Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Do you believe in science?

I do not claim "science" to be a deity.
I do not claim "science" can or will have all the answers.
I do not claim the findings of "science" to be absolute.
I do not surround "science" with ritual or worship.
I do not turn to "science" to solve my everyday life problems.
I do not hold that "science" will one day resurrect those I loved and who have passed to alleviate me of that loss.
I do not hold that "science" will one day cure all disease, end death, or solve all of mankind's complex problems.

Yes, I "believe" in science; I have "faith" in science; but that "faith" and "belief" is based on tried and true proven methodologies from which the positive results of scientific research and development can be clearly demonstrated.

I have "faith" in my parents. I believe that they will not abandon me or turn their back on me. This is also based on their past behavior; because I have given them plentiful reasons to do so and they have not.

This kind of "faith"; "belief" based on objective evidence and repeated patterns of behavior; is certainly not the same thing as saying "I believe in and have faith in god".

 

[Nefelie]

Hmm. I'm looking at your latest response and wonder if you believe in Trolling?

I don’t get it…

Gods, fairies, ghosts, angels, & demons.

1) There is no such thing as “supernatural”. As there is nothing “metaphysical”. Everything is natural, everything is physical.

2) “god” remains undeffinible. If you choose to deffine it as something “supernatural”, then of course it doesn’t exist. But what if you don’t…?

3) How familiar are you with quantum physics?

Myself, I'm atheistic as a stone.
And I have come to conclude that deities exist to the extent that people decide to lend them existence.

That is so Zen of you

Their actual useful attributes do exist, but they do not include existence.

If their attributes exist, does it matter if they actually exist or not?

I don't agree, but that's a discussion for a different thread, perhaps. Polytheistic theologies tend to have far more in common with pantheism than they do classical monotheism.

I think that pantheism is more easily spotted in polytheism than in monotheism. But it is there, equaly.

And, yes, you are right: this should be a whole new thread

The concept that there are few or no genuine atheists, because atheists have not properly considered every possible notion of deity, is an interesting one. However, I think it is based on a misunderstanding of at least some forms of atheism. But c'est la vie.

Atheism = the absence ofbeliefin the existence ofdeities. (wiki’s definition)

If you disagree with this definition, please give me yours

I have considered all of the religions and beliefs I can find.
And unfortunately none of them can be proven.

Do you think that the natural laws of the universe can be proven?

Not in the slightest. Atheism is merely one logical conclusion of being a rational skeptic. No idea, concept, or description of any god(s) I've ever encountered has met even the barest criteria for evidenced existence - similar to ghosts, psychics, big foot, etc. I remain open to all possibilities, but require some type of empirical evidence of something's existence in order to reasonably believe that it actually exists.

^^^THIS^^^

To both of you: Do you think that the natural laws of the universe can be proven?

I think it's quite hard for Westerners to grasp that The Tao is not a deity.

That is so very true!

I am scratching my head now.
I am an atheist because I believe in no deities.
It has nothing to do with religion. I am religious. I have a religion.
How does your comment relate to my reply?

You previously said <<I am an atheist because I believe in no deities of any religion>>

Therefore you are not accepting the definition on what is a deity given by any of the known religions.

You might have or find another definition on what is a deity that is acceptable.

Might be a good idea for the OP to reveal what he means when using the word "atheist"...
Just saying.

Atheism = the absence of belief in the existence of deities. (wiki’s definition)

If you disagree with this definition, please give me yours

Unlike the gods, tao exists even if it doesn't exist. Zen I have no idea about, I don't think they consider gods much in their endeavors.
Since I'm very much a pantheist, I don't see conflict with it and non-belief in gods. Many polytheists are also pragmatists, equating natural or psychological phenomenon with gods.
Gnostics might have the right idea if gods or God existed. Though I'm as of yet unconvinced they are the type of theist that somehow feels closest to me.

Some Gnostic movements are very much pantheistic.

I think you and me have a lot to talk about

And he seems to have a specific personal definition of the word atheist that differs from those with whom he replies to.

Atheism = the absence of belief in the existence of deities. (wiki’s definition)

If you disagree with this definition, please give me yours

...And I’m a she

I also don't consider pantheistic gods to be gods.

No such thing as “pantheistic gods”

Are you familiar with pantheism?

Not really. I'm a substance monist who doesn't believe in any deities. I'm an atheistic physicalist. And I also don't identify with any religions. So I'm an irreligious atheistic physicalist if you want to get technical.

How familiar are you with quantum physics?

Yes, I am a non-religious person and an atheist. Mestimia and myself would like you to define atheist, if you would.

Atheism = the absence of belief in the existence of deities. (wiki’s definition)

If you disagree with this definition, please give me yours

You also say you are a theist. In my books that means you have some sort of supernatural element to your life. Do you mind me asking what it is?

At this point of the conversation, yes, I do mind... Sorry

The only thing I can say for now, is that I do not believe in anything “supernatural” as there is no such thing as something over, upper, under, after or what ever of nature. Everything is natural.

And, as Aristotle said: “metaphysics is only the physics we haven’t understood yet”.

The reason I don't believe in any god(s) is because I have yet to be presented with evidence that I find sufficient enough to prove such an existence is even possible.

How familiar are you with quantum physics?

That being said, I also hate the idea of of any type of super being that claims life as it's creation, and would make demands of me as though I were a pet.
If I do well I get a treat, but if I'm bad I'll have to sleep outside. Stupidity.

I agree!

Nothing makes me sceptical. You seem to be working on the basis that theistic beliefs are true by default and any doubt is the outlier.

Nope

I can't define what would convince me because there are all sorts of different claims but in general terms it's the same for as it is for anything else. In practice it's very casual but in strict technical terms it would require an internally consistent hypothesis, a strong set of supporting evidence and either no conflicting hypothesis (unlikely in this area) or evidence accounting for those conflicts.

How familiar are you with quantum physics?

~~~

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

@Nefelie

Yes they can be.

Give me a law and I will show you the backing.

 

[LuisDantas]

If their attributes exist, does it matter if they actually exist or not?

No, not really. It is still a mistake to lend too much weight to the idea that they "must" exist.

(...)
How familiar are you with quantum physics?

The question was not addressed to me, but ... why would that be of relevance here?

Physics is physics.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You previously said <<I am an atheist because I believe in no deities of any religion>>

Therefore you are not accepting the definition on what is a deity given by any of the known religions.

You might have or find another definition on what is a deity that is acceptable.

A deity is an entity or being from God (Abraham) to Ordin.

Those I do not believe in. What other definitions do you have than what is commonly defined as an deity?

Thoughts? Personification? Spirit? God/Person or thing you put higher than yourself?

Do you believe in deities? If so, how you define it? If not, how do you define it to where you disbelieve it?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How familiar are you with quantum physics?

As familiar as a laymen could be. Enough that I would not classify quantum mysticism as quantum physics, which often tries to piggyback onto the unknowns and limitations of our physical knowledge in a gods-of-gaps style argument. Or worse, just make vague and obfuscated references to quantum mechanics but be unable to put their concepts to the mathematics actual physisicts use.

 

[Acim]

And my beliefs are, basically:
1. There exists no self-aware/intelligent entity or entities responsible for any part of the creation, maintenance or administration of the universe.

Humans are not self aware / intelligent entities? Or are not at all responsible for their part of maintaining / administrating their place of the universe called earth?

2. To call anything that you admit is not self-aware or intelligent "God" is asinine, and means you're either looking for trouble, or looking to have more in common with or put your belief on more equal footing with other religions who have an entity-based God concept. You know what the term "God" brings to bear - and it isn't clever ("You can't say my God doesn't exist! My God IS the universe, so ha!") or amusing to use the term to describe things that are only going to confuse other people and generally make that label more nebulous.

Sure you can say these things. And yes you might get called out on it. Me, I'm going to be calling back on that and won't be mincing words or using feeble arguments. Good luck with your denials.

 

[Nefelie]

The question is why don't I consider things like Tao and Zen to be version of "God."
The answer is, I guess I don't know why but "God" has always meant an entity to me. A being of some sort, not a concept or an idea.

Therefore you discard certain definitions of “god”... But maybe not all.

As Sunstone already said, it is very difficult for the western mind to grasp the idea of a “god” that is not some sort of an entity. We are programmed this way.

Thankfully, today’s science can help us pass this problem.

If you have the time (and mood) read about quantum entanglement. It is a nice first step to see our world from a different angle.

The wider you spread the definition word God, or any word for that matter, the less meaning I feel it has. I understand what people mean when they say "anything can be a God" meaning things like if money becomes extremely important to someone you can say money is God to that person. But that's a symbolic, figurative idea comparing something that is obviously not "God" to a God due to the importance it has taken on in someone's life.

Yes, I understand the figurative idea you are describing.

But, try to find some more actual examples.

Such as: without air, I’ll die. Therefore air is “god” to me.>>

Or, a more “radical” one: <<without my heart, I’ll die. Therefore my heart is “god” to me.>>

There is a huge and very ancient philosophy that is adopted by many amazing people, which claims that <<every human being is a point from where the universe realizes itself>>.

How does that sound to you?

If everything is religion, nothing is religion. If everything is God, nothing is God. For practical purposes if someone asks me if I believe in God and I say no, and then they turn around and say "well money is God to some people, don't you believe in money?" I mean what purpose does that serve? Is it so when I say "of course I believe in money" they can turn around and say "AH HA, so you DO believe in God!" Is that meaningful? Is that really what you wanted to know when you asked if I believe in God? Whether I believe in money or a chair or a guitar or a form of meditiation?

Hahaha... good points, but no, this is not where I’m getting at

1. There exists no self-aware/intelligent entity or entities responsible for any part of the creation, maintenance or administration of the universe.

How about conscious?

("You can't say my God doesn't exist! My God IS the universe, so ha!")

It’s not as simple as that.
I wish it was!

Nope.
Um, nope.
Thank you for asking.

So, your belief of God’s non-existence is NOT based entirely on how God is perceived by all Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Old religions etc),
NOR it covers the Pantheistic philosophies of the One, such as Tao, Zen, Pythagorians/Empedoclians, some Gnostic movements, etc?

Is that what you are saying?

Then, what is it based on?

A fuller, frank explanation would likely run several pages and I'm just not into doing that at the moment. Count your lucky stars...

I really do appreciate the short version. Thank you!

I do not claim "science" to be a deity.
I do not claim "science" can or will have all the answers.
I do not claim the findings of "science" to be absolute.
I do not surround "science" with ritual or worship.
I do not turn to "science" to solve my everyday life problems.
I do not hold that "science" will one day resurrect those I loved and who have passed to alleviate me of that loss.
I do not hold that "science" will one day cure all disease, end death, or solve all of mankind's complex problems.

Good! So we agree on all of these points

Now, how about the natural laws of the universe. Do you believe in those?

Yes, I "believe" in science; I have "faith" in science; but that "faith" and "belief" is based on tried and true proven methodologies from which the positive results of scientific research and development can be clearly demonstrated.

How familiar are you with quantum physics?

This kind of "faith"; "belief" based on objective evidence and repeated patterns of behavior; is certainlynotthe same thing as saying "I believe in and have faith in god".

Do you have faith that the sun will come up every morning?

Yes they can be.
Give me a law and I will show you the backing.

Wonderful! We agree

Now you tell me how familiar are you with quantum physics?

~~~

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It’s not as simple as that.
I wish it was!

It's actually really simple in the case that whatever you're making guesses at doesn't actually exist. And even if what you call "God" does exist (i.e. it is "The Universe", or the laws of physics, etc.) then I, personally just won't respond to your use of the word "God" very well - I'm going to think something else entirely. If we were having a face-to-face conversation I'd probably even request that you stop using the word "God" and pick something else. How about "Fligbert"? "Goobenhausen"? "Schmeiswallop"? "Durangafang"? "Zibbidy Zibbidy Zoo"? Any of these work for you?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Therefore you discard certain definitions of “god”... But maybe not all.

As Sunstone already said, it is very difficult for the western mind to grasp the idea of a “god” that is not some sort of an entity. We are programmed this way.

Thankfully, today’s science can help us pass this problem.

If you have the time (and mood) read about quantum entanglement. It is a nice first step to see our world from a different angle.



Yes, I understand the figurative idea you are describing.

But, try to find some more actual examples.

Such as: without air, I’ll die. Therefore air is “god” to me.>>

Or, a more “radical” one: <<without my heart, I’ll die. Therefore my heart is “god” to me.>>

There is a huge and very ancient philosophy that is adopted by many amazing people, which claims that <<every human being is a point from where the universe realizes itself>>.

How does that sound to you?



Hahaha... good points, but no, this is not where I’m getting at



How about conscious?



It’s not as simple as that.
I wish it was!



So, your belief of God’s non-existence is NOT based entirely on how God is perceived by all Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Old religions etc),
NOR it covers the Pantheistic philosophies of the One, such as Tao, Zen, Pythagorians/Empedoclians, some Gnostic movements, etc?

Is that what you are saying?

Then, what is it based on?



I really do appreciate the short version. Thank you!



Good! So we agree on all of these points

Now, how about the natural laws of the universe. Do you believe in those?



How familiar are you with quantum physics?



Do you have faith that the sun will come up every morning?



Wonderful! We agree

Now you tell me how familiar are you with quantum physics?

~~~

I am familiar with it but I know where you are going and will stop you right there.

Quantum physics has not been fully explained by reason yet.

 

[Nefelie]

No, not really. It is still a mistake to lend too much weight to the idea that they "must" exist.

The “must exist” part is needed only to solve the logical problem that “if the attributes exist, where do they come from?”. Right?

The question was not addressed to me, but ... why would that be of relevance here?
Physics is physics.

Quantum physics shakes down Newtonian physics.

So no. Physics is not physics.

A deity is an entity or being from God (Abraham) to Ordin.
Those I do not believe in. What other definitions do you have than what is commonly defined as an deity?
Thoughts? Personification? Spirit? God/Person or thing you put higher than yourself?
Do you believe in deities? If so, how you define it? If not, how do you define it to where you disbelieve it?

<<You may believe in anything you choose. The One is not obligated in keeping a straight face>>

What are your thoughts on that?

As familiar as a laymen could be. Enough that I would not classify quantum mysticism as quantum physics, which often tries to piggyback onto the unknowns and limitations of our physical knowledge in a gods-of-gaps style argument. Or worse, just make vague and obfuscated references to quantum mechanics but be unable to put their concepts to the mathematics actual physisicts use.

You should also read about quantum entanglement. You might find it interesting

~~~

 

[Quintessence]

I am familiar with it but I know where you are going and will stop you right there.

Quantum physics has not been fully explained by reason yet.

More importantly, unless you've got a graduate degree in physics, @Nefelie , it may not a good idea to be invoking the "quantum physics!" argument. Odds are you don't understand it, and neither do we. Granted, I'll confess it's a peeve of mine when I see this invoked, so...

 

[Demonslayer]

Therefore you discard certain definitions of “god”... But maybe not all.

It's not necessarily that I discard certain ideas of God, I just don't agree with using the word God to refer to certain things because it's practically misleading and serves no purpose other than to cloud the issue.

If you have the time (and mood) read about quantum entanglement. It is a nice first step to see our world from a different angle.

OK I may do that, thanks for the tip.

Yes, I understand the figurative idea you are describing.

But, try to find some more actual examples.

Such as: without air, I’ll die. Therefore air is “god” to me.>>

Or, a more “radical” one: <<without my heart, I’ll die. Therefore my heart is “god” to me.>>

I just reject this kind of use of the word God. If someone asks me if I believe in God, I can't even start having the conversation honestly if 'air' and 'my heart' count as God.

It's all well and good from a romantic/poetic standpoint, but in a practical conversation I think it causes more harm than good.

There is a huge and very ancient philosophy that is adopted by many amazing people, which claims that <<every human being is a point from where the universe realizes itself>>.

How does that sound to you?

Confusing. You have to understand I'm not opposed to alternate philosophies. Your question to me was specifically about what I think of when I hear the word God. I'm sure if I read more about the philosophy you're describing it would be very interesting. It still wouldn't cause me to call every human being "God."

 

[Quintessence]

I can respect this sort of thing and wholeheartedly agree with it:

It's not necessarily that I discard certain ideas of God, I just don't agree with using the word God to refer to certain things...

But not this sort of thing:

....because it's practically misleading and serves no purpose other than to cloud the issue.

...

in a practical conversation I think it causes more harm than good.

Such words are, whether intentionally or not, a huge slap in the face for those of us whose theologies don't fit classical monotheist assumptions.

 

[LuisDantas]

The “must exist” part is needed only to solve the logical problem that “if the attributes exist, where do they come from?”. Right?

No. It is to warn people against relying too much on deity concepts.

Quantum physics shakes down Newtonian physics.

So no. Physics is not physics.

Sorry... I am not too friendly to the idea of decreeing that magic exists just like that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Humans are not self aware / intelligent entities? Or are not at all responsible for their part of maintaining / administrating their place of the universe called earth?

You know exactly what I meant. But you're one of those. People who like to argue semantics and throw out "gotcha!" statements left and right. Petty... but yes, humans are self-aware, and possess an amount of intelligence. And no - on a universal scale we humans administrate nothing, and I wouldn't dare call what we do on Earth "maintenance". The best we achieve is stewardship of anything - and we even suck at that - pretty hard.

Sure you can say these things. And yes you might get called out on it. Me, I'm going to be calling back on that and won't be mincing words or using feeble arguments. Good luck with your denials.

Denials of what exactly? What the hell does this string of nonsense even mean?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Such words are, whether intentionally or not, a huge slap in the face for those of us whose theologies don't fit classical monotheist assumptions.

But why? WHY use the word "God"? What use do you possibly have for it except "shock value"? Seriously, I want to know. Why not just make your own word and use it with pride?

 

[Demonslayer]

Such words are, whether intentionally or not, a huge slap in the face for those of us whose theologies don't fit classical monotheist assumptions.

So you agree that Nefelie's examples I should call air, and my heart, God?

 

[Nefelie]

It's actually really simple in the case that whatever you're making guesses at doesn't actually exist.

Why?

And even if what you call "God" does exist (i.e. it is "The Universe", or the laws of physics, etc.) then I, personally just won't respond to your use of the word "God" very well - I'm going to think something else entirely. If we were having a face-to-face conversation I'd probably even request that you stop using the word "God" and pick something else. How about "Fligbert"? "Goobenhausen"? "Schmeiswallop"? "Durangafang"? "Zibbidy Zibbidy Zoo"? Any of these work for you?

I sooooo much agree with you!
The word “god” carries so much “weight” that it’s almost impossible to think of it as something else than what it’s “tagged” with.
Personally, I prefer the terms “the One” or “Supreme Entity” or plain “It”... But even if you call it “Tallulah” I’ll be fine with it
But, maybe it will be confusing for everyone else in this convo?

I am familiar with it but I know where you are going and will stop you right there.
Quantum physics has not been fully explained by reason yet.

Yes. So has god

Not to mention that quantum physics was not even conceived a few decades back.

BUT, consider this: some of the things that are now in the field of quantum physics, it was then labelled as “metaphysics”...

Once again, Aristotle points out that <<metaphysics is the physics that we haven’t yet explained>>

Food for thought

~~~

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes. So has god

When you say God, you mean the tennis ball my dog plays with, right? Because that thing is SUPER important to her.