Now that these topless/bottomless threads are over, it’s time to get back to what JC is all about: unrelenting religious banter.
So, what does the question mean to you? Why does it even matter to ask the question?
If you’re a theist and you assert ‘God is actual’, does it imply anything more to you? If you’re an atheist and you assert ‘God is not actual’, does it imply anything more to you? Since neither position can be proved in absolute universal terms, why even bother? Has the question itself lost its meaning?
I have only ever admitted publicly to weak atheism. I simply lack the belief in God. That’s what the a- prefix means. This position is perfectly defensible. I don’t have to prove anything. I’m not asserting that God does not exist. I’m not asserting anything; therefore, I have nothing to prove. I’m just rejecting a hokey theory. You assert that God exists, yet you fail to convince me, so I discard your idea. The burden of proof lies 100% with you. I can just sit back and enjoy the show. Nothing new so far. But…
Here’s a thought I just had. Once a person attains the position of weak atheism, then the whole question becomes – or should become – irrelevant. Why move on to stronger forms of atheism (“God does not / cannot exist”)? Why bother? It’s a moot point. For an atheist, the idea of God is only important because we live in a theistic world and we are the minority. But on a personal level, once you arrive at weak atheism, why bother to think about it any further? Why further analyze your own internal position on the matter? It’s different to think about the impact that religion has on society. That’s very real. Why does a weak atheist continue to ponder what should now be an irrelevant question? Why is there a single strong atheist in the world? We don’t have several different classifications of not believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Once you cross that line where you don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, you are immediately done with the subject.
I’ve always thought the above to be true. If you have a theory, the burden of proof is upon you. I, as a weak atheist, can simply reject your theory if you cannot prove it satisfactorily.
But if I said that I don’t believe in gravity – I reject the idea that gravity exists – wouldn’t I have to prove my position? The notion of gravity is well established and proven. The majority of the world believes in gravity. I, as a non-believer, must then back up my position. I must prove that gravity does not exist.
So… since the overwhelming majority of the world believes in God, must the atheist then defend his position? Is the atheist thus thrust in the untenable position of having to prove that something does not exist? I hope someone can tell me why this is not a valid line of thinking.
No, I’m saying that once you reach weak atheism, why think about it further? Don’t you have to pass through weak atheism in order to get to strong atheism? If so, then why didn’t the thought process stop at weak atheism? At that point, God does not exist. The notion of God should have become immediately irrelevant. Why continue to think about something irrelevant?
But why do you think anyone has to (universally) prove the existence of God? Could it be enough to just assume God’s actuality when doing theology, just like we assume that scientific physics models are actual physical mechanisms when we do physics?
So, then you’re saying that the concept of God is irrelevant in your life, right? Do you draw any meaning out of that irrelevance? Do you act or think certain ways because of that irrelevance, or is it possibly an unnecessary position of irrelevance?
I muss profess to the world my ignorance. I am a college dropout and I never took physics. I don’t regret dropping out; however, I often regret never sticking around long enough to take physics. I will remedy that someday.
To try to answer your question (and I find it strange how you’ve introduced the new and unusual phrase “when doing theology”), if God does not actually exist in any form, then you are studying something completely false and untrue. Do you study mythology as if it were true? When doing mythology, do you suspend the question of belief and assume that the world model is the mythological model?
I’m sure I haven’t latched on to exactly where you want to go with this thread…
God is relevant in my life, but only because of the predominance of religion in this world. God does not exist. But religion certainly does.
But putting aside the impact that religion has, God himself is irrelevant to my life. Just the same as the fictitious Easter Bunny is irrelevant to my life. He (the Easter Bunny) was once relevant. He brought chocolate and other goodies in a colorfully wrapped basket. Now he’s nothing. An irrelevant and forgotten falsehood.
Well the question itself has an indirect effect on my life just because I interact with those whom it does affect…I guess I could even go so far as to say it affects how I choose to act around those types of people, so as to stay on friendly terms. But as far as personal goals, decisions, etc., it is completely irrelevant. Not by conscious choice; just because I don’t think about it.
If I were to study mythology, I would do so to see how the people who wrote it thought and what truths they deem worthy of communication. Why do you assume mythology is completely false? Don’t Aesop’s Fables communicate certain moral truths?
For example, there are some theologians who consider themselves “transtheistic”–“neither theistic nor atheistic”. Doesn’t that mean they think the question is itself meaningless? I’m curious if anyone else feels that way.
If the question itself is not meaningless to you, then why? What is to be gained by saying “I lack belief in a God concept” or “I believe God is actual”?
Zeus and Apollo did not exist. Making sacrifices to non-existent gods does not make the crops grow better. You can study the society and the people who produced those ideas, along with the messages they wished to convey, but that’s totally different. The myths themselves are false, even though they may contain elements of true wisdom. They are stories about things that in truth, did not happen. The writings exist. The messages exist. The people who wrote them existed. But what they present as facts are false. In and of itself, who cares to memorize what Greek god did or said what? The point is that if you are studying mythology, you are really studying the people who wrote or believed in the mythology. The myths themselves are simply the vehicle. They may contain wisdom, which is quite real and true, but they are works of fiction (with possibly some real history thrown in). But one can choose to extract wisdom from any source (fictional novel, bathroom graffiti, etc).
This is how I would approach any study of theism. I may even suspend my disbelief in order to better put myself in the shoes of the people I’m studying. But it would be a study of the people who wrote the fiction. The content of the fiction is relevant to the study but not to my life in general. This is how this atheist – in the case of studying the Bible – differs from a believer.
Without an interest in the people who wrote the fiction (Bible or mythology) or an interest in the people whose lives are affected by the fiction, the study of the fiction itself is pointless. Read it for entertainment like any other fiction novel. Or study it to understand the people. But if you actually believe it, then that’s a “whole nother” thing.
The question, assuming the question is whether or not one thinks there is a God, is about what other people think. Since I think there is not one but the vast majority of the people around me think there is, it means a lot.
Mostly I don’t talk to people in person about my beliefs, because usually it is a turn-off for them, and no fun for me. Usually leaves them pitying me, which I don’t need, and telling me they’re going to pray for me, which they don’t need (though they think they do). I probably learned this defensive/non-committal approach from growing up in the Midwest where different beliefs are less-tolerated. At least certain different beliefs.
In America atheists are still generally considered some kind of evil being, without any scrap of morals or meaning to their lives. It’s disgusting. Example ignorant questions:
Then what do you believe in?
So what’s to stop you from going around murdernig people?
But that means you have no morals?
So why care about anything?
Then who do you think created the world?
Really? I mean, really? Okay, the first one is a fair question. But all the others reflect that the person never gave more than a moment’s thought to what an atheist (or possibly an agnostic) thinks. This is okay at the elementary, maybe middle-school level. Beyond that, it’s time people started thinking outside the box.
So why does it matter to ask the question (from Phlegm’s original post)? It doesn’t matter as much for me to ask it, but it matters to me to provide information when it gets asked. Because people still have so much to learn.
Yes:
That the strings normally attached are not actual either
That it’s okay for people to believe this
That (in my country) it’s not “wrong” to not be a believer
That I still have morals and values, and I got most of them from the same place the believers got theirs; from Mom, Dad, friends and life in the world (and from church, but I don’t want to complicate the discussion)
Yes but theology is never the topic when the question comes up for me. It’s always out in the real, physical world. Just as we can talk about science fiction and discuss Mr. Spock like he’s a real person, outside of a Star Trek or SF conversation we know he’s only a fictional character. God doesn’t get the same treatment.
I don’t think of the myths themselves as true or false. If you think they’re false, then you think the authors were lying and/or you are choosing to interpret them in a way that makes them false. IOW, if you think the authors were sincerely honest in their writing, then it’s your own fault for rendering mythology meaninglessly false. The point of reading mythology is to figure out how it is true to you.
What strings are those specifically, and do you live your life accordingly? Even assuming that it’s “okay” and “not wrong” to be an atheist, what does that even mean in terms of how you live? After all, that’s what I’m asking about. Are there concepts you link with the non-existence of God that you live by? For example, would you say love doesn’t really exist and live accordingly? Might you say there is no actual prevailing order and live accordingly? (I’m just guessing. Feel free to fill in your own concepts.)
I think that you still have morals and values is really irrelevant to answering my question. I’m sure there are lots of ideas that are meaningful to you regardless of how you answer the question. I’m looking for the ideas that are important to you and rely on or are connected to your lack of belief in God. If there aren’t any such ideas, then what difference does affirming your lack of belief even make?
