from their imaginations. They have wings and are colorful with pointy ears and can fly. This is what other people have defined them as, not me. How then can anyone define anything they've never believed in?

An atheist's disbelief is simply a state of knowledge that one possesses based on the information he/she has attained through science, history, etc. and based on scientific information available to man simply chose not to believe in something that at face value appears to be invented by other human beings claiming that such a being exists.

When someone tells you that two plus two equals four, you asked them to prove it to you. When someone tells you that cells duplicate, you ask them to prove it. When someone tells you that a chair is sitting in your living room, you ask them to prove it. It is, therefore, obvious that when someone says "there's a supernatural being you can't see, smell, touch, hear, communicate with in a two way conversation, etc." and any human being asked them to prove it through facts and evidence other than a book or someone else's word and it can not be done then what reason does one have to believe rather than disbelieve? How does one choose which of the 3600+ gods to believe in, as well?

Disbelief is defined as:

be·lief play_w("B0170700&quot (b-lf)