Can atheists convert theists?

[Godhead]

Knight -

Excuse me while I say something mushy : I'm touched. I wish you were all like that. I'm also pissed. Don't take advantage of this as I may find mysel questioning my beliefs. God knows what the preacherman would say if that happened.

[Edwardo Piet]

Knight... being an atheist doesn't require any knowledge of God.

All I know of God is the concept of a "deity" as with all I know of the Easter Bunny is the concept of "The Easter Bunny" - I claim no knowledge of the Easter Bunny... I just reject its existence. As with God.

Godhead - I think you seem like a genuinely good person too. As I've said...

I think that since you define God as everything and everything as consciousness and God then these all mean the same thing to you don't they? So it would be no less meaningful to say "Nothing is God... God doesn't exist..... however... I do believe that everything is consciousness".

EvF

[Knight]

All I know of God is the concept of a "deity" as with all I know of the Easter Bunny is the concept of "The Easter Bunny" - I claim no knowledge of the Easter Bunny... I just reject its existence. As with God.

But there are specifics about the attributes of both which are included in each, intentional or not. What exactly is "God"--a "deity?" --and what is a deity? It is a supreme being. And what does that mean? Using definitions alone we are already divulging into territory we should not. This sets up the common flaw of looking for what we are defining instead of defining what we are finding. Rejection the notion that something which has not been observed, measured, or detected exists is meaningless.

[Godhead]

Knight -

Looking for what we're defining rather than defining what we find. I agree that that's a flaw. To which I'd add, in defining it, I'm finding it. I've defined god in such a way that I can look around and sincerely say that I'm seeing evidence of god. It's like I've created a self fulfulling prophesy. When people ask me to define god, and then I begin, and then they say "but hold on, you have no evidence that it exists", I think to myself "but let me finish defining it". I'm not saying that there isn't an element of faith in my definition, or that what I believe is falsifiable (then again I'm not that bright so maybe it is and I don't know it - but I wouldn't ask an atheist to tell me as they're biased), the only point I try to make when asked to define or prove god is this : If you defined god as I do, meaning if you genuinely believed that if, if, god exists then it is as I describe (this is entirely reasonable, seeing as atheists often talk about why they don't believe in god based on definitions of it), then you may find yourself either believing in it, or at least understanding why such a definition leads to such a strong belief (or is a symptom of it?), or, at the very least, seeing how such a definition can't be disproven. Issues of burden of proof aside, the point is that if it can't be disproven, then it's reasonable for the belief to remain.

[Knight]

Issues of burden of proof aside, the point is that if it can't be disproven, then it's reasonable for the belief to remain.

I would not use the word "reasonable." It's "possible" for the belief to remain, but reasonable suggests actual falsifiable evidence. The logical implications of that philosophy are absurd, because you would have to accept the possibility of an infinite amount of beings existing in an infinite amount of ways, when we cannot even observe, measure, or detect one. If we accept the God of everything, what's stopping us from accepting the God of nothing, God of everything's immortal enemy? Or Chronus, the God of time? Or Flying Spaghetti Monster, the magic teapot, or invisible unicorns on the moon? The list goes on indefinitely. This is why we must have a falsifiable method of sorting out reality from beliefs.

[Edwardo Piet]

Rejection the notion that something which has not been observed, measured, or detected exists is meaningless.

If something has already been observed and measured it would be stupid to reject it. It's only when it is claimed to exist and it has NOT been observed and measured that rejecting its existence makes sense.

EvF

[Knight]

Rejection the notion that something which has not been observed, measured, or detected exists is meaningless.

If something has already been observed and measured it would be stupid to reject it. It's only when it is claimed to exist and it has NOT been observed and measured that rejecting its existence makes sense.

EvF

Regarding the first sentence: Precisely, I completely agree! I also somewhat agree with the second sentence, but in a different way. If someone gives you how they define God, it is then possible to reject this based upon known evidence. In this sense, the atheist position is a reasonable position. If the God that is defined cannot be disproved, then it can neither be accepted or rejected--in fact, it shouldn't even be defined at all without falsifiable evidence, and that's the point. It is a backwards way of thinking to do so. The God which is defined that actually defies evidence should not be defined either due to the lack of falsifiable evidence, but at least with this God an outright rejection is reasonable. Still, I just have a personal problem jumping to the rejection step because there is a problem with the preceding step.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I just think of the fact that any being supreme enough to create the this universe... do you believe it at all probable that it exists? No? Then why believe it? You don't believe it? Oh, you're an atheist.

People define God differently but more or less the most common definition is a deity or "supernatural being" that created the universe. This is not at all probable. That is why I disbelieve it and hence why I'm an atheist.

If the God that is defined cannot be disproved, then it can neither be accepted or rejected--in fact, it shouldn't even be defined at all without falsifiable evidence, and that's the point. It is a backwards way of thinking to do so.

The easter bunny can't be disproved. Maybe we just haven't found him yet. Maybe this is all a dream and in fact in the real reality we're all bunnies that just love the Easter holidays! This cannot be disproved either. But it can be defined as can God be defined as some "being" that created "the universe" since we know that a being just means an entity of some kind whether human-like or not... the universe - well, we all know what that means its in the dictionary. And likewise to such a being "creating" the universe.

So the Easter bunny and "the creator of the universe"/God can be defined. But neither are at all probable.... and so I think it would be highly irrational to believe in either. Since I don't believe in the Easter bunny that doesn't mean I claim any knowledge of it. I merely am unconvinced by the statement "A furry little bunny rabbit that gives you chocolate eggs on Easter while you asleep" exists. As with God - no knowledge required there... it merely means "I am unconvinced by the rather popular religious concept that some super magical being created the universe. Very improbable I say. I disbelieve it. So that makes me an atheist."

The God which is defined that actually defies evidence should not be defined either due to the lack of falsifiable evidence, but at least with this God an outright rejection is reasonable.

You can define anything you want. How could you ever say that something "should not be defined"?

I could say that there's this thing that exists called a Squgroar.... it is a ball of energy and can take many shapes. I have given a definition however vague. I mean that could be almost anything. But the more complexity and ridiculousness I add to the definition without evidence the more reasonable it is to disbelieve it.

And "a being created the universe" is ridiculous and complex enough already to be considered improbable enough to disbelieve. Since a most people define God as a deity, a supernatural being that created the universe, whether deistic or theistic - to disbelieve this improbability is to make me an atheist by the common definition.

EvF

[Knight]

Oh, you're an atheist.

When you define God as "creator of the universe" then yes. There is no way to get that definition though, which is what I meant by it should not be defined. I should have said "it cannot be defined," at least not in the same convention as everything else in the universe. God should not be an exception. Whether or not there is a creator is irrelevant since this attribute was derived from nothing but mere speculation, making it meaningless.

The easter bunny can't be disproved. Maybe we just haven't found him yet. Maybe this is all a dream and in fact in the real reality we're all bunnies that just love the Easter holidays! This cannot be disproved either. But it can be defined as can God be defined as some "being" that created "the universe" since we know that a being just means an entity of some kind whether human-like or not... the universe - well, we all know what that means its in the dictionary. And likewise to such a being "creating" the universe.

Well, certain aspects of the Easter Bunny can be disproved. For example, the discovery that parents hide the eggs, not the bunny, is a good illustration of how being more specific allows for a clearer, outright rejection. As I have said before, we need a system which sorts out belief from reality, and we must rely on falsifiable evidence. I'm not saying we should entertain all possibilities, I am saying the assumption that all possibilities are true (or reasonable) is absurd--the only possibilities that should be entertained are those we can verify.

[Edwardo Piet]

When you define God as "creator of the universe" then yes

Well since that's how God is usually defined (or at least very often) then that's the definition I'm talking about. And the one I disbelieve in. Hence why I'm an atheist.

Definitions are people-made by people writing them in dictionaries. You can define what you like. It's just usually common sense to go by the dictionary definition and not make up your own personal ones is all. Why must defining be limited to things that already have evidence of their existence? There are no rules that say you're not allowed to define something that you have merely speculated. Just because evidence hasn't been found for something doesn't mean you can't define it. The point is the thing you are defining lacks evidence so it's irrational to believe in it.

EvF