Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[Zakuska]

3. " 'Immaterial' means implies that God doesn't exist."

....I am astonished that someone can make this claim seriously. Tons of things don't have matter. Examples include concepts (which, btw, contradicts saying God is merely a concept), energy, force, mass, universals, logic, mathematics, etc.

Bolded are all properties of Matter. All of the others exist merely in the mind of those who hold the concepts. The very definition of an Abstraction.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

If it were the case (which it is not) that I were worshiping something that is actually nothing, then I would be worshiping nothing.

Ok, so you have to PRESUME that something "immaterial" can actually exist. BUT you can't show that it does exist, NOR can you show, exegetically that the Bible says that it exists, so you are left with ONLY your PRESUMPTION. Got it.

So, in short, all you can do is ASSERT that you don't worship nothing and DISMISS, without basis, any accusation of it. Got it.

However, that would still not be atheism, because atheism is the belief that there is no God, not the worship of something that happens not to exist.

So here you are defeating your own claim of being called an Atheist.

Thanks.

For example, Shiva does not exist, but Hindus who worship Shiva are not atheists. If someone were to engage in the foolish worship of the Void, they would be worshiping nothing real, but they would not be atheists.

Again, defeating your own accusation.

"For example, Shiva immateriality does not exist, but Hindus trinitarians who worship Shiva an immaterial God are not atheists. If someone were to engage in the foolish worship of the Void something immaterial, they would be worshiping nothing real, but they would not be atheists."

Thanks again for defeating your own accusation.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Vance

[Ahab]

Ahab,

You wrote:

You've got to be KIDDING!

You can't seriously think I was claiming that their opinions were your opinions. That just isn't close to a plausible understanding of what I said. In fact, it's not even plausible as an innocent misunderstanding of what I said, particularly after I stated to you directly that I accepted the fact that you held a different view.

What in the world?!

You keep saying things like "Mormons believe [so and so]" based upon something written by a member of our Church.

Why do you do that if not to imply that their personal opinions are the personal opinions of every other "Mormon"?

I know you say that some "Mormons" have different views than some other "Mormons", but then you go on acting as if what some "Mormon" says applies to all other Mormons even after just acknowledging that not all Mormons have the same opinion.

It's really weird how you don't seem to connect your own logic to your own actions.

[elguanteloko]

All properties of Matter.

Which makes them, by definition, non-material which is the point. As I said, saying God is a concept and saying God doesn't exist are contradictory; it is either the one or the other, pick your choice. If God is only a concept all it takes for someone to be a Theist is to BELIEVE God exists outside of their heads, that's it. Therefore, Orthodox Christians can't be Atheists.

All of the others exist merely in the mind of those who hold the concepts. The very definition of an Abstraction.

Sure, but if I say "Zeus exist" I can't be called an atheist with regards to Zeus even if what I intend to refer to doesn't actually exist. After all, you don't need an actual God for you to believe in God and, therefore, you are not any less Theist if there isn't an actual God. In the same manner, Orthodox Christians aren't any less Theist than Mormons if it turns out that the Mormon God exists while the God of Orthodox Christianity doesn't.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

You keep saying things like "Mormons believe [so and so]" based upon something written by a member of our Church.

CFR that I have done this even once on a point of doctrine that you personally reject. Give an exact quotation where I do this.

[elguanteloko]

So, in short, all you can do is ASSERT that you don't worship nothing and DISMISS, without basis, any accusation of it. Got it.

Which is enough to show that one isn't an atheist. If you simply believe that a God exists, whatever form this God takes, then you aren't an atheist. If he believes in a personal God whose nature isn't fully understood (and I can tell you the Mormon God's nature isn't understood either) then he isn't an Atheist.... I mean, how hard is this to get, Vance?

Edited September 23, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

....you people who keep on saying Orthodox Christians are Atheists might want to reflect on what a belief is, you know? It might help.

Edited September 23, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Zakuska]

Which makes them, by definition, non-material which is the point. As I said, saying God is a concept and saying God doesn't exist are contradictory; it is either the one or the other, pick your choice. If God is only a concept all it takes for someone to be a Theist is to BELIEVE God exists outside of their heads, that's it. Therefore, Orthodox Christians can't be Atheists.

Non-material things do not exist in any tangible way and therefore rely on something else for their existance, so then God can't exist outside of someones head and therefore is locked into being an abstraction.

[elguanteloko]

Non-material things do not exist in any tangible way

We wouldn't expect something else, would we?

and therefore rely on something else for their existance

Something else than what?

so then God can't exist outside of someones head and therefore is locked into being an abstraction.

Brother, you need to sharpen that logic. The properties of matter are as real as matter itself but they must be conceptualized to be understood (everything must be conceptualized to be understood). From nothing in this can you conclude that, therefore, God is only an abstraction or that the properties of matter are only concepts with nothing corresponding to them in reality.

Once again, Zak, even if one grants everything you have been saying about God being only a concept (which is absurd, btw) that would never make Orthodox Christians Atheists anymore than believing in something you don't know to be false makes you a non-believer of that thing. To be an atheist you either have to not believe in God or believe there is no God. Believing in a false God does NOT and will never make you an atheist.

Edited September 23, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Zakuska]

We wouldn't expect something else, would we?

Exactly the point.

Something else than what?

A brain to visualize and see with if only in the minds eye.

Brother, you need to sharpen that logic. The properties of matter are as real as matter itself but they must be conceptualized to be understood (everything must be conceptualized to be understood). From nothing in this can you conclude that, therefore, God is only an abstraction or that the properties of matter are only concepts with nothing corresponding to them in reality.

Lets take this for example. In software development you make an Abtract class. but until you actualy instanciate an instance of the abstract class it is just an abstraction, an empty shell really.

Likewise, An engineer concepualizes and imagines a new car in his head. But the mere thought and being able to see the car in his own mind no more brings the car into existance than the man in the moon. The Engineer then draws the car on paper or in a computer. But still the car only exists on paper. It's not until the robots actually manufacture the car and instanciate an istance of the car that it is actually said to exist. Before that time everything is just fancy descriptors.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[elguanteloko]

Exactly the point.

from which it doesn't follow that this intangible thing doesn't exist. Concepts are not tangible either, do they not exist? Mormon priesthood powers don't seem tangible as matter is tangible, either. Is it, therefore, not existent? Is God's intelligence tangible? Etc.

A brain to visualize and see with if only in the minds eye.

I mean, how can you even believe this is a good inference from saying something isn't tangible? Once again: You can't show that something that is a concept in our minds can't exist outside of our minds by pointing out that we have the concept in our minds. We have the concept of ideas and they are not tangible, do they not exist?

Lets take this for example. In software development you make an Abtract class. but until you actualy instanciate an instance of the abstract class it is just an abstraction, an empty shell really.

Computer science isn't metaphysics, genius.

An engineer concepualizes and imagines a new car in his head. But the mere thought and being able to see the car in his own mind no more brings the car into existance than the man in the moon.

...which doesn't mean that car doesn't exist anywhere else than in his mind. Not that hard to understand, really.

It's not until the robots actually manufacture the car and instanciate an istance of the car that it is actually said to exist.

Is it possible that the car the person had in his mind existed already outside of his mind? If it is possible (not likely, not probable), then your reasoning is shown flawed.

BTW, you didn't respond to the following: "Once again, Zak, even if one grants everything you have been saying about God being only a concept (which is absurd, btw) that would never make Orthodox Christians Atheists anymore than believing in something you don't know to be false makes you a non-believer of that thing. To be an atheist you either have to not believe in God or believe there is no God. Believing in a false God does NOT and will never make you an atheist."

You at least get that, correct?

[Ahab]

CFR that I have done this even once on a point of doctrine that you personally reject. Give an exact quotation where I do this.

Okay. In the last paragraph of the OP in this thread you state:

The evidence surveyed here proves that Mormons throughout LDS Church history, beginning a year after Joseph Smith’s death, have repeatedly asserted that the orthodox Christian view of God as immaterial spirit is a form of atheism or tantamount to atheism. The Pratt brothers, Roberts, and Talmage made this a standard, even (through Talmage’s Articles of Faith) official, view of the LDS Church through at least most of the twentieth century.

You really should take care to state that those statements are from SOME "Mormons", rather than imply they represent the opinions/beliefs/perspective of ALL "Mormons"

And btw, I'm trying to not make an issue out of the fact that you continually refer to us as "Mormons", both collectively and individually, because I've become accustomed to that nickname, but maybe if you said "latter day saints" instead of using the word "Mormons", while making sure to distinguish between some of us and all of us, I wouldn't have such a problem with your generalized characterizations.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Okay. In the last paragraph of the OP in this thread you state:

The evidence surveyed here proves that Mormons throughout LDS Church history, beginning a year after Joseph Smith’s death, have repeatedly asserted that the orthodox Christian view of God as immaterial spirit is a form of atheism or tantamount to atheism. The Pratt brothers, Roberts, and Talmage made this a standard, even (through Talmage’s Articles of Faith) official, view of the LDS Church through at least most of the twentieth century.

You really should take care to state that those statements are from SOME "Mormons", rather than imply they represent the opinions/beliefs/perspective of ALL "Mormons"

Sorry, Ahab, but I'm not buying this as a serious misunderstanding of my meaning. I stated over and over again that I was giving examples of what some leading Mormons have said. I stated repeatedly that I was not claiming this was or is the view of all Mormons. And even without that context, no one would ever seriously imagine that the words "Mormons throughout LDS Church history" meant "every single Mormon who has ever lived."

You wrote:

And btw, I'm trying to not make an issue out of the fact that you continually refer to us as "Mormons", both collectively and individually, because I've become accustomed to that nickname, but maybe if you said "latter day saints" instead of using the word "Mormons", while making sure to distinguish between some of us and all of us, I wouldn't have such a problem with your generalized characterizations.

Totally irrelevant. Latter-day Saints commonly refer to themselves as Mormons (e.g., the "I'm a Mormon" campaign). The days of carping over the use of Mormon instead of Latter-day Saints are over. And again, I have repeatedly and emphatically stated explicitly that I have been referring all along to what some Mormons, not all Mormons, have said.

[Ahab]

....you people who keep on saying Orthodox Christians are Atheists might want to reflect on what a belief is, you know? It might help.

The issue here is "what" they believe in, and in this case they say they believe in a God who has no form or substance.

"What" the heck is that? Even a concept and statement of belief has some form and substance, even if it isn't true, yet they say their God has no form or substance at all, so "what" the heck are they talking about?

Can you even call something without form or substance a "what"?

If so, "what" the heck is it?

What does "it" or "he" or "she" look like?

What form or shape does it or he or she have?

What substance is there in it or him or her?

Are we going to continue to get nothing from them but no form or substance, as if "it" or "she" or "it" is nothing at all?

If "it" or "he" or "she" actually is something, go ahead and describe it; Tell us all about it. Otherwise I see nothing to talk about.

[Zakuska]

The issue here is "what" they believe in, and in this case they say they believe in a God who has no form or substance.

"What" the heck is that? Even a concept and statement of belief has some form and substance, even if it isn't true, yet they say their God has no form or substance at all, so "what" the heck are they talking about?

Can you even call something without form or substance a "what"?

If so, "what" the heck is it?

What does "it" or "he" or "she" look like?

What form or shape does it or he or she have?

What substance is there in it or him or her?

Are we going to continue to get nothing from them but no form or substance, as if "it" or "she" or "it" is nothing at all?

If "it" or "he" or "she" actually is something, go ahead and describe it; Tell us all about it. Otherwise I see nothing to talk about.

Well it is something... a void or a vaccume a black whole. really.

Which is why Christians championing the Big bang as God creating ex nihilo is so absurd because even the big bang is said to have started with a very dense point of something and not nothing.

[elguanteloko]

The issue here is "what" they believe in, and in this case they say they believe in a God who has no form or substance.

I'm only responding to the claim that OCs are atheists. Any Christian (even Mormons) can say they believe in God by faith although they don't understand him or the things of the spiritual so as to defend them using reason. The believer has the right to stop at any point and leave what doesn't make sense now to "We will understand later on" or "This is a statement of faith only".

If the claim is that OCs are atheists I really hope we can all see why this is simply absurd.

Whether God makes sense or not doesn't make anyone who believes in God a non-believer in God (atheist).

[Calm]

. It simply is not true that “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists"

This is my primary issue with Mr. Bowman's claim. There is enough ambiguity about what is "traditional" and what is "official" (at least in people's minds) that I am willing to grant that someone using such terms incorrectly can still be a sincere and openminded researcher(though to be rigidly. Insistent on the accuracy of those claims in the face of LDS denying that they understand it that way will quickly become problematic) but it seems to require a significantly different mindset to make a claim that something is "fairly common" in the face of a pretty much contrary group consensus of active LDS, among whom are many who have been active members for many decades and others who have stated they have never heard this claim before this incident. Myself, I would assume that a 'fairly common official' view would be found in the Gospel Principles manual, at very least in a current manual.

However I can see a fairly high polemic value in extrapolating from a half a dozen quotes (most needing significant interpretation to get any usefulness out of them) from out of a massive amount of published material over almost 200 years to claim a fairly common view that excludes other Christians from being theists. Beats any LDS's concern about being excluded from Christianity.

Edited September 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Sorry, Ahab, but I'm not buying this as a serious misunderstanding of my meaning. I stated over and over again that I was giving examples of what some leading Mormons have said. I stated repeatedly that I was not claiming this was or is the view of all Mormons. And even without that context, no one would ever seriously imagine that the words "Mormons throughout LDS Church history" meant "every single Mormon who has ever lived."

My point is that without clearly stating when you are talking about some "Mormons", or all "Mormons", you can lead others to believe you are talking about all of them/us when you are only talking about some, and vice versa.

In this case you think you clearly articulated that you were only talking about "some" Mormons opinions/beliefs/perspectives without referring to all of them, but isn't the whole point of the OP meant to clarify if only some Mormons believe something without it being the opinion/belief/perspective of ALL "Mormons".

Why do you even need to ask that question if you already understand the fact that no one individual "Mormon" speaks for ALL "Mormons". Even the President of the Church doesn't speak for ALL "Mormons", because some "Mormons" don't agree with what he says, either.

Totally irrelevant. Latter-day Saints commonly refer to themselves as Mormons (e.g., the "I'm a Mormon" campaign). The days of carping over the use of Mormon instead of Latter-day Saints are over. And again, I have repeatedly and emphatically stated explicitly that I have been referring all along to what some Mormons, not all Mormons, have said.

Correction: SOME Latter-day Saints commonly refer to themselves as Mormons. See how much difference that makes?

Without clarifiying when you're talking about some or all, your statement could be read to mean that ALL "Mormons" commonly refer to themselves as "Mormons", when in fact some of us don't.

Maybe I should put my foot down more often on this issue to let you know that I don't like it, and that I don't "commonly" refer to myself or other latter-day saints with that term, rather than just letting it slide.

[elguanteloko]

However I can see a high polemic value in extrapolating from a half a dozen quotes from out of a mssive amount of published material almost 200 years to claim a fairly common view that excludes other Christians from being theists. Beats any LDS's concern about being excluded from Christianity.

The belief you mention does NOT exclude other people who believe in the wrong God from being Theists. They believe in a God (even if they are wrong) and are, by definition, Theists. Unless they lack the belief in a God (which they obviously don't) or unless they deny all gods (which they, again, don't do), then they are not Atheists. Theism is a BELIEF, not how right or wrong you are about the object of your belief.

[Zakuska]

Theism is a BELIEF, not how right or wrong you are about the object of your belief.

But if the object of your belief is immaterial and non-existant its only an abstraction.

Believing in Santa Claus no more makes Santa Claus real than the man in the moon.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[elguanteloko]

But if the object of your belief is immaterial and non-existant its only an abstraction.

Bother to respond to my response to you on this one directly. Don't be afraid.

Believing in Satan Claus no more makes Satan Claus real than the man in the moon.

Sure, but the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist will not make you a non-believer in Santa Claus. Being wrong isn't a requirement for having a belief in Santa Claus. ... you do get this, right?

[Zakuska]

Bother to respond to my response to you on this one directly. Don't be afraid.

Sure, but the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist will not make you a non-believer in Santa Claus. Being wrong isn't a requirement for having a belief in Santa Claus. ... you do get this, right?

Athiest - beleiving God does not exist. (Correct?)

Rob and others - Beleving in a non-existant God.

A=B

Do you get that?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

You really should take care to state that those statements are from SOME "Mormons", rather than imply they represent the opinions/beliefs/perspective of ALL "Mormons"

Actually "a few" would be better.

[elguanteloko]

Athiest - beleiving God does not exist. (Correct?)

Rob and others - Beleving in a non-existant God.

A=B

Do you get that?

Oh, brother, those two are not the same thing! All that is required to be a Theist is that you believe in God. Whether you get the fact that God exists right or wrong doesn't take away the fact that you believe and are, therefore, a theist. If those two were the same then everything that is true of one will be true of the other one, but that isn't the case since to believe in God (Theism) you can't believe there is no God (Atheism); otherwise is a contradiction (you believe and don't believe in God in the same sense at the same time).

Please, Zak, read more carefully this time because it is astonishing that you don't get this.

[Ahab]

Athiest - beleiving God does not exist. (Correct?)

Rob and others - Beleving in a non-existant God.

A=B

Do you get that?

Come on, Zak. Portray their belief correctly if you're going to do it at all.

Athiest - believing God does not exist. (Correct?)

Rob and others - Beleving God doesn't have any form or substance.

A=B?

Answer: No.

Do you get that?