What does an atheist...

[tackattack]

God to me is a force that created and set into motion the known universe.

Got any evidence to back up that claim?

No evidence I can produce will ever suffice your level of belief nor am I here to.

That is directly contradictory to the Christian belief in which God sends himself to earth as his own son, born of a virgin on earth, to directly intervene in human affairs. How can you call yourself a christian and still hold that God does not interfere?

I consider the man Jesus real with more insight into the ways of the creator than anyone. He taught through parrable and led by example. The story of creation, the floods, probably most miracles and maybe his ressurection was less historical fact and more parrable as believed in the torah.

but is omniviscent and omnipotent.

Prove it

-unprovable by definition

If it's non-sentient it isn't intelligent at all, so why call it god?

the human need to quantify and classify

Oh, i think we have a testable hypothesis emerging here! So if god sits outside the universe and shoots photons into the universe then there should be a measurable excess of light in the universe that would be unaccounted for in observations. As far as i am aware there is no such light in the universe, therefore your claim is disproved until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

And of course finding the light alone is not comprehensive proof of anything, but it does give your idea falsifiability which is a good thing because it means it can actually be tested.

-I'm not equiped to attempt observations of things outside our universe, much less our known universe.

This is known as the god of the gaps argument, for example "I can't explain something, therefore god did it". As you can see from that statement you have simply assumed the answer you want is the correct one without taking any steps to verify it as true.

Reason away all the gaps with science and I'll consent.

People don't organise their lives around contradictory historical documents.

-People have been doing it for centuries.

Whether you like it or not the truth of the universe has nothing to do with man kind or what any one of us wants, it is something entirely external to our very existence. To me it sounds like you have picked a completely conceptual ideal that appeals to you and stuck with it regardless of whether of not it's true.

Which is why I'm here. Thank you for the critique on my belief. I'm here to ask questions though and don't really intend to defend myself too much. I simply stated my belief because I was asked and I believe I already have you answer (thank you by the way) so anyone else's opinion on teh question?

[theVOID]

So why don't you answer this question: Can you explain what you believe and why you believe it?

God to me is a force that created and set into motion the known universe.

Got any evidence to back up that claim?
No evidence I can produce will ever suffice your level of belief nor am I here to.

I don't feel he acts on our behalf or intercedes

That is directly contradictory to the Christian belief in which God sends himself to earth as his own son, born of a virgin on earth, to directly intervene in human affairs. How can you call yourself a christian and still hold that God does not interfere?
I consider the man Jesus real with more insight into the ways of the creator than anyone. He taught through parrable and led by example. The story of creation, the floods, probably most miracles and maybe his ressurection was less historical fact and more parrable as believed in the torah.

but is omniviscent and omnipotent.

Prove it
-unprovable by definition

God is unknowable

So you admit you actually have no idea what you are talking about...

therefore it doesn't follow that it's sentient.

If it's non-sentient it isn't intelligent at all, so why call it god?
the human need to quantify and classify

If I had to visualize God it would be a huge ball of energy sitting outside the universe with photons shooting out from it.

Oh, i think we have a testable hypothesis emerging here! So if god sits outside the universe and shoots photons into the universe then there should be a measurable excess of light in the universe that would be unaccounted for in observations. As far as i am aware there is no such light in the universe, therefore your claim is disproved until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

And of course finding the light alone is not comprehensive proof of anything, but it does give your idea falsifiability which is a good thing because it means it can actually be tested.
-I'm not equiped to attempt observations of things outside our universe, much less our known universe.

I believe this because I can not explain what created the universe with science.

This is known as the god of the gaps argument, for example "I can't explain something, therefore god did it". As you can see from that statement you have simply assumed the answer you want is the correct one without taking any steps to verify it as true.
Reason away all the gaps with science and I'll consent.

Even though historical documents are steeped in contradictions, mytos and warped perspectives they convey a similar hope and parables that make sense to me.

People don't organise their lives around contradictory historical documents.
-People have been doing it for centuries.

I believe science is wonderful and opens our eyes to a myriad of possibilities

Then why don't you start using it? Where is the evidence to support your claim that god is a big ball of energy outside the universe shooting in photons? At the moment you are not doing science, so your claiming to support it is irrelevant in argument when you can't demonstrate actually using it.

There will always be unexplainable things that need explaining.

That does not mean you just pick your favorite answer

Frankly I don't have the energy to debunk all of them and I have a great repsect for those who do. I feel it's easier to prove what's real to me than disprove what other's feel is real.

It's impossible to disprove most of the supernatural claims people make because they are not testable, you obviously don't get how this works.

While I enjoy looking at things from an increasing perspective, it gets tedious at times and I invariably come beck to what's real to me. I don't believe in fate. I do believe in karma. Every action, thought and belief of one affects the others around them, then other's around them and so on. I see a balance on a moralistic scale, on a scientific scale and on a physical scale that leads me to believe that the randomeness of the human condition is not a singularity. I'd like to hope that perfection is love. I'd like to hope that a God is that love and he shares it with us like photons from the sun. I'd like not to sit under an umbrella with my shades.

Whether you like it or not the truth of the universe has nothing to do with man kind or what any one of us wants, it is something entirely external to our very existence. To me it sounds like you have picked a completely conceptual ideal that appeals to you and stuck with it regardless of whether of not it's true.

Which is why I'm here. Thank you for the critique on my belief. I'm here to ask questions though and don't really intend to defend myself too much. I simply stated my belief because I was asked and I believe I already have you answer (thank you by the way) so anyone else's opinion on teh question?

Yeah, ball of energy that isn't intelligent shooting out photons is pretty clear, albeit unreasonable to hold as a belief.

Do you want to rephrase the question again to make it more clear?

[tackattack]

Reasonable doubt and reasonable validity are perspective based and we don't share the same perspective. Ergo no need in debating reasonableness either.

Ok, on the basis of neither of us believe in pixies, but can agree that they're small things that fly with wings and might have a little bag of "magical" dust. Regardless of the specifics of it. What is an atheist preconception of god?

[theVOID]

Reasonable doubt and reasonable validity are perspective based and we don't share the same perspective. Ergo no need in debating reasonableness either.

Ok, on the basis of neither of us believe in pixies, but can agree that they're small things that fly with wings and might have a little bag of "magical" dust. Regardless of the specifics of it. What is an atheist preconception of god?

There is none, we don't approach it like that. We evaluate other people's claim about god, their definition of him/her and respond to that.

[tackattack]

Why can't you approach it like that? What's so hard about giving your definition of a word(you already did so no need for you)? Don't you see how unwelcoming it is and haugty it is to stand up on your scientific pedestal and wait for an opinion that differs from yours, that is unverifiable, and lob bombs at it when all that's asked was a simple question (albeit poorly worded). Not that it hasn't been done to many atheists over the years but I don't do that and I don't feel it's very humane (read christian ) to act in such a manner. Do scientists (christian and non) just try and use subjective evidence to prove their point or do they just try and disprove others? Eliminating variables is fundamental to science, I understand, but there's no need to have such a condescending attitude about it. I get enough grief because I'm white in a black neighborhood. I get charged a white tax at the locally owned convience store. Discrimination is discrmination and a warped perspective doesn't help anyone.

[theVOID]

Why can't you approach it like that? What's so hard about giving your definition of a word

How am i supposed to define something that i don't believe exists? I can't give attributes to non-existence.

Don't you see how unwelcoming it is and haugty it is to stand up on your scientific pedestal and wait for an opinion that differs from yours, that is unverifiable, and lob bombs at it when all that's asked was a simple question

You were the one who started the dialog about science and now you have a problem when it doesn't favor your argument? I don't hold my own definition of god because it means so many things to so many people and changes from person to person, therefore having a discussion with my preconceived god against yours is not going to help anyone because we could potentially be arguing two contradictory ideas. All i can do is evaluate each claim presented by the same standards i use to verify any truth claim.

Not that it hasn't been done to many atheists over the years but I don't do that and I don't feel it's very humane (read christian ) to act in such a manner.

Do you want a serious discussion or would you prefer everyone to just say "oh, that's nice"?

Do scientists (christian and non) just try and use subjective evidence to prove their point or do they just try and disprove others?

They try to substantiate their hypothesis with empirical evidence, some other claims may be disproved in the process but that is not very often the point of the study.

Eliminating variables is fundamental to science, I understand, but there's no need to have such a condescending attitude about it. I get enough grief because I'm white in a black neighborhood. I get charged a white tax at the locally owned convience store. Discrimination is discrmination and a warped perspective doesn't help anyone.

Oh yeah us disagreeing here is really on the level of discrimination... More like i think your energy-ball god idea is silly and have no problem telling you what i think of it. Again, do you want an honest discussion here or do you want everyone just to say "oh, that energy ball god is a good one"?

[Amphora]

tackattack you had said:I'd like to hope that perfection is love. I'd like to hope that a God is that love and he shares it with us like photons from the sun.

No love and everything else is not perfect, to think that love is perfect then that is what you believe.

Now the second statement is what you believe god is. Loving, kind, honest, truthful, and many more thing YOU believe god is.
For me I don't believe he loving by seeing all the bad things that happen around the world. Somehow he has better things to do than help starving children in Africa!!

[tackattack]

tackattack you had said:I'd like to hope that perfection is love. I'd like to hope that a God is that love and he shares it with us like photons from the sun.

No love and everything else is not perfect, to think that love is perfect then that is what you believe.

Now the second statement is what you believe god is. Loving, kind, honest, truthful, and many more thing YOU believe god is.
For me I don't believe he loving by seeing all the bad things that happen around the world. Somehow he has better things to do than help starving children in Africa!!

Why can't Love be perfect? First I define perfection as:
Perfection \Per*fec"tion\, n. [F. perfection, L. perfectio.]

1. The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting; entire development; consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence; the highest attainable state or degree of excellence; maturity; as, perfection in an art, in a science, or in a system; perfection in form or degree; fruits in perfection. [1913 Webster]

The second statement regarding, loving, kind, honest, truthful, etc. are what we humans use as moralistic guides to achieve the perfect Love. I don't think God is wrath, trusing, jealous, selfish, etc. any justifiable human emotion that can be explained by social development including those in the previous statement. I've explained elsewhere my definition of Love and why it stands apart. I think the world we see (aside from the building blocks of nature) exist because humans create it as such. Almost every tool, object cause-effect is based off human action, desire or belief for good or bad.

[quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']
Why can't you approach it like that? What's so hard about giving your definition of a word

How am i supposed to define something that i don't believe exists? I can't give attributes to non-existence.
[/quote]
Ive stated that previously. I don't believe in santa claus but I can ask most atheist what image pops in their head and it's of a white guy in a red suit with flying reindeer breaking into houses.

[quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']
Don't you see how unwelcoming it is and haugty it is to stand up on your scientific pedestal and wait for an opinion that differs from yours, that is unverifiable, and lob bombs at it when all that's asked was a simple question

You were the one who started the dialog about science and now you have a problem when it doesn't favor your argument? I don't hold my own definition of god because it means so many things to so many people and changes from person to person, therefore having a discussion with my preconceived god against yours is not going to help anyone because we could potentially be arguing two contradictory ideas. All i can do is evaluate each claim presented by the same standards i use to verify any truth claim. [/quote]

that's predisposing that I am here to argue my point, discuss my views or argue; all of which is counter to my statements of seeking other opinions.

[quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']
Not that it hasn't been done to many atheists over the years but I don't do that and I don't feel it's very humane (read christian ) to act in such a manner.

Do you want a serious discussion or would you prefer everyone to just say "oh, that's nice"?
[/quote]
serious opinions

[quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']

Do scientists (christian and non) just try and use subjective evidence to prove their point or do they just try and disprove others?

They try to substantiate their hypothesis with empirical evidence, some other claims may be disproved in the process but that is not very often the point of the study.

good

[quote='tackattack' pid='45007' dateline='1260399166']

Eliminating variables is fundamental to science, I understand, but there's no need to have such a condescending attitude about it. I get enough grief because I'm white in a black neighborhood. I get charged a white tax at the locally owned convience store. Discrimination is discrmination and a warped perspective doesn't help anyone.

Oh yeah us disagreeing here is really on the level of discrimination... More like i think your energy-ball god idea is silly and have no problem telling you what i think of it. Again, do you want an honest discussion here or do you want everyone just to say "oh, that energy ball god is a good one"?

perhaps it was a little over the top. perhaps it doesn't matter what the level of discrimination is the definition is :
1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences. [1913 Webster]
But if the level of discrimination matters to you the level of evidentiary proof required for belief matters to me. I'm just trying to get a good gauge of your perspective so you'll forgive the methods I'm sure. I do appreciate you honest critiqe though and I'm glad you have no problems telling me what you think of it.

[theVOID]

Ive stated that previously. I don't believe in santa claus but I can ask most atheist what image pops in their head and it's of a white guy in a red suit with flying reindeer breaking into houses.

That's because there is only specific guy called Santa Claus out of a range of characters in Christmas myths, so you have already specified in a meaningful. When it comes to god it's more of a category of ideas, similar to the category of characters in Christmas myths, that's why the two are incomparable.

When you talk about god are you talking of a theistic god or a deistic god? is it monotheistic? polytheistic? If monotheistic, which monotheistic god is it? Allah? YHWH? What is it's polytheistic? What are your specific gods defined as? You see, it's not nearly as simple in dealing with god. I can have conceptions about the gods in question but i can't say i have a preconceived god at all, i have many ideas how it could work if at all and i have heard many many many other ideas from different people.

That's why the only way to get forward in discussion is to know what the specific beliefs of each person are, so you can assess the individuals ideas rather than arguing from your own preconceived ideas.

that's predisposing that I am here to argue my point, discuss my views or argue; all of which is counter to my statements of seeking other opinions.

And you aren't always going to get responses you agree with, it's an essential part of any discussion from which you want answers.

serious opinions

I gave you mine, it was seriously what i thought of your idea. I'm sorry if you felt it was harsh criticism but everyone gets it, just part of life. Don't take it personally.

perhaps it was a little over the top. perhaps it doesn't matter what the level of discrimination is the definition is :
1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences. [1913 Webster]
But if the level of discrimination matters to you the level of evidentiary proof required for belief matters to me. I'm just trying to get a good gauge of your perspective so you'll forgive the methods I'm sure. I do appreciate you honest critiqe though and I'm glad you have no problems telling me what you think of it.

I was critical of your idea, that is not discrimination in any way.

Well now that we know what your god is and you know why we don't have a preconception of god, maybe we can have a real discussion instead of delving off-topic.

[tackattack]

Ive stated that previously. I don't believe in santa claus but I can ask most atheist what image pops in their head and it's of a white guy in a red suit with flying reindeer breaking into houses.

That's because there is only specific guy called Santa Claus out of a range of characters in Christmas myths, so you have already specified in a meaningful. When it comes to god it's more of a category of ideas, similar to the category of characters in Christmas myths, that's why the two are incomparable.

When you talk about god are you talking of a theistic god or a deistic god? is it monotheistic? polytheistic? If monotheistic, which monotheistic god is it? Allah? YHWH? What is it's polytheistic? What are your specific gods defined as? You see, it's not nearly as simple in dealing with god. I can have conceptions about the gods in question but i can't say i have a preconceived god at all, i have many ideas how it could work if at all and i have heard many many many other ideas from different people.

That's why the only way to get forward in discussion is to know what the specific beliefs of each person are, so you can assess the individuals ideas rather than arguing from your own preconceived ideas.

Valid point then by God I mean any of the aforementioned monotheistic Gods

that's predisposing that I am here to argue my point, discuss my views or argue; all of which is counter to my statements of seeking other opinions.

And you aren't always going to get responses you agree with, it's an essential part of any discussion from which you want answers.

I don't expect, coming to an atheist forum, to get get agreeable answers. If my questions aren't clear you've done a wonderful job of narrowing them down to something answerable.

serious opinions

I gave you mine, it was seriously what i thought of your idea. I'm sorry if you felt it was harsh criticism but everyone gets it, just part of life. Don't take it personally.

not harsh

perhaps it was a little over the top. perhaps it doesn't matter what the level of discrimination is the definition is :
1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences. [1913 Webster]
But if the level of discrimination matters to you the level of evidentiary proof required for belief matters to me. I'm just trying to get a good gauge of your perspective so you'll forgive the methods I'm sure. I do appreciate you honest critiqe though and I'm glad you have no problems telling me what you think of it.

I was critical of your idea, that is not discrimination in any way.

Well now that we know what your god is and you know why we don't have a preconception of god, maybe we can have a real discussion instead of delving off-topic.

you were noting and marking differences in my arguaments and other christian arguements. While I wouldn't really consider it as the conotation of discrimination; I was using to address the distinction between varying degrees of belief.

The definition is the topic of this discussion. I wanted an atheist perspective on what a monotheistic diety sometimes reffered to as God, Allah, YHWY, mother earth, etc. brings to mind. Define if you would the characteristics of said non-existant being. Something as simple as A creator, George Burns, or a big tittied monster would be great.I do appreciate the answers given al ready btw.