Question for weak-atheists and agnostics

[Franc28]

Question for agnostics :
"How do you find meaning in a concept that you admit you know nothing about ?"

Question for weak-atheists :
"Please give me a meaningful definition of 'god'".

So far none of them have been able to answer my question. Both are contradictory positions.

[Griffey]

What do you mean by meaning? Must one have meaning for every concept, or can't that just be the way that you think? I'm not sure I understand your question (the agnostic one in particular since that's the one that applies to me), could you go into some more detail?

[AuntieSocial]

Ok, I consider myself an agnostic atheist. This is because I have no knowledge of a god, I also have no belief (they are different functions of the brain. You either know or don't and you either believe or don't). I don't consider the terms mutually exclusive. Actually, I think that each of us are agnostic and theist/atheist

Franc28 said:

Question for agnostics :
"How do you find meaning in a concept that you admit you know nothing about ?"

Since I think that all theists are also agnostic, they seem to be able to give a meaning to something that they know nothing about. Most of their concepts come from theology. They have assigned a meaning. I haven't assigned any meaning to 'God' since I also don't believe in a god (as any god has been defined by theology).

Question for weak-atheists :
"Please give me a meaningful definition of 'god'".

Firstly, I don't like the terms weak and strong. I personally feel that those who take the absolute position on the non-existence of god are making a positive (absolute) claim and are therefore required to prove that there is no possible way that a god can exist. (and that proof would have to be successfully applied to every definition of god)

As far as a meaningful definition of 'god,' well, based on the definitions that are contained in theology, I have yet to find evidence that any god exists. That doesn't mean that one can't exist (in my humble opinion), only that the ones that are defined within the mythos of mankind don't.

If another definition comes to light, I will investigate it as well. The reason I have no god-belief is because there is insufficient evidence to support my having a belief. If such evidence became available, and it was logical (and it hasn't yet, but if it did), I would concede that there is a god, but would probably live out the rest of my life without worshipping it. Afterall, I have made it thus far without a god, I an quite confident I can continue without one.

One another note, I am also a nullifidian - a person without faith. This also keeps me from a god-belief because I can't accept something as true based solely on faith.

[Franc28]

Griffey said:

What do you mean by meaning? Must one have meaning for every concept, or can't that just be the way that you think?

A meaningless concept is unusable, therefore it cannot be part of "the way you think". Can you think about "dfsajklas" ?

I'm not sure I understand your question (the agnostic one in particular since that's the one that applies to me), could you go into some more detail?

I'm not sure what exactly you do not understand. The underpinning of my questions is that positing that a meaningless concept could exist is itself meaningless. Do you think it is possible for dfsajklas to exist ?

[Franc28]

AuntieSocial said:

Ok, I consider myself an agnostic atheist. This is because I have no knowledge of a god

All right. Then my questions apply to you as well.

Actually, I think that each of us are agnostic and theist/atheist

Wrong. Agnosticism is contradictory, as my questions demonstrate.

Since I think that all theists are also agnostic, they seem to be able to give a meaning to something that they know nothing about.

Fine then, what is the meaning of the theistic word "god" ?

I haven't assigned any meaning to 'God' since I also don't believe in a god (as any god has been defined by theology).

Then how can you be an agnostic ? To be an agnostic presumes that you give some meaning to the word "god", otherwise you could not hold that "gods" could exist.

Firstly, I don't like the terms weak and strong. I personally feel that those who take the absolute position on the non-existence of god are making a positive (absolute) claim and are therefore required to prove that there is no possible way that a god can exist. (and that proof would have to be successfully applied to every definition of god)

The most direct and obvious such argument is the meaninglessness of "god".

[AuntieSocial]

Franc28 said:

Wrong. Agnosticism is contradictory, as my questions demonstrate.

I disagree. Our brain is capable of many functions ... are having emotions mutually exclusive of having knowledge? For example, when you heard about the actions of people such as Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney, did you not have an emotional responce as well?

Gnosis means, literally, knowledge. In my opinion the term should never have been applied to the question of a god. Huxley did more to muddy the waters than he did good when he basically said "I'm an I-don't-knowist"

As I said before, I don't think any one of us has knowledge of a god. The deists may be right ... there might be a creator god that is off somewhere else creating something else ... we can't rule that out with out current scientific data. The idea is improbable, which is why I'm not a deist. But even the deists are agnostic.

I don't have a belief. I am therefore, by definition, an atheist.

Fine then, what is the meaning of the theistic word "god"?

Which theist? Every sect of every religion has assigned a different meaning to their deity. Each has ascribed differing attributes. Since there have been over 8,000 gods (over 30,000 if you include incarnations and local deities) that have been worshipped in the history of mankind, this is a weighty question, especially since you are asking the question of a person who is an atheist. Only a theist could tell you the meaning that they have given their deity (and each theist will answer differently).

For me, I use the dictionary definition as my measuring stick. I also measure each theistic claim against what I consider to be logical and what I know of science (though I'm not science-minded)

[/li][li]1 a A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
[/li][li]1 b The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
[/li][li]2 A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
[/li][li]3 An image of a supernatural being; an idol.[/quote]
I do believe in the fifth definition of God, which is "a handsome man".

Then how can you be an agnostic ? To be an agnostic presumes that you give some meaning to the word "god", otherwise you could not hold that "gods" could exist.

I said that is it possible that evidence may arise someday to show that a god exists. This god wouldn't be one of the pantheon gods of mythology (I already know that the attributes assigned to them are actually forces of nature (i.e. God of Thunder, etc). It also wouldn't be the Yahweh cult god(s) because I have already ruled those out as illogical. What I'm saying there, basically, is that I have an open mind and will look at any claim objectively before ruling it out. To date (in a 20-year search), I have found no evidence to support the existence of any god. That could mean a couple of things:
[/li][li] there is a god, but I'm not aware of it (or its following) yet and haven't been able to look into the characteristics of that particular deity
[/li][li] there is a god that I have already looked into, but the attributes that were given me were incorrect, and I therefore ruled it out based on false definitions
[/li][li] there is a god that doesn't bother with us at all, created us and moved on and isn't bothered on iota whether we worship it or not

The most direct and obvious such argument is the meaninglessness of "god".

The word 'god' is meaningless to you (and to me). We don't have a belief in any such character. There are many people out there who do have a meaning for that word. I don't think that telling them their understanding, belief, in some cases, their reason for living, is meaningless is very productive.

The first thing I try to do is determine what "meaning" (attributes) an indivisual has assigned to their personal deity. I then have something to go on.

Atheists don't assign the meanings (attributes), not even the weak-atheists, the believers do. If someone doesn't believe in an invisible floating elephant or the IPU (pbuh, may her hooves never be shod) wouldn't have a meaning for these beliefs either.

Actually, historically, it has been the theists who have been assigning the meaning, definition, attributes to atheists also. They are the ones that seem to need a deeper meaning in things, while I'm quite content (as are most of the atheists I know) to look at what is (and the evidence for why it is) and say, "That is what is."

[Franc28]

So AuntieSocial, you concede that "god" is a meaningless term, but you still think your position that "a god could exist" is coherent ?

Curious. I don't really know what to say : you don't seem to need a lesson of logic, and yet you hold an obviously contradictory position. If that is what you want, then go for it.

[Superhappyjen]

Franc28 said:

So AuntieSocial, you concede that "god" is a meaningless term, but you still think your position that "a god could exist" is coherent ?

I think you're using fuzzy logic here Franc. If I were to tell you that there is a monster living just behind Jupiter. You might flat out not believe me. Would it not then be meaningless for me to ask you to define the monster, or to describe what colour it is? I might argue that you can't say you don't believe in something unless you can define what it is, but I would be wrong, as this example illustrates.

You might also say "I don't think there's a monster living just behind Jupiter, but since manned probes haven't explored that far out, it might be true." The monster is still meaningless to you and you still couldn't tell me what colour it is. However, you are, in essence saying "The monster living just behind Jupiter could exist."

[pieisgood]

Franc, you wanted to know how agnostics find a meaning in a concept they don't know about.

agnosticism isn't that you don't know about God, it's that you don't know if there is a God. Agnostics have the 2 choices of No God or a God, and they say that it's impossible to PROVE either one. Where, then, in that view does it say that agonstics don't know about God?

[Franc28]

pieisgood said:

Franc, you wanted to know how agnostics find a meaning in a concept they don't know about.

agnosticism isn't that you don't know about God, it's that you don't know if there is a God. Agnostics have the 2 choices of No God or a God, and they say that it's impossible to PROVE either one. Where, then, in that view does it say that agonstics don't know about God?

Oh ok. If that is your position, then answer the weak-atheist argument.

[Superhappyjen]

I need some clarification. What exactly is the difference between a weak-atheist and a regular atheist?

[Yaw]

To clarify, a "weak" atheist does not believe in a deity, while a "strong" atheist believes there are no deities. It's more that the latter is a subset of the former, than that one is more "regular" than the other.

Incidentally, I (and most here) prefer the terms "implicit atheist" and "explicit atheist", instead of "weak" and "strong", respectively. It's more an aesthetic thing, though, as applying the term "weak" to a position by definition as opposed to any valid argument looks like an ad hominem.

Hope that helps.

[droskey]

Franc

Question for agnostics :
"How do you find meaning in a concept that you admit you know nothing about ?"

Question for weak-atheists :
"Please give me a meaningful definition of 'god'".

Hi, Franc. Concerning your second question, I think that you have adequately defined the problem. I think that most atheists/agnostics/nonbeliever hold the views that they do precisely because they have not found a meaningful definition of 'god'. For instance, I do not believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent sentient creator of the universe. However, I suppose that one could exist. But there are all sorts of other 'gods' that I also don't believe in. Really, I think that I am not alone in holding that the responsibility for defining 'god' resides with the one who is asserting that a particular 'god' exists.

You can ask me, "Do you believe in god?". But I wouldn't know how to answer until you tell me what you think the word 'god' means.

Cheers.

[Franc28]

jacopo7531, you pretty much understand the gist of my argument.

Until weak-atheists or agnostics can define meaningfully what they think may exist, I cannot take their position seriously.

[Kaiouss Khalizad]

Franc28 said:

Question for agnostics :
"How do you find meaning in a concept that you admit you know nothing about ?"

Question for weak-atheists :
"Please give me a meaningful definition of 'god'".

So far none of them have been able to answer my question. Both are contradictory positions.

This seemingly intellectual predicament has a fairly empirical way out. When you were a child playing with building blocks, why did you build all those buildings if you knew you were going to knock them down? Does there have to be meaning? Perhaps you just enjoy the activity. I reject the existence of a God or many Gods on the premises that we do not know enough to make the decision. This does not mean pursuit of this knowledge is fruitless and it has in fact provided grounds for a religion for myself. I have faith, I have a religion, and I am agnostic. This does not mean my religion has no meaning to me, for I enjoy the pursuit and the intellectual stimulation. I don't care where it's going, only THAT it's going. Fayth is a direct connection one has to an activity, not a result. The only people that care whether or not a God ACTUALLY exists are the insecure people who only worship to be sure they end up somewhere after death. Personally, I'm not even a New Christian, rather I am a Pagan (New Age). Every day, I find evidence against my beliefs and it is sound, so I accept it, and continue believing. I don't believe Consciousness has anything to do with the world or that humans have a special place in the universe, but that doesn't change what I LIKE to do. I believe as strongly in science as I do in magick because that's the way my beliefs run.