Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Acim]

So the only people who aren't Gods are those who haven't had kids?

Nope.

There are a buttload of Gods on this planet. If there are billions of Gods, who cares about Gods at all? Your definition of God makes the term mundane.

My definition?

Mundane is subjective.
Like saying if all people are free, or ought to be free, then freedom becomes mundane. Or if all people are sexual, sexuality becomes mundane however it appears for anyone.

 

[Willamena]

It says "belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence" and that covers my statement.

It defies your statement.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Not up for dissecting your wall of text this time as I have previously already spoke to / refuted those points which do deal with actual (primary definition) faith.

I never denied that i have (primary definition) faith. I never denied having (alternate definitions) faith. I deny having "faith" in that I deny accepting a given thing to be true with insufficient objective, empirical data to justify that belief. I keep hearing that I have "faith" the same as others have "faith" simply because of the underlying commonality of of things called "faith' of having a confidence that a given thing is true. Discussion revolving around this is further complicated by what justifies "suitable" or "good" evidence.To paint this with a broad brush, I see no "good evidence" that anything exists beyond the material; and you do. That leads to many more questions; but at its most basal, I think it would be fair to say that we have different criteria of what constitutes "good evidence". What you consider "good evidence", I will probably consider a "logic error" or "leap of faith".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I still see it as you actually stating, "I am sure I am an atheist and I have no RELIGIOUS faith."

Close. Very close. Close enough to be true; but in the case of "faith" and "religious faith", it is slightly broader. I consider holding belief in Bigfoot, Nessie, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. to be born of the same kind of "faith" as theistic beliefs; as all are based on, what I consider to be, "bad evidence and logic errors". So it is a little broader than "religious faith" but with a fine enough point on it that hopefully, you can better understand where I am coming from when I say, within current context, "I have no faith".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It defies your statement.

Part of the breakdown in the exchange of ideas is what each considers "reason" and "evidence"; or, to put a little finer (not ambiguous) point on it, "good reason" and "good evidence".

"Good reason" and "good evidence" was a source of a bit of confusion when I used those terms lat time, so please let me try to refine this a bit.

I used to be a believer. In fact, I used to be a Pentecostal. I believed I was speaking on tongues and I believed I was 'slain in the spirit". These mood altering experiences gave me "reason" to believe and certainly are "evidence" of .... well ... something ... which I attributed to God Almighty and the Workings of the Holy Spirit. However, after many life experiences and learning a lot about psychology and group dynamics, I have later concluded that these "mood altering experiences" were not "good evidence" for the Holy Spirit thus I had no "good reason" to believe that there was anything else at work other than dopamine and emotional/psychological manipulation. I hold that I have "good reason" to hold the latter part of this statement to be true based on known psychological principles. Later in life, I thought I was a pagan and once saw a vision (hallucination?) of Pan. This can be construed as "evidence" of Pan's existence and can be called "reason" to believe in Pan. However, a known psychological principles is that the mind is susceptible to hallucinations (more so than most want to believe) and that the human mind has a nasty tendency to manifest that which we desire. As a result, I felt I lacked "good evidence" and "good reason" to believe in Pan; let alone that I saw Pan.

What I consider "good reason" and "good evidence" is very elusive in the realms of religion and other fringe beliefs; as "good evidence" must be objectively verifiable, testable, measurable, repeatable, predictable and form predictive models of reality: and "objectively verifiable, testable, measurable, predictable" are aspects that fringe beliefs and religious beliefs are resistant or immune to. And without "good evidence" of a given thing being true, I see no "good reason" to hold that given thing as being true.

 

[Willamena]

...
And without "good evidence" of a given thing being true, I see no "good reason" to hold that given thing as being true.

As well you shouldn't.

But other people can have evidence, they can have good evidence, and they can have faith despite their good evidence.

 

[Nefelie]

I see no "good evidence" that anything exists beyond the material;

Could you be more specific? What exactly do you mean by “beyond the material”?

.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Could you be more specific? What exactly do you mean by “beyond the material”?

Okay, I will say it again as I feel I have already stated this more than once.

God, Spirit, Soul, Psychic Phenomena, Planes of existence (Heaven, Ellysium, Nirvana) for my "immortal soul" to exist after death; Life after Death; Bigfoot (even really cool ones named "Harry"); Nessie, Shape-shifting Reptilians masquerading as politicians; the Illuminati; Global conspiracies including (or especially) involving the cooperation of competing parties; Zeus, Odin, Demons, Angels (and their various other names meaning about the same thing); Poltergeists, Ghosts, Vampires, Zombies, Ghouls, Ogres (even those named "Shrek"); Bugs Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause; Magic, Merlin, Dopplegangers; cow-mutilating and crop-altering Aliens; Curses, Hexes, Charms, Talismans and Totems; Functioning Voodoo dolls; demon-possessed dolls named "Chucky" or demon-posessed cars named "Christine" or demon-possessed space ships named "Event Horizon"; Hidden messages in DaVinci's paintings; winged horses, talking snakes and donkeys, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and all of those other fantasies that people decided were reality and all those other claims that which one can not consistently demonstrate to me through objective, verifiable, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence are actually true; and when that is not possible (or over my head) at least explain to me what objective, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence supporting that said conclusion is actually true and having been subjected to a neutral (or hostile) 3rd party review process.

 

[Nefelie]

Okay, I will say it again as I feel I have already stated this more than once…

Thousands of years ago, people perceived thunder as divine punishment. It took them a while to observe the fact and finally understand that it’s just a weather phenomenon.

Until some centuries ago, all respected scientists believed that the earth is still and the sun orbits around it. When Galileo claimed otherwise, he was considered crazy (and I do not mean by the Church alone). Now we know very well and beyond doubt that he was right.

Until a few decades ago, sailors claimed to see blue flames on their sails and believed them to be a sign that Saint Elmo was protecting them. Of course, no one believed them and it was considered just another superstition. Until someone decided to look into it a bit more and found out that it was a very real natural phenomenon. It is now known and recognized as “Saint Elmos’ fire” .

Until just a few years ago, there was a very clear and solid concept on what is matter. Now, even that has changed and is no longer so clear. <<matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today.>>

…And these are only a very very few examples for how little we know about what’s going on in this world and universe.

So, you are actually -with all due respect- so arrogant to claim that humanity has already proven everything that could be proved and therefore everything else is just “hocus-pocus”?

Really…?

.

 

[`mud]

It seems to me that two different boats are being rowed here,
or......it could be me, I'm never, ever sure !
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

Thousands of years ago, people perceived thunder as divine punishment. It took them a while to observe the fact and finally understand that it’s just a weather phenomenon.

Until some centuries ago, all respected scientists believed that the earth is still and the sun orbits around it. When Galileo claimed otherwise, he was considered crazy (and I do not mean by the Church alone). Now we know very well and beyond doubt that he was right.

Until a few decades ago, sailors claimed to see blue flames on their sails and believed them to be a sign that Saint Elmo was protecting them. Of course, no one believed them and it was considered just another superstition. Until someone decided to look into it a bit more and found out that it was a very real natural phenomenon. It is now known and recognized as “Saint Elmos’ fire” .

Until just a few years ago, there was a very clear and solid concept on what is matter. Now, even that has changed and is no longer so clear. <<matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today.>>

…And these are only a very very few examples for how little we know about what’s going on in this world and universe.

So, you are actually -with all due respect- so arrogant to claim that humanity has already proven everything that could be proved and therefore everything else is just “hocus-pocus”?

Really…?

.

Not quite accurate, but despite it all, no evidence of something is just that: no evidence.

 

[Peter Stone]

Okay, I will say it again as I feel I have already stated this more than once.

God, Spirit, Soul, Psychic Phenomena, Planes of existence (Heaven, Ellysium, Nirvana) for my "immortal soul" to exist after death; Life after Death; Bigfoot (even really cool ones named "Harry"); Nessie, Shape-shifting Reptilians masquerading as politicians; the Illuminati; Global conspiracies including (or especially) involving the cooperation of competing parties; Zeus, Odin, Demons, Angels (and their various other names meaning about the same thing); Poltergeists, Ghosts, Vampires, Zombies, Ghouls, Ogres (even those named "Shrek"); Bugs Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause; Magic, Merlin, Dopplegangers; cow-mutilating and crop-altering Aliens; Curses, Hexes, Charms, Talismans and Totems; Functioning Voodoo dolls; demon-possessed dolls named "Chucky" or demon-posessed cars named "Christine" or demon-possessed space ships named "Event Horizon"; Hidden messages in DaVinci's paintings; winged horses, talking snakes and donkeys, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and all of those other fantasies that people decided were reality and all those other claims that which one can not consistently demonstrate to me through objective, verifiable, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence are actually true; and when that is not possible (or over my head) at least explain to me what objective, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence supporting that said conclusion is actually true and having been subjected to a neutral (or hostile) 3rd party review process.

Well for one religion is the opposite of self gratification. Which by every word you displayed is something to gratify you. You will find out one day when you put yourself before others because your moral compass is stuck on you. The problem with Athiesm is humility and putting others before them selves. Because you feel as if you are a god. This usually happens from misguided compassion as a child. So from my observation Athiest are spoiled narcissistic brats who only see life from a cushy perception. Usually afraid of pain and get on antidepressants and become hateful and ungrateful.

 

[Marsh]

The problem with Athiesm is humility and putting others before them selves. Because you feel as if you are a god. This usually happens from misguided compassion as a child. So from my observation Athiest are spoiled narcissistic brats who only see life from a cushy perception. Usually afraid of pain and get on antidepressants and become hateful and ungrateful.

You have much to learn friend.

 

[Willamena]

Well for one religion is the opposite of self gratification. Which by every word you displayed is something to gratify you. You will find out one day when you put yourself before others because your moral compass is stuck on you. The problem with Athiesm is humility and putting others before them selves. Because you feel as if you are a god. This usually happens from misguided compassion as a child. So from my observation Athiest are spoiled narcissistic brats who only see life from a cushy perception. Usually afraid of pain and get on antidepressants and become hateful and ungrateful.

How does misguided compassion lead to putting yourself before others?

 

[Peter Stone]

How does misguided compassion lead to putting yourself before others?

I just know this from observational experience.
lets just say I have 100 people in my family and the Athiests are in the spoiled Cushy side and the stats are everyone of one them that are raised in misguided compassion is Athiest 100% of the time.

 

[`mud]

Remember.......
his leaders wear robes !
he knows !
~
'mud

 

[Peter Stone]

Cause when you are at the mercy of something or someone and find out you are not a god you will cry out for something or someone believe me.

 

[Acim]

I never denied that i have (primary definition) faith. I never denied having (alternate definitions) faith. I deny having "faith" in that I deny accepting a given thing to be true with insufficient objective, empirical data to justify that belief. I keep hearing that I have "faith" the same as others have "faith" simply because of the underlying commonality of of things called "faith' of having a confidence that a given thing is true. Discussion revolving around this is further complicated by what justifies "suitable" or "good" evidence.To paint this with a broad brush, I see no "good evidence" that anything exists beyond the material; and you do. That leads to many more questions; but at its most basal, I think it would be fair to say that we have different criteria of what constitutes "good evidence". What you consider "good evidence", I will probably consider a "logic error" or "leap of faith".

So, I come back to existence of a physical universe. What is the good reason to believe it exists? Where is the objective evidence that it exists/is reality? I have repeatedly stated this conviction of it existing is based on primary faith. Not the religious version of faith, though the implications are staggering once realization that it is held in place by faith is understood. Me, I accept it on faith, but also realize that thought(s) in general, consciousness, observation, analysis, methodology, etc. are all conceptual before they are conceivably experiential and not found in the physical universe. Thus beyond the material. And arguably giving rise to the material, though is the ongoing debate that is being had.

If one has faith that there car will start today, first comes the faith that the car exists, is real. So, even if wanting to go with 'good reason' the car will start, first comes the faith that the car exists, is real. Hence, why I say it rests more on faith than on reason. Once anything is thought to exist, the reasoning will follow. It will likely be subjective / personal, though possible it could be shared in a way that is intersubjective, interpersonal, but not technically objective. Not only one way to understand/perceive a situation regardless of the objects perceived as present/existing. So, not 'the car will properly start, or it won't' as if that makes for objectivity. That makes for intersubjectivity (at best).

For some theists, God is intersubjective in the physical universe because a) God is perceived as Creator of the physical universe, and/or b) spirit of God is intrinsic in all aspects of the material that is the material universe, and/or c) God's being (or Spirit) is within particular people (i.e. prophets) and/or d) God's being is within all people. With at least a, b and d, there would not be a situation in the physical that could be subjectively noted (as observation) where God would not be held as present.

For the atheist, the notion that this is God and perhaps more specifically, Christian God, is not believable, therefore dismissed as sharing in that intersubjective understanding. Perhaps argued against forever and a day.

But if atheist (or anyone really) wishes to apply understanding, terminology, reality, fact to existence of physical universe, they are essentially up to same rationale. Relying on an under-explained intersubjective understanding. When the lack of good reason to believe in objectivity of material universe is brought to light, it is therefore easy to dismiss their worldview, as 'simply not believable' or misunderstood from another observer's perspective who simply has to utter, I lack belief, for their position to be wholly considered rationale and arguably righteous.

 

[Nefelie]

Not quite accurate, but despite it all, no evidence of something is just that: no evidence.

I’m not sure what wasn’t accurate, but I’m glad we agree:
no evidence is just that: no evidence. And therefore we should not exclude the possibility that at some point we might find evidence. Keeping an open mind never hurts, right?

.

 

[PackJason]