Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Nefelie]

The little apostrophe between the r and the a.

 

[Nefelie]

Story? It's the truth!

Oh, right! Sorry!

 

[Marsh]

Superstitions did serve a purpose among simple people for many centuries: prevention.

For example: shoes on the table = dirt/bacteria where you eat = illness.

Another example: passing under a ladder = someone is probably working on the ladder = a tool might fall on your head when passing = injury or even death.

And so on...

Doctors of the time found it much easier to blame fairies and goblins in order to protect people, than explain -i.e.- what is bacteria and why they can make you ill. And that is how superstitions started.

I agree completely with your comment on superstition, at least as far as you took it. There is another way superstitions gain traction, and it plays into religion as well.

I had in an earlier post explained to Louis that not frequently deeply conservative and religious people had presented me with the claim that I did not truly disbelieve in God, but that I was either lying, about not believing, or that I was fooling myself. Louis came back with the comment that these folk were not truly deeply religious, that they were merely deeply superstitious. I was defending their right to be called deeply religious.

By the way, you've started a very interesting thread. I am sure I am an atheist. Have you any doubt that I am what I claim?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yea, obviously because of your beliefs. You have a different way of defining logic. Logic is basically sense and reasoning. If you think the cause of the universe is unknown then that would be very illogical. You have no reasoning whilst i provide logic.

That is... sorry, but that is just entirely untrue.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't believe in God because I feel like it

there is far too much 'substance' moving on it's own volition
in various degrees and to various ability

I think a scheme to it all....is obvious

How would that NOT be feeling like it again?

 

[LuisDantas]

One of my aunts would go out her way to prevent a black cat from crossing her path, my mother-in-law would throw salt over her shoulder, and my wife's girlfriend reacted when I set newly purchased running shoes on the kitchen table (it didn't matter that they had never been worn, I was informed it was bad luck to place shoes on a table). All of these women were Christian, but I don't believe their superstitious natures had much to do with their religious beliefs. I don't see much of a connection between Christian faith and superstition.

Superstition is the inclination to accept the supernatural as a real thing. It predisposes people towards theism and to odd, often unhealthy perceptions of cause and effect.

 

[Desert Snake]

Amusing thread. I would agree that there are less atheists than are 'claimed' to be such, because of such caveats as presented as the nature of the definitions of the words involved. That being said, this is clearly /the thread idea/, using the 'usual' or in my opinion really the only definition of atheism, which is a statement of disbelief, /a position, as opposed to what is usually called agnosticism.

 

[Nefelie]

By the way, you've started a very interesting thread.

Thank you

I am sure I am an atheist. Have you any doubt that I am what I claim?

We did start a debate somewhere on page 2 or 3. I don’t know what happened and we stopped...

Anyway, I do believe you are an atheist, when talking about god with the popular western perspective of what is “god”. Under that definition, I’m also an atheist.

But, if we step away from that perspective, you are not an atheist. You just don’t know it. Hence the OP

.

 

[Thief]

How would that NOT be feeling like it again?

look around you and think......about all that you see

set your feelings aside....

cause and effect in play

denial is pointless

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree completely with your comment on superstition, at least as far as you took it. There is another way superstitions gain traction, and it plays into religion as well.

I had in an earlier post explained to Louis that not frequently deeply conservative and religious people had presented me with the claim that I did not truly disbelieve in God, but that I was either lying, about not believing, or that I was fooling myself. Louis came back with the comment that these folk were not truly deeply religious, that they were merely deeply superstitious. I was defending their right to be called deeply religious.

Anyone can call himself or herself as religious as they please. Until and unless some agreement on what that should mean is attained, it will be at least somewhat arbitrary a call.

I don't think relying on belief is a worthy trait for a religion, so my definition does not value belief as such.

Others will of course disagree.

 

[LuisDantas]

look around you and think......about all that you see

set your feelings aside....

cause and effect in play

denial is pointless

I hope you realize that such a claim is worth exactly as much as anyone decides to lend to it in importance... and nothing more.

 

[`mud]

How do they keep the ping pong paddles in heaven ?
:answer tomorrow
~
'mud

 

[McBell]

logic is not fixed to the material world
and when discussing God.....that discussion would be about nonmaterial 'stuff'

Then it is with those theists trying to use said material stuff you rely need to be preaching to....

 

[McBell]

Says the Qur'an, it is proof. Science is science not religion.

Agreed, science is not religion.
However, neither is the Koran proof

 

[McBell]

Qur'an has no errors, Bible is tampered with and contains many errors just as the other scriptures you mentioned.

bold empty claims are not proof.

 

[McBell]

denial is pointless

I call bull ****.
You embrace denial of science the second it gets you to your god.

 

[Revoltingest]

logic is not fixed to the material world
and when discussing God.....that discussion would be about nonmaterial 'stuff'

I don't know what this means.....but OK.

 

[Acim]

So as a theist do you have a specific God you believe in? Or is it a more general idea of a God? If more general, wouldn't that be more like deism?

It's the Abrahamic God, but from gnostic perspective. I'm a strong theist.
My fundamental beliefs are similar to deism as I don't see Creator God intervening in this universe, and instead see this universe as 'created' by a demiurge that is extension of Creator God but essentially has made a fundamental error regarding the nature of actual existence. I may phrase or understand that error in different ways, but not 'vastly different.'

Are you someone who, and I'll paraphrase here, "simply sees order and complexity in the universe and feel that is evidence of a creator/intelligence?"

Pretty much all that I state about God/divinity is filtered through the idea that we are (or I am) God's Creation. While there are doctrines to support my take, I rarely mention these. I find it easy to discuss based on Reason. I wouldn't have moved from agnosticism to (strong) theist, were it not reasonable to do so. Seeing that I understand this universe to be made by demiurge and that we are God's Creation, I find it reasonable to understand that we are the demiurge in a splintered sort of way, that is still sustaining 'reality' of the physical universe and reinforcing fundamental error, unless we are forgiving/overlooking that error or related errors. I intellectually understand it as one error that appears in many (countless) different forms. As easy as that is to state (and even believe in), my experience and emotional side surely doesn't treat it routinely as one fundamental error, thus I am still learning, still coming to terms with that fundamental error.

I consider it obvious / self evident that we are evidence of intelligence (with creative abilities) within the universe. I honestly do see us as creators of this universe/existence that in reality is a magnificent illusion masking actual reality that is present in the same 'space' and 'time.' I think of 'us' as much bigger/greater than what perception will allow for.

For me, God is not over yonder, outside of the universe (somehow). Instead, I understand God as within us, not seeing the illusion, not making the fundamental error and not reinforcing it.
Heaven is not a place up there somewhere, it is here and now, but is not seen with the physical eyes.

This part though, I think I have an answer for. One thing that aggravates me as an atheist is when theists jump from their specific dogmatic idea of God to some much less specific idea of God, in an attempt to make the atheist look bullheaded or arrogant. It goes like this:

Theist: God created the universe in 7 days, and sent his only son Jesus to die for our sins!
Normal person: Nah, I don't believe in that, I actually don't believe in God
Theist: What, you don't think there could be anything more powerful than you out there?

For a theist to be correct, the whole story has to be true, or at least the vast majority of it. "Something powerful" existing in the universe is not the Christian God unless the Jesus bit is true, and we have souls, and this "powerful thing" is what created the universe and also sends our 'souls' to eternal paradise or damnation.

If it's anything but that...this "powerful thing we don't fully understand" then I'm still right as the atheist and the Christian would be wrong. This is why I find deism to be the only sensible religious position...because they basically say "I think God is some powerful force that we don't understand" and then they make no further claims about it. The more specifics you put around God, the less likely it is that you are right. Agree?

I feel like the only part I struggle with from the reasoned perspective is drawing distinction between Creator God and God's Creation. I've heard enough analogies that make sense, i.e. Creator God is like the sun and Creation is like a ray of sun. For me, it is vital to understand that there is no separation between God and Creation, but the distinction aspect appears to draw a line that seemingly amounts to a sense of separation. And faith in the physical world makes it appear like that separation is 'real.'

For me, God's Creation is God. And given the understanding I have for overcoming/correcting the error, specificity about God (Creation) is possible, if not practical at times.

If I were to focus only on Creator God and understanding of this, I would see it as unnecessary to be specific about God's Will (or force/power) as I don't see Creator God intervening in a direct, specific, localized way. I'm actually intentionally leaving out a significant aspect of this, but indirectly alluding to it by noting that as Creation, given the fundamental error, it is upon Us to work it out, but to work it out by understanding Who We Are. Rather than working it out by understanding the error and making up a solution based on how the error appears now, in a makeshift sort of way. Thus, there really is one problem, with One Solution. But I recognize the perception of it appearing like there are countless different problems occurring / having occurred and it might be plausible to consider a different solution for each different problem, but only once we 'really understand' what the problem is in its particular form. Such that the problem of human suffering would have a different way of solving than problem of say climate change. I actually see that as reinforcing the error (of fundamental separation from God / Divine Self).

I'll also just note that the original error, 'creation' of this universe, and all that jazz are interesting to me, but not really pertinent to fact that error is occurring today and solution is still the same. I don't see it helping a whole lot theologically to have keen awareness around that error nor how this world came to be from a long time ago. In my experience, once you get a taste of the solution and experience it, the idea of going backwards to go forwards holds very little appeal (for me).

 

[Marsh]

Anyone can call himself or herself as religious as they please. Until and unless some agreement on what that should mean is attained, it will be at least somewhat arbitrary a call.

I didn't realize the word "religion" was up for debate. I don't understand your difficulty. It's almost as if you have a different definition of what it means to be religious than does everyone else. I use the Oxford Dictionary of English definition: "religion, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion." How does your approach differ from this?

I have sometimes gotten the sense that some religious folk simply don't like being told that what they believe in is a religion. They surmise that they practice the truth; it's other people who have religions, and if the current definition fits them then they want to change it.

I don't think relying on belief is a worthy trait for a religion, so my definition does not value belief as such.

Others will of course disagree.

How can religion get rid of beliefs and still exist? Religion is all about relying on beliefs, is it not?

 

[Parsimony]

Perhaps if one defines atheism as "the lack of belief that anything which exists qualifies as a god" that would get around the broad range of interpretations of the god concept. Everyone has their own personal definition of what counts as a god, so if they don't think anything that exists fits their personal definition, that makes them at least an agnostic atheist.