Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Taylor Seraphim]

Why?



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?



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

~~~

Already ate of that food.

But it was illogical to believe in metaphysics at the time that it was metaphysics, just like it is illogical to believe in god right now.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

You know what's funny? I know it's a serious academic pursuit but every single time I hear about quantum entanglement, I think of the video game Mass Effect 2, because it used two quantum entangled particles to send messages across vast distances of space. You change the state of one particle and it changes the state of the entangled particle, and doing this rapidly in sequence allowed you to send bits of data.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

I don't use the word "God" (which in proper case like that, specifically designates the one-god of the Bible) I use the word god(s). I use that term because it is the correct termsto use. Classical monotheism does not have a monopoly on the word "god" in spite of their repeated efforts to wipe out all other theological perspectives aside from their own.

The question that should be asked is not "why do I, as a polytheist, pantheist, and animist, use the word god to describe my gods" but "why do others continue to indulge classical monotheist hegemony and disrespectful ethnocentrism?" It drives me freaking nuts.

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

No, and I'm not sure that is what @Nefelie is suggesting. You should only call something your gods if you deify them. If you do not deify the air or your heart, you should not call them gods. It would be appreciated, however, that you respect that for others, those are their gods. But, I don't expect this. Many classical monotheists can't manage this either - they have their "one true god" and say all the things I worship are not "really" gods too. I'm used to it. I'm sick to $#@%ing death of it, but I'm used to it.

 

[Demonslayer]

No, and I'm not sure that is what @Nefelie is suggesting. You should only call something your gods if you deify them. If you do not deify the air or your heart, you should not call them gods.

So as a quick background, one of the very first posts I answered Nefelie's question about what I think of when I think of the word God and I said something like "a concrete being." The conversation then went to her asking why I didn't consider other things God, and eventually she asked me this question here:

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.>>

The idea was similar to what you're saying...shouldn't we accept any old thing is God as long as someone says it's "God to them?"

And to that I say, no, I will not start calling things like air, my heart, or my dog's tennis ball (which is of SUPREME importance to her, I can assure you) "God", simply because someone make a statement that something is of great importance to them. At that point my wife is God, my family is God, and the whole thing just gets stupid in my opinion.

Now I understand things like Pantheists believing that the universe is God. Fine, if someone makes a statement that "the universe is God to me" I'll recognize them as a Pantheist because it's a philosophy that is known and defined.

Otherwise silly nudniks can run around calling anything they want God, but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit or even have respect for the idea, because...as I said a few posts back...if everything is God, then nothing is God and all we've done is render the word useless.

 

[Deathbydefault]

How familiar are you with quantum physics?

Moderately.

 

[Quintessence]

The idea was similar to what you're saying...shouldn't we accept any old thing is God as long as someone says it's "God to them?"

Yeah, I was following the conversation. I'll let the OP speak for themselves, but I know that I am not saying that others should accept something is a god if they don't believe that word is appropriate to use. I'm quite against that, in fact, because that merely creates false gods for that person, which serves little to no purpose.

What I am saying is that when "I don't believe those are gods but respect that they are to you or your culture" becomes "those aren't gods" or "you're just playing word games" or "that's just semantics" or "you've rendered the word useless" and "you're only saying that for shock value", it's darned disrespectful, darned annoying, and something I see from people who identify as theist and atheist alike.

..as I said a few posts back...if everything is God, then nothing is God and all we've done is render the word useless.

By extension, a substance materialist who believes everything is material means that nothing is material we've rendered the word "material" useless.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

Actually you would have to simplify it. That, and I hear sarcasm

 

[Curious George]

Do you mean, is it possible to relegate "god" to such an esoteric definition that the term becomes meaningless thereby making another term, which has a meaning that is contingent on the meaning of god,also meaningless...

Yes I do believe it is possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Nefelie - It seems to me that it is self-defeating to attempt to deify such a vague notion like that.

Once one reminds himself or herself of why people use god-concepts in the first place, I don't think there is any point left to the exercise.

 

[Nefelie]

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 areyoudon't understand it, and neither dowe. Granted, I'll confess it's a peeve of mine when I see this invoked, so...

No need for deep knowledge of quantum physics or any physics. The very basics of them are more than enough to make a point in a theo-philosophical discussion

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.

I agree

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.

Why not?

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

In a conversation about deities, the practical part is really very limited. It has to be. Or else it’s strictly scientific conversation.

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."

Why not?

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

Hahaha...! I bet it is!

~~~TO ALL: SINCE NONE OF US REALLY LIKE THE WORD “GOD”, MAY WE PLEASE USE WORDS LIKE “DEITY” “SUPREME BEING” “ONE” “IT” “DIVINE” etc FROM NOW ON? Thank you ~~~

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

Do you believe in concepts such as: if I plant a seed it will grow, if I build a house I will be protected by weather and wild animals, if I fall I might hurt myself, etc.?

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

Good! I wasn’t expecting you too

If you wish, look up only the very basics of quantum physics.

Just a hint that might intrigue you: physicists say that “if quantum physics doesn’t shock you, you didn’t understand it”

Already ate of that food.
But it was illogical to believe in metaphysics at the time that it was metaphysics, just like it is illogical to believe in god right now.

You are right! It was illogical then, until someone said “I’d like to look into it a bit more” and he found a bunch of stuff that made it very much logical. Why should the divine be different?

You know what's funny? I know it's a serious academic pursuit but every single time I hear about quantum entanglement, I think of the video game Mass Effect 2, because it used two quantum entangled particles to send messages across vast distances of space. You change the state of one particle and it changes the state of the entangled particle, and doing this rapidly in sequence allowed you to send bits of data.

...Umm... Yes, that is correct, but I do not know how to respond to the part about the video game... hahaha...

Moderately.

That is enough

If you wish, look up only the very basics of quantum physics.

Just a hint that might intrigue you: physicists say that “if quantum physics doesn’t shock you, you didn’t understand it”

Actually you would have to simplify it. That, and I hear sarcasm

Not at all sarcastic. It’s a Zen teaching and it is supposed to be taken literally

Do you mean, is it possible to relegate "god" to such an esoteric definition that the term becomes meaningless thereby making another term, which has a meaning that is contingent on the meaning of god, also meaningless...Yes I do believe it is possible.

Yes, it is possible, but that is not what I mean

I mean that we should stop defining the divine the same way monotheism does. Because monotheism is only one of the many concepts and should not be considered as the “Truth” just because we were taught that way since we were babies.

@Nefelie - It seems to me that it is self-defeating to attempt to deify such a vague notion like that.

Like what?

Once one reminds himself or herself of why people use god-concepts in the first place, I don't think there is any point left to the exercise.

Which people?

Because every single one of us in the whole world has a different definition about the divine.

~~~

 

[LuisDantas]

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

That is abuse of the concept and can only lead to mystification and misguidance. Quantum Physics is no help there, as one would expect.

Edited to add: As a matter of fact, I would advise against using deity concepts at all, except perhaps if you accept the responsibility of having created them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I had to go look all those words up. I don't get it. If you are an atheist then you're going to be irreligious anyway, and you are only going to believe in the existence of a physical universe. Do you just like complicating things or am I missing something?

You're missing something.
It's possible to be a religious atheist, although I am not.
It's also possible to be less than certain about materialism.

However, it is obviously common to be irreligious and a materialist as an atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is your belief of God’s non-existence based entirely on how God is perceived by all Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Old religions etc),

No. Initially I would say that modern monotheistic religions and classicial pagan religions (particularly Greek, Roman and Norse) were my areas of interest, and therefore the items my non-belief was tested against (so to speak). However, my direct contact with various religious views has increased over the years, as has my exposure to various beliefs via the internet. I remain atheist at this time.

or,

it also covers the Pantheistic philosophies of the One, such as Tao, Zen, Pythagorians/Empedoclians, some Gnostic movements, etc?

I kinda touched on the answer already, but to extrapolate;
No atheist (indeed no person) is exposed to all belief systems. And to some extent, getting a clear understanding of certain beliefs take more than mere exposure anyway. My atheism, then, is merely a sign that I see no reason to believe in a greater force. 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.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The question that should be asked is not "why do I, as a polytheist, pantheist, and animist, use the word god to describe my gods" but "why do others continue to indulge classical monotheist hegemony and disrespectful ethnocentrism?" It drives me freaking nuts.

Feeling disrespected is on you, honestly. It may drive me nuts when people assume they know the meaning of a word but are using it incorrectly - but even that isn't what's happening here. I suggest you get over it.

 

[Quintessence]

Feeling disrespected is on you, honestly. It may drive me nuts when people assume they know the meaning of a word but are using it incorrectly - but even that isn't what's happening here. I suggest you get over it.

Wow. Victim blamer much? You realize this isn't merely an issue for me, personally, right? And that you're basically saying "hey, all you people who aren't classical monotheists, you should just shut the $#@% up and get over it whenever anyone disrespects your cultures and ways of life."

Really?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But this is neither here nor there with respect to the topic of the OP, so perhaps it is best to leave it at that.

Good idea.

 

[idav]

~~~
Just a friendly question to all Atheists:

Is your belief of God’s non-existence based entirely on how God is perceived by all Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Old religions etc),

or,

it also covers the Pantheistic philosophies of the One, such as Tao, Zen, Pythagorians/Empedoclians, some Gnostic movements, etc?

Thanks for your responces

~~~

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

For example Mike Kaku says the universe came about from some sort of universe factory. Forbid that we actually call a universe factory god. Something about the universe being the ultimate free lunch.

In my own words "oh you know, universes just bubble into existence at the point all physics breaks down" No biggy lol.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

 

[McBell]

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

I not only do not that the universe "came about"...
More importantly, I really do not care.
I say let people fight, argue, whine, complain, speculate, etc.
I for one am completely comfortable with answering "I do not know".

 

[idav]

I not only do not that the universe "came about"...
More importantly, I really do not care.
I say let people fight, argue, whine, complain, speculate, etc.
I for one am completely comfortable with answering "I do not know".

Certainly, however is an atheist saying "i don't know" or "anything but god"?