Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[LuisDantas]

Sadly, the category, the way it's being used here, would also deny that a person is theist simply because they've passed away.

The verb is "to acknowledge", not "to deny".

I take it that you are attempting to preserve the speculation that people might somehow hold beliefs or at least cognitive ability after having died?

Given the complete lack of evidence for such, that would be less than warranted.

 

[LuisDantas]

What I don't get is why atheist types can readily observe that babies have their creators (parents) watching over them, influencing their lives but then deny this would plausibly lead to outward observation that they are primary, perhaps only, examples we have of beings in a theistic type relationship.

Why do you think we do? It is plausible enough an idea, but of no obvious relevance to the matter at hand.

At what age do you think the idea of god develops, and how often?

Would be like saying that all wild animals that we observe in the wild are not wild animals because they don't have the belief that they are in the wild. Nor that they are animals. Therefore, both wild and animals are untrue about them. They would need to self identify as animals for it to be true about them.

This is nonsense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think this makes sense based on what I wrote.

A baby could, rather easily be pre-exposed to divinity during pre-birth. Therefore, the infantile conception would be grounds for non-atheism, even while intellectually that might not make personal sense to a self-identified explicit atheist. And because the baby can't express anything about anything, then projecting onto them that they are implicit (atheist) would be as warranted as projecting onto them that they are Christian.

Yet, us outside observers do observe they are being influenced by a being that is their (literal) creator(s).

So now babies aren't atheists because they're theists?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheists can either identify others as atheist or they can only really describe their own form of atheism. I suppose you could say that when a person is identifying others as atheist they are in effect just describing their own brand of atheism. But if this is so are all brands equal?

Hey mate,

Reread the two quotes of mine you used, and I can totally understand your point now.
But basically, I just got loose with my language. ALMOST invariably, when I'm talking about atheism, I am talking about explicit atheism. But I generally shorthand this to 'atheism'. The reason being, I have basically no interest in the concept of implicit atheism. It adds nothing to my life, nor does it seem to add to my philosophical understanding of same.

So to revisit and perhaps clarify the second quote (as follows);
I don't really see why atheists should be in charge of defining 'atheism', or indeed, which particular atheist would manage this even if atheists WERE in charge.
Atheists can only really describe their own form of atheism. In effect, what is it about them that causes them to self-identify as atheists.

I was basically picturing a dictionary, and in that dictionary is the word 'atheism'. I see no reason it needs to be an atheist who defines the meaning that sits against that word. Ultimately, they would be expressing a personal position about atheism, or at best an attempt at a more generic position. And that atheist would have exactly zero rights to speak for other atheists anyway. There is no dogmatic position, in the sense that the Catholic Church might establish, via the hierarchy and authority of the Church. Ultimately, an atheist...and here I am most definitely talking about explicit atheists, can only really describe their own form of atheism, or their own understanding of atheism. I am uncertain how one becomes the authoritative voice of atheism, and I hope I never find out.

Incidentally, if you ask an implicit atheist to describe their own form of atheism, the most common response is 'Huh?'...or maybe 'Googoo Gaga'. Ahem.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So now babies aren't atheists because they're theists?

Some religious folk seem to just LOVE babies, and hate atheists. So...ya know...simple...

 

[Nefelie]

~~~

@Nefelie - It is self-defeating to make a point of using a variety of deity concept as if it were some sort of explanation.

Why? Atheism does the same thing.

Quantum Physics is no help there, as one would expect.

Quantum physics proved to us that there are many things we do not know, many things we do not understand and many things that act very much differently of the way we know/expect them to.

Therefore, it proves that we should not exclude anything as possible.

So, it is much help to this discussion.

My atheism, then, is merely a sign that I see no reason to believe in a greater force.

There are many “greater forces” that are proven true. Such as the natural laws.

There are also more and more scientists who -based on more recent researches in the filed of quantum physics- begin to claim that there must be a creative intelligence or consciousness behind everything.

The problem is that when us simple humans hear the word “intelligence”, we directly go to some human form of it. Something that thinks and acts like us. That is so wrong. Not to mention that “intelligence” doesn’t necessarily mean emotions as well. Think about that.

Whilst I have no rational arguments against Deism or Panentheism (for example) nor do I have any particular reason to believe them true. I worship nothing, basically, nor follow any form of theism, hence...atheist.

I never said anything about worshiping. Worshiping needs an intelligence with emotions. I’m not claiming anything like that.

But, since there are no rational arguments against something and no rational arguments for it, then, IMO, the wise thing to do is to remain neutral about it. At least until more arguments arise, giving more information.

I can't imagine what an atheist thinks about how the universe came about without invoking some sort of creative aspect to existence.

I agree

There is no clear reason why people must assign metaphysical significance to existence.

As mentioned before “metaphysics is the physics we haven’t understood yet” (Aristotle).

Therefore, since there are many many things we still do not understand within the universe, then metaphysics is very much needed.

First of all, you want to believe in the divine right now. Which would be illogical.

No, I don’t. At least not by the way I think you mean it.

And if the divine wants to be believed it should show itself, which has not happened.

I think you are confusing belief with worship.

As for the believe and showing part, who says the divine is not showing it self all the time and every minute of the time? We are talking natural laws here... get it?

~~~

 

[Pudding]

What I don't get is why atheist types can readily observe that babies have their creators (parents) watching over them, influencing their lives but then deny this would plausibly lead to outward observation that they are primary, perhaps only, examples we have of beings in a theistic type relationship.

Would be like saying that all wild animals that we observe in the wild are not wild animals because they don't have the belief that they are in the wild. Nor that they are animals. Therefore, both wild and animals are untrue about them. They would need to self identify as animals for it to be true about them.

Babies don't have to self identify themself as baby before we can identify them as babies, just like wild animals don't have to self identify themself as wild animals before we can identify them as wild animals.

As long as our definition of baby and wild animals can reasonably describe the description that show by or fit into those things, then it's reasonable for us to call those somethings babies and another somethings wild animals.

Definition for baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
Definition for wild animals: living in a state of nature; not tamed or domesticated: a wild animal; wild geese.

You say it's like saying wild animals are not wild animals because they have no beliefs that they're wild animals and babies are not babies because they have no beliefs that they're babies, that is not the definition of baby and wild animals, while the basic definition of atheist is that they lack beliefs in the existence of God or any gods, so i fail to see how you would make that comparison from that vastly different definition of baby and wild animals to atheist.

As for why atheist types can readily observe that babies have their creators (visible parents) watching over them but cannot readily observe that babies have their creators (invisible gods) watching over them, that is because invisible gods are not observable unlike we can actually observe the existence of visible parents, plus atheist don't believe any god exists. Nor they think any evidence which imply any god exists which believe by any believer/religion, is convincing for them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

~~~



Why? Atheism does the same thing.



Quantum physics proved to us that there are many things we do not know, many things we do not understand and many things that act very much differently of the way we know/expect them to.

Therefore, it proves that we should not exclude anything as possible.

So, it is much help to this discussion.



There are many “greater forces” that are proven true. Such as the natural laws.

There are also more and more scientists who -based on more recent researches in the filed of quantum physics- begin to claim that there must be a creative intelligence or consciousness behind everything.

The problem is that when us simple humans hear the word “intelligence”, we directly go to some human form of it. Something that thinks and acts like us. That is so wrong. Not to mention that “intelligence” doesn’t necessarily mean emotions as well. Think about that.



I never said anything about worshiping. Worshiping needs an intelligence with emotions. I’m not claiming anything like that.

But, since there are no rational arguments against something and no rational arguments for it, then, IMO, the wise thing to do is to remain neutral about it. At least until more arguments arise, giving more information.



I agree



As mentioned before “metaphysics is the physics we haven’t understood yet” (Aristotle).

Therefore, since there are many many things we still do not understand within the universe, then metaphysics is very much needed.



No, I don’t. At least not by the way I think you mean it.



I think you are confusing belief with worship.

As for the believe and showing part, who says the divine is not showing it self all the time and every minute of the time? We are talking natural laws here... get it?

~~~

Yes.. 'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are many “greater forces” that are proven true. Such as the natural laws.

Which is fine. I have no need, though, to deify gravity. Some worship animals, and whilst an animal clearly does have a degree of consciousness and intelligence, I have no need to deify animals either. God concepts being what they are (as in as varied as they are) it is almost impossible to simply encompass them in a few words, and my attempt was 'greater forces'. Atheism isn't some replacement of a deity with man at the top of the food chain, so to speak. There are, of course, greater forces than man.
(edit - there may very well be some atheists who think man IS at the top of the food chain. That's the problem with atheism...it doesn't speak to what people believe, only really to what they don't. Suffice to say I'm not of that belief.)

There are also more and more scientists who -based on more recent researches in the filed of quantum physics- begin to claim that there must be a creative intelligence or consciousness behind everything.

Even assuming that is true, did you find those same scientists compelling when they were claiming there did not need to be a creative intelligence or consciousness behind everything? I suspect not. But if you have material of particular import, I'm happy to spend some time studying it.

There are many “greater forces” that are proven true. Such as the natural laws.

Which is fine. I have no need, though, to deify gravity. Some worship animals, and whilst an animal clearly does have a degree of consciousness and intelligence, I have no need to deify animals either. God concepts being what they are (as in as varied as they are) it is almost impossible to simply encompass them in a few words, and my attempt was 'greater forces'. Atheism isn't some replacement of a deity with man at the top of the food chain, so to speak. There are, of course, greater forces than man.
(edit - there may very well be some atheists who think man IS at the top of the food chain. That's the problem with atheism...it doesn't speak to what people believe, only really to what they don't. Suffice to say I'm not of that belief.)

The problem is that when us simple humans hear the word “intelligence”, we directly go to some human form of it. Something that thinks and acts like us. That is so wrong. Not to mention that “intelligence” doesn’t necessarily mean emotions as well. Think about that.

You probably shouldn't assume I haven't. It's also interesting when you refer to 'simple humans', you suggest 'we' directly jump to some human form of intelligence, despite you clearly not being part of the 'we' at all. Why do you assume I am?

I never said anything about worshiping. Worshiping needs an intelligence with emotions. I’m not claiming anything like that.

Some here would disagree that the object of worship requires intelligence at all, let alone intelligence with emotions. Again, though, I have no issue with panentheism, for example. It merely appears to be to be...well...glitter on the atheist turd, to be a little crass. I'm fine with the turd. I don't need the glitter.

But, since there are no rational arguments against something and no rational arguments for it, then, IMO, the wise thing to do is to remain neutral about it. At least until more arguments arise, giving more information.

Exactly!! That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.
Incidentally, I hope I didn't come off as grumpy here. Was just trying to give direct answers. I respect you articulating your thoughts and queries.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Quantum physics proved to us that there are many things we do not know, many things we do not understand and many things that act very much differently of the way we know/expect them to.

Therefore, it proves that we should not exclude anything as possible.

So, it is much help to this discussion.

The big problem with "God of the gaps" arguments is that the God living in a gap is necessarily not the God that any human being worships.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why? Atheism does the same thing.

I don't think so. It certainly does not make a point of giving an empty concept and betting everything on it turning out to be real somehow.

Maybe you can give me some example or elaboration of what you mean?

Quantum physics proved to us that there are many things we do not know, many things we do not understand and many things that act very much differently of the way we know/expect them to.

Uh, I think that came a whole lot sooner than that...

Therefore, it proves that we should not exclude anything as possible.

So, it is much help to this discussion.

Sorry, but that is just nonsense.

(...)
As mentioned before “metaphysics is the physics we haven’t understood yet” (Aristotle).

Therefore, since there are many many things we still do not understand within the universe, then metaphysics is very much needed.

Because...?

 

[Willamena]

What I don't get is why atheist types can readily observe that babies have their creators (parents) watching over them, influencing their lives but then deny this would plausibly lead to outward observation that they are primary, perhaps only, examples we have of beings in a theistic type relationship.

Would be like saying that all wild animals that we observe in the wild are not wild animals because they don't have the belief that they are in the wild. Nor that they are animals. Therefore, both wild and animals are untrue about them. They would need to self identify as animals for it to be true about them.

An infant child (human or animal) doesn't have the cognitive capacity to conceive of conceptual judgements. The only person for whom "parents" are its "creators" (both concepts) is the sufficiently informed observer (in the same way a person gets tagged "implicitly" atheist by some regardless of his own beliefs). The atheist who dismisses parents as creators might take this tack.

The child makes no judgements that would allow for significantly generalized 'things in the world'. For the child there is no "me" or "the world," there is only what is.

 

[Willamena]

This is just entirely wrong, preposterous even. It is only respectful and fair to take notice that there is no reason to assume a denial of god-belief in beings that have given no indication of any.

Is this supposed not to sound absurd?

It doesn't sound absurd, it sounds agnostic.

 

[Demonslayer]

Egads, another thread devolved into the "is a baby an atheist" argument?"

It's like every thread these days.

 

[Willamena]

The verb is "to acknowledge", not "to deny".

Not the verb I'm using.

I take it that you are attempting to preserve the speculation that people might somehow hold beliefs or at least cognitive ability after having died?

I've never taken such a tack in my life, I'm not about to start now.

Given the complete lack of evidence for such, that would be less than warranted.

Agreed.

 

[Nefelie]

I don't understand why so much fuss about atheists not knowing things that are hard to know or even to guess.

Because many atheists come out as the “know-it-all” type. Maybe they are not, but they seem to be. So, they provoke you to make a fuss about what they do not know

Attempting to explain anything as being the will of god is a statement of faith with no explanative power of its own.

Depends on the topic. For instance, let’s say that a strong wind blows, drifts a glass of water which falls down and breaks. Now, if you correlate “god” with natural laws, it is not wrong to say that “it was the will of god for the glass to brake”, since natural laws provoked it... It is of course very funny to say something like that, but it’s not wrong.

Maybe God wanted people to be capable of raising crops, but the techniques to do so are still a matter of science and empirical knowledge, not of faith. So, in which meaningful sense could "God" possibly be an explanation for existence? It is just "I have no idea" with theistic topping for flavor.

Where did this capability came from? Leave god (by the typical definition) out of it and try to explain it. Why is our intelligence so much different from anything else we know so far? Let’s assume that it is a given that there is no “almighty creator” as most religions claim. So, what happened?

Hint: I do NOT expect a “I have no idea” answer. I’m not interested in toppings either.

We can go round and round with concepts of oneness or any other abstract definition of god. But if you are not discussing an entity, with intelligence, that is immortal...you are not discussing a god.

<< The gods are immortal men and men are mortal gods >>. Aristotle said that.

How do you comment?

Does this mean we can no longer say babies are atheist since that is not "our atheism."

That a rock (or an infant) can't really understand either theism or atheism and therefore ought to be assumed atheistic.

Babies are pantheists. From the moment they are born till about their 3rd month, they can’t distinguish them selves from anything else. From their 3rd month till their 5th month, they perceive everything as their own extension. They also think that once they can’t see something, it doesn’t exist. It is on their 7th month that start to understand the difference between “me” and “everything else”.

Ask any child-psychologist about all this and s/he confirm it.

It used to be explained on Wikipedia that Non-theism was the umbrella term which included atheism, pantheism, and other non-theistic views. Atheism was a subset of non-theism. Now, atheism and non-theism have become a united term, and also, agnosticism is essentially atheism, while pantheism is more of "word play" and a form of atheism as well, and Buddhism is some kind of theism without God, or maybe it's an spiritual atheism, ... not sure. The classifications got a little bit more tricky.

I’ve visited Wikipedia the other day and noticed a bunch of “theism” terms that I had no idea existed! It freaked me out! O_O

Here are some of my concerns regarding the vague definition of "God(s)".
1) The atheist says, "I lack belief in God(s) whatever definition they might have."
2) The theist says, "My carved wood figure is God." (replace carved wood figure with banana, rock, universe, mystical supernatural magician, or whatever)
3) The atheist says, "I don't believe that's God. That's ridiculous."

And Zen says “there is no god until I say so”

Even assuming that is true, did you find those same scientists compelling when they were claiming there did not need to be a creative intelligence or consciousness behind everything? I suspect not. But if you have material of particular import, I'm happy to spend some time studying it.

Anyone that says (and can defend) anything against or for divinity, interests me.

As for material, allow me quote the father of quantum physics:

"I consider consciousness fundamental. I consider mater as consciousness’ factor. We can not go beyond consciousness. For anything we talk about, anything we perceive as true presupposes that there is consciousness” - Max Planck

Also, If you google “quantum physics and consciousness” you will get thousands of results, most of which are from scientists. Same goes for youtube.

You probably shouldn't assume I haven't. It's also interesting when you refer to 'simple humans', you suggest 'we' directly jump to some human form of intelligence, despite you clearly not being part of the 'we' at all. Why do you assume I am?

It’s just a figure of speech. I mean anyone that is not a scientist

Some here would disagree that the object of worship requires intelligence at all, let alone intelligence with emotions.

I’d love to hear the arguments they would use.

Again, though, I have no issue with panentheism, for example. It merely appears to be to be...well...glitter on the atheist turd, to be a little crass. I'm fine with the turd. I don't need the glitter.

There is no turd...

Exactly!! That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.

Why not just plain agnostic?

Incidentally, I hope I didn't come off as grumpy here. Was just trying to give direct answers. I respect you articulating your thoughts and queries.

No worries! I like your responces, even when I disagree with them

The big problem with "God of the gaps" arguments is that the God living in a gap is necessarily not the God that any human being worships.

True. What's your point?

~~~

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Egads, another thread devolved into the "is a baby an atheist" argument?"

It's like every thread these days.

*hands Demonslayer some popcorn*

Take a seat, mate. The merry-go-round is just warming up.

 

[Ouroboros]

I’ve visited Wikipedia the other day and noticed a bunch of “theism” terms that I had no idea existed! It freaked me out! O_O

Yup. There are so many kinds.

And Zen says “there is no god until I say so”

That's awesome. Like it!

 

[Acim]

It is just honest and respectful.

This is nonsense.

Is this supposed not to sound absurd?

Tis so.

 

[johnnie_]

Hi everyone..!
Τhis one's my first actual post, I use to read only but this thread’s title is quite catchy..English isn’t my native language so be gentle on this…

...Now, if you correlate “god” with natural laws, it is not wrong to say that “it was the will of god for the glass to brake”

So , I think that we can’t avoid the “bootloop” (I’ve read almost 12 pages) unless we set some criteria/characteristics for the G… thing…
We can’t find something that we don’t know how it looks like.

Example:

ME: “I want to know if there is a pencil in the room.. do you see any?”
FRIEND: “what’s a pencil? Plus I don’t like this word!”
ME: ”well ok..it’s like a small wooden stick, pointy on one side and with a rubber on the other. I think you can draw lines or write text with It..”
FRIEND: ”we can look for this… thing.”

(after a while)

Scenario 1

ME: ”we’ve searched everywhere, but didn’t find it..”
FRIEND: ” Ha, I knew there isn’t such thing”

Scenario 2

FRIEND: “I think I found something under the desk that matches your …thing”

ME: “Yes! Now let’s make some drawings and have fun!”

I think we really have to agree on some characteristics about this …Thing.

So, This One:

1) Must be eternal, never born or created

2) can be EVERYWHERE at the SAME TIME

3) can transform from one thing to another

4) Can’t be destroyed

This is the list I suggest, feel free to share your modifications/suggestions..

..