The God Theory

The perfect example is this threads theory, ´god´ is the susbtitute to an answer. It is the simplest route to its understanding. God is the ideal answer to everything, the unknown takes the form of god. Its not hard to see really. :confused:

That doesn’t make it wrong.

Thats like saying believing in God is ignorance and ignorance is not knowing; therefore Atheists are all knowing, only god is all knowing , therefore God is an Atheist because God doesn’'t need to believe in God because God is Ignorance… :-"

its a phrase not a logical absolute. but first maybe its best if I define god. God in this context means: any form of believe or religion which is not based on personal experience and is subjected to the scientific method of verification.

atheism is a believe so atheist are still ignorant. they believe in not believing.

Everyone is ignorant of something.

But to be curious, you must also know or at least sense something. Something must whet your appetite for ‘more’.

You need to rethink your equation.

Perhaps the atheist chooses not to ‘believe’ because sometimes a belief is so far-fetched. It might not be so much an unwillingness to accept the concept of a god, but an unwillingness to go along with the unbelievable beliefs that sometimes swirl and evolve as a result of that concept. The lenses get muddied because reality gets muddied and the possibility of a god fades more and more into the distance as the absurd is seen more and more. But the absurd still must be seen and examined in order to not lose the light of reality. Perhaps the atheist simply does not have the heart for that.

Or maybe you should tell me what ignorance means to you. sensing is not the same as knowing (at least by my definition).

the athiest chooses not to believe because it is more convinient for him to do that, so its his ´heart´ who is deciding, it is simply that his “heart” has another direction.

True, sensing is not the same as knowing. This is why I also used the phrase ‘or at least’. In order to be curious, one must at least ‘sense something’ and there is the knowledge of knowing that it does exist. That is knowing something. For example, a little boy sees a whale for the first time. He is in awe of it, senses its beauty and meaning to him (for me, real curiosity must hold those two characteristics) though he knows nothing of that whale. It is that which causes him to be so curious and want to learn about the whale, which eventually causes him to become a marine biologist. :laughing:

For me, the real definition of ignorance is not having studied and learned something. There are many people who have a great intelligence but they are ignorant of certain matters because they have not had the opportunity to learn.
The other connotation for ignorance may be in having learned a thing and yet still not knowing it, understanding it or living our lives according to it. But that to me is more in line with stupidity.

I wasn’t putting all atheists into the same category. I was only speaking of a particular kind there.
And there is your kind - the one who chooses not to believe because yes it is more convenient for him, more comfortable for him, not to - just as it is more convenient and comfortable for a particular type of ‘believer’ who chooses to believe without examining his beliefs and the validity or rationality of them. We all have our particular coccoons.

Perhaps for the atheist I was speaking of before, it has more to do with integrity and living in truth (heart) as he at least subjectively sees it, rather than getting sucked into what he sees as someone else’s silly dogma, doctrine and perspective, especially when he sees that that believer’s beliefs do not affect the world in any good way.

Well there you go to me ignorance is not knowing something. Which means that the less you know the more curious you will be and as such the greater need for “god” you will have. The bigger the ignorance at a social level you have the greater the need and thus believe in “god”. Ignorance =god since they are both directly proportional.

Therefore more convenient. Who said I am an athiest? I am a philosopher.

For myself, I wouldn’t use the term ‘convenience’ in reference to the atheist I described above. Do you really think that a person’s integrity has to do with convenience? Tell me something - when you personally are striving to maintain your integrity and live by a particular code, moral or otherwise, do you sense that as a convenience to yourself?

I’m not quite sure what you mean by the above - 'who said I am an atheist?..but if you are thinking that I thought you were an atheist, I wasn’t. This wasn’t about you - simply about atheists.

Unless your remark was meant to be facetious and to imply that as a philosopher, one could never believe in god…which is just plain silly…

As there is your kind implied, that my kind do it and thus i was a kind of atheist, but leaving that behind, define integrity before we even start discussing any further.

My definition of convenience- a reward that instigates a pleasure reward on the brain.

As there is your kind implied, that my kind do it and thus i was a kind of atheist, but leaving that behind, define integrity before we even start discussing any further.

My definition of convenience- a reward that instigates a pleasure reward on the brain.

Gah you win a prize for the most overused yet illogical argument. Hell even the definition wont go to belief town; belief in a thing with no proof is illogical, it’s logical to not countenance the existence of something you cannot prove, but that is not a belief per se. I’ve seen some great answers to this on various sites, I recommend you get out more. :slight_smile:

I aint an atheist but calling atheists believers is a terrible argument. Believers in what, lack of evidence? That’s just common or garden disbelief.

“Atheism: the lack of belief that deities exist.”

You can pervert that all you want but trying to make it a belief is torture on logic.

Believe in disbelief, what does that even mean. Semantically it makes little sense, it is a paradox. :unamused:

Are what you define as atheist open to the idea that deities exist?

Agnostic. I do sympathise with atheists though, when they are labelled with a belief system when all they are is those who don’t believe, through lack of conviction in the existence of deities. This creationist dogma that not believing makes you a believer is badly thought out. And although I too do not believe, I would and do get more hatred than atheists for not being as sure. It’s not atheism that is your biggest concern, or science or Satan, philosophy is where religion is ground up and subject to reason, your enemy isn’t Dawkins it’s Dennett et al.

At least philosophers aren’t arrogant about it…most of the time.