Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Acim]

Not if it's a God like the Biblical God. If that SOB comes down with chariots of fire and hordes of angels with trumpets, parting oceans and the like, there will be no doubt and no one will deny it.

Oh, I'd highly disagree that this wouldn't be met with denial by many that it is 'god.' I think it would very much be attempted to be understood as some sort of (physically) natural phenomenon. And if determined that it is not of this world, then likely determined it is of this universe with abilities that humans don't currently possess.

To me, it'd be like if any of us traveled back in time with any of the gadgets we carry today and/or awareness we have of current times. To people of long ago, we'd probably come across as gods, and supernatural in what we have with us. While to people of the future, we'd be primitive. One short step away from cave people.

Herein lies the difference in our opinions. Yes, I understand that the God/theist relationship is comparable to the parent/child relationship. I mean Christians call God "the father" after all. The idea that a God is looked on as a father or mother figure is understandable.

But a theist does not think their God and their parents are the same. There is a vast and robust difference between (take Christians for example) their parents who are merely other human beings with diminishing power over their lives that ends in the mid to late teen years, and Yahweh who is an all powerful deity with ultimate control over not only their daily lives but the fate of their eternal soul.

This is why we need different words for the two things, Gods and parents, and why I reject using the God label to describe a parent.

Some theists think what you are conveying. I am a theists that understands / knows human parents to be gods. Extensions of Creator God. With the only rational difference being that Creator God created the beings in human form and not the other way around. I get that an atheist actually holds the exact opposite assertion, that human beings are 'creator' of Creator God (as in making such a being up). A possible difference, though not exactly rational is that we as gods are not fully aware of our divine self. Yet, I find that very challenging to reconcile within reason, for it is possible that we all do know this at this very moment and that I may not be aware of that fact. Then again, I might be.

 

[Willamena]

I suppose it would depend on your religious or philosophical approach. I, being an atheist, view a deceased person's former beliefs in the past tense. Perhaps you would describe a deceased individual as possibly holding the same beliefs as when they died? In other words your view is that when a person dies they pass on to another existence?

In interest of full disclosure I should mention that held to a belief in life after death for about five years after becoming an atheist.

I am an atheist with no concept of thought persisting after death. "Theist" describes what that person is here and now--the condition of death wouldn't change that. Death is incidental to how that person gets de-scribed. I can describe them as a theist the same way as I would describe Michelangelo as a great artist. The English language doesn't require that we cast these descriptive terms past tense.

A problem arises when we try to pretend that thought and belief have an ontological, concrete reality. We strip the "observer" of his status of passivity in regards to the world and make them a part of the world (observer and observed). That is a paradox created by taking the terms we use to describe mental states literally ("have" a belief, "hold" a view). I've been reading about Gilbert Ryle, who wrote about this, and find much of it agreeable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Again, a plausible definition for gods is: having power over nature or human fortunes

Hah! You seek to kill God far more effectively than I ever could. So we're all polytheists then, living amongst innumerable Gods? Spanish flu is a God.

I understand that for some, who wish to note that they lack a belief, but also wish to note that they have beliefs of what god is supposed to be (for them and all people) that any simplistic definition, that may be found in all dictionaries, is not the definition they wish to go with in their 'lack' (really denial, but pay no attention to that).

Call whatever you like God, I could care less. I'm still an atheist. If your God concept diirectly impacts on me, I'll worry about it.

Worship = adoration and/or reverence for. So any human that has deep respect for gravity would be in essence worshipping it. Any human that ignores gravity, its effects, and perhaps loathing its existence or power, would be non-worshipping of gravity's power.

A false dichotomy. I neither loathe gravity, ignore it's effect, or have adoration/reverence for it.

What I think occurs is the atheistic type wishes to denounce its own reverence for things, deny it as reverence, and suggest it is something else entirely that shall not be described beyond denial for that would likely dance on the line of actual belief, if not outright express it.

Phht...everything you revere is God? Fine. Suggesting you have an understanding of 'atheistic types' goes beyond anything I would claim, and I'm an atheist. But whatever. If you want to claim I am lacking self reflection because I don't acknowledge gravity as a God, be my guest.

 

[Acim]

Hah! You seek to kill God far more effectively than I ever could. So we're all polytheists then, living amongst innumerable Gods? Spanish flu is a God.

Did you just answer your own question?

Call whatever you like God, I could care less. I'm still an atheist. If your God concept diirectly impacts on me, I'll worry about it.

How would you know if it impacts you if you maintain lack of belief?

A false dichotomy. I neither loathe gravity, ignore it's effect, or have adoration/reverence for it.

I'm thinking you have a sense of reverence for gravity, but up to you to decide. Except as pertaining to this discussion, I don't really care about your take on gravity. Wish to claim zero respect for gravity, that's fine.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Fine, but the initial question was surrounding what people call "God." If there is a culture/religion that adheres to ancestor worship, but they don't call their dead ancestors "God" than I wasn't such a sad sack ingnant Western Johnny-Wrongpants.

Let me ask a follow up question...these ancestor worshipers...do they also have an overriding "God?" So in these cultures/religions of which my lame Western brain is less than familiar with...are the dead ancestors the only watching-spirits? Or is there some other entity supposedly floating around out there?

Backing up one more step...do you have an example of such a culture/religion that I could read more about?

You could try traditional Papua New Guinean beliefs. I lived there and it was still hard to understand, but the locals would have assumed I was a straight up Christian, so weren't too forthcoming at times. Old traditions continue to the modern day, although the country is about 98% Christian.

Tagging in @Quintessence for visibility.

Each regions beliefs are different also. However ancestor worship was a thing. I didnt get the impression they saw ancestors as Gods, more as spirits who could still exert some sort of influence on things, if indirectly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Did you just answer your own question?

Perhaps, but if I did it's only with relation to your definition of God. Ebola is God. Everything with power over something is God. My boss is God. I am a God to my kids (at least for now). And God is effectively a word without meaning.

How would you know if it impacts you if you maintain lack of belief?

I dont know...indeed can't know...all theistic beliefs. The diversity of belief is huge. You also don't know the full diversity of belief. No one does.

A claim of atheism says nothing about what others believe, but rather is a statement of what I don't believe. I have no theism. I am an atheist. You can see the moon, gravity or corn chips as God, and it doesnt impact on that. What impacts on it is if I beieve one of those things to be God. I don't. Atheist.

I'm thinking you have a sense of reverence for gravity, but up to you to decide. Except as pertaining to this discussion, I don't really care about your take on gravity. Wish to claim zero respect for gravity, that's fine.

I don't. But you could replace 'gravity' with 'the sea', and replace 'reverence' for 'respect of its power' and I'd say I do, after a fashion. But I dont recognize the sea as a God. Some do. But I don't. I think it would be disrepectful to those who actually do hold God concepts for me to claim otherwise, apart from anything else.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are very reverential towards your God, but that does not seem to motivate you towards sparing Him from the burden of having to somehow have literal existence.
Kind of callous of you, I would think.

I couldn't get you exactly. Will you please elaborate your viewpoint.
Regards

 

[Marsh]

This always kills me. Anyone who could think atheists "hate" God either:

1) have no understanding whatsoever of what an atheist is; or
2) is a world class window-licker

LOL! We are on the same page Demonslayer, though to be honest I have no idea what a window-licker is; however, it is a very funny image.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's why it's a discussion.

The nature of God, and if God exists, it's been discussed in insurmountable volumes of philosophical literature. If you pick up a book in introduction to philosophy, it's almost guaranteed there will be at least one chapter about it. Most of the time even more. I have a couple books about philosophy, and some of them have multiple chapters regarding theism. It's most definitely in the realm of philosophy.

That sure is odd.

 

[LuisDantas]

The whole debate playing out with Pudding shows that the disbelief is not simple 'lacking belief.' It is asserting another interpretation (or really expectation) for what a god-belief must entail.

I overlooked that. Any posts you would like to recommend?

Like if someone told me that god is water, I'd have no problem stating that I'm agnostic of that belief, because of my expectation/understanding of what God entails. I wouldn't feign lack of belief as some sort of position when I get how they are making the connection, just that I have a personal disagreement with it currently. I don't see how they'd present evidence for the belief, since the belief is already based on the existence of water.

That is SO over-playing the subject matter...

 

[Marsh]

I see where you are coming from. But I wouldn't call those people religious, let alone deeply so. They are just prejudiced and superstitious.

Many of the people who have accused me of hating God, lying about not believing, or fooling myself about not believing, were prejudice and superstitious, but I think it was their deeply held religious beliefs that really contributed to them being that way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I couldn't get you exactly. Will you please elaborate your viewpoint.
Regards

I most certainly will. It may very well be to our mutual benefit, even.

You are very reverential towards your God,

A common trait among Muslims (naturally enough) is such a reverence towards the God described in the Quran.

but that does not seem to motivate you towards sparing Him from the burden of having to somehow have literal existence.
Kind of callous of you, I would think.

They way I see it, Gods are useful if dangerous tools (and not good fits for everyone). They provide a convenient name and perhaps an image to invoke when one feels the need to quickly reference a set of hopes, values and goals that are understood to be particularly significant.

However, what most likely began as an exercise on personification seems to have gone out of control at some point between Ibrahim and Muhammad. People began to rely on their God to justify their morality instead of the other way around, which would be the correct way of using the concepts.

Part of it is the insistence that a given religion is truth as opposed to daring, and that a given God is real as opposed to valued and inspirational.

It is always a bit funny for me to attempt to put myself on the shoes of those who adopt such a view. It is just so plain, so obviously wrong. I could not even pretend to believe in such a God, nor even approve of such a belief.

Gods are not to be "believed" in. They are not supposed to be "real". Their scriptures, if any, are not expected to be "eternal".

It is the religious effort that glorifies any deities a religion might have. The other way around... just can't possibly work.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many of the people who have accused me of hating God, lying about not believing, or fooling myself about not believing, were prejudice and superstitious, but I think it was their deeply held religious beliefs that really contributed to them being that way.

By a very generous understanding of religion, that is probably true.

I choose not to be quite that generous, though. I think that cheapens religion and lends prestige to abuse far beyond any reasonable criteria.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Lol, last bit was definitely funny...

Thank you for rereading your posts. Why is it that it that one describes there own form of atheism to include implicit atheism when implicit atheism is so substantively different? Seems silly, while you seem to recognize this (noting it adds nothing to your life), you nevertheless continue suggesting implicit atheism and all the equivocation that follows from it, is better than defining atheism without it. So, what is your reasoning for your personal definition including implicit atheism, when it adds nothing but does cause equivocation?

 

[Ouroboros]

That sure is odd.

Not at all.

Philosophy and theology ties together quite a bit through history, even in the ancient Greece.

An example of theism in philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

 

[Curious George]

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

How do you comment?

~~~

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men."

Carl Sagan

I think this explains such a phenomenon.

How do you respond?

 

[Marsh]

I am an atheist with no concept of thought persisting after death. "Theist" describes what that person is here and now--the condition of death wouldn't change that. Death is incidental to how that person gets de-scribed. I can describe them as a theist the same way as I would describe Michelangelo as a great artist. The English language doesn't require that we cast these descriptive terms past tense.

Michelangelo was a great artist and Gilbert Ryle was a great Oxford lecturer, but they are not these things now. You clearly have thought about this more than I have and I see our difference as being strictly one of philosophical approach. I think we agree on the big picture.

A problem arises when we try to pretend that thought and belief have an ontological, concrete reality. We strip the "observer" of his status of passivity in regards to the world and make them a part of the world (observer and observed). That is a paradox created by taking the terms we use to describe mental states literally ("have" a belief, "hold" a view). I've been reading about Gilbert Ryle, who wrote about this, and find much of it agreeable.

Philosophy is not one of my strengths and I am not following your train of thought. I've read that Ryle was a big promoter of the ordinary language philosophy movement. Was that, as it sounds, a movement to simplify the language of philosophy to made it more mutually intelligible? Perhaps you might find a simpler way to express your meaning? Only, however, if you feel so inclined.

 

[Marsh]

By a very generous understanding of religion, that is probably true.

I choose not to be quite that generous, though. I think that cheapens religion and lends prestige to abuse far beyond any reasonable criteria.

It cheapens religion to acknowledge that people feel very deeply about their beliefs? If I were religious I think I would be offended.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Lol, last bit was definitely funny...

Thank you for rereading your posts. Why is it that it that one describes there own form of atheism to include implicit atheism when implicit atheism is so substantively different? Seems silly, while you seem to recognize this (noting it adds nothing to your life), you nevertheless continue suggesting implicit atheism and all the equivocation that follows from it, is better than defining atheism without it. So, what is your reasoning for your personal definition including implicit atheism, when it adds nothing but does cause equivocation?

The only place I ever spare it a thought is here, and even then reluctantly.
It's something - implicit atheism I mean - which seems to fit. People tend to 'pick' religions very much based on culture and upbringing, at least initially. So to some degree we appear to be 'blank slates' religiously upon which the world around us places a belief system.

Completely tangental, but it fits with my understandings of language development. Whether we are predisposed to language/religion is one thing, but take any baby and drop them in a different land and they will take on the language (not just words but component sounds) andreligious beliefs around them.

However, whilst this appears to make sense, the constant semantics around atheist babies is useless, imho. Implicit atheism, or call it non-theism of the ignorant adds nothing to my considered position (right or wrong).

 

[Willamena]

Philosophy is not one of my strengths and I am not following your train of thought. I've read that Ryle was a big promoter of the ordinary language philosophy movement., as it sounds, a movement to simplify the language of philosophy to made it more mutually intelligible? Perhaps you might find a simpler way to express your meaning? Only, however, if you feel so inclined.

Ryle analyzed ordinary language, in the way a mechanic might get to know the parts of a motorcycle in order that the larger workable functionality be maintained at an optimum performance. It's about the philosophy of language, rather than the language of philosophy. What defines language's 'performance'? How do the 'parts' work? And how do we, its 'operator' and end user, fit in? That sort of thing. He imagined us as navigators, charting a course through "ways of saying" to get to what we need to express.

"Atheists" exist only meaningfully, their usefulness attributable to the classification 'part' of the human language motorcycle. Humans like to classify. My argument is against those who would treat the class incorrectly, either in form or in function. The presence of cognitive dissonance upon hearing infants or rocks referred to as 'atheists' occurs for some but is apparently absent for others. In reading Ryle, I hope to gain some insight into myself that could help formulate a better argument, since "logic" doesn't seem to be working. I've only just started on the book.