Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[LuisDantas]

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

I don't understand why so much fuss about atheists not knowing things that are hard to know or even to guess.

"Anything but God" is a funny thing to accuse us of saying, IMO. God is a non-explanation and often a non-answer, just a placeholder.

The flaw is in using that concept in place of an explanation, yet we are criticized for noticing that.

 

[idav]

I don't understand why so much fuss about atheists not knowing things that are hard to know or even to guess.

"Anything but God" is a funny thing to accuse us of saying, IMO. God is a non-explanation and often a non-answer, just a placeholder.

The flaw is in using that concept in place of an explanation, yet we are criticized for noticing that.

Similarly, I see "not god" as a placeholder for an existence that has some ultimate source. Since that is all being atheist is really saying right, "not god"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Similarly, I see "not god" as a placeholder for an existence that has some ultimate source. Since that is all being atheist is really saying right, "not god"?

Really?

That is a good example of how asymetrical the stances inherently are.

Attempting to explain anything as being the will of god is a statement of faith with no explanative power of its own.

Maybe God wanted people to be capable of raising crops, but the techniques to do so are still a matter of science and empirical knowledge, not of faith. Maybe God created the oceans, electromagnetism, chemistry and physics... but each and every one of those subject matters can only be learned of by actual research, observation, experimentation and scientific inquiry. Supernatural claims have consistently failed to show usefulness in understanding them.

So, in which meaningful sense could "God" possibly be an explanation for existence? It is just "I have no idea" with theistic topping for flavor.

You can hardly compare that with actual cosmologic research that takes measures, makes observations, formulates hypothesis and attempts to falsify them.

 

[idav]

So, in which meaningful sense could "God" possibly be an explanation for existence? It is just "I have no idea" with theistic topping for flavor.

You can hardly compare that with actual cosmologic research that takes measures, makes observations, formulates hypothesis and attempts to falsify them.

As I mentioned, I think its meaningful in the sense that there is an ultimate source for existence.

Aside from that if I ask someone, "Does god exist?" and they say no, it really isn't saying too much. Based on that answer is it an assumption that a follow up question like "then where did all this come from?" will be answered with something not having to do with god? Far be it for me to think that when someone says "god doesn't exist" that perhaps they know something I don't.

 

[McBell]

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

I suspect that there are those who say "I don't know" and those who say "anything but god" and even those who say "it may be god, but I do not know."

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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



I agree



Why not?



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



Why not?



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 ~~~



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.?



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”



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?



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



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”



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



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.



Like what?



Which people?

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

~~~

First of all, you want to believe in the divine right now. Which would be illogical.

And if the divine wants to be believed it should show itself, which has not happened.

And science is actually pointing away from a divine which is not what happened with metaphysics.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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?

I just wouldn't ever be caught crying over it - even if I was whatever you are - or whatever ANY of you ALL are - whoever the ALL pertains to. There is absolutely no reason.

 

[Curious George]

@Nefelie

This is the definition of god I use.

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

We can go round and round with concepts of oneness or any other abstract definition of god. But if you are not discussing an entity, with intelligence, that is immortal...you are not discussing a god. This has nothing to do with monotheism....this is how cultures use the word. If you are trying to describe something that is does not fit this description then you will not likely find consensus that you are speaking about the same thing. If you are trying to call "the one" or "supreme being" something that does not fit this definition of god, then you are trying to use such an abstract definition that meaning is lost.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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?

I thought more about this, and my original beef with the use of the word "god" was when it is used to refer to something that is not an actor on the grander scale - like something inanimate, or without intelligence or some form of consciousness. Is this how you even use it? If not, then you were apparently just looking for an argument (which is ridiculous), and if you DO use it to refer to non actors or inanimate objects then I would STILL contend that you are completely in the wrong. The accepted definition of "god" infers this idea of an "actor" - something acting in a way that affects the universe, or the area of its purview. You can say that you "deify" an object - but that still doesn't make it a god according to the classic definitions. So it is no wonder people are confused, or that you get yourself misunderstood, etc. And then you get angry about it. Poor "victim"... it must be so hard.

Personally, I am solid enough in my own beliefs that anyone ever saying anything - even if they were actually attempting to undermine my ideas (something you don't claim is even at issue in what peeves you) - wouldn't ruffle a single one of my feathers. In fact, I don't even have feathers to be ruffled. I feel that if you are sure enough in yourself on any topic, people can't shake you unless they are attempting to physically or politically suppress you. If you find yourself being razzed by people's words - ESPECIALLY IF THAT ISN'T EVEN THEIR INTENT - then you probably need to re-evalute something.

 

[Willamena]

I thought more about this, and my original beef with the use of the word "god" was when it is used to refer to something that is not an actor on the grander scale - like something inanimate, or without intelligence or some form of consciousness. Is this how you even use it? If not, then you were apparently just looking for an argument (which is ridiculous), and if you DO use it to refer to non actors or inanimate objects then I would STILL contend that you are completely in the wrong. The accepted definition of "god" infers this idea of an "actor" - something acting in a way that affects the universe, or the area of its purview. You can say that you "deify" an object - but that still doesn't make it a god according to the classic definitions. So it is no wonder people are confused, or that you get yourself misunderstood, etc. And then you get angry about it. Poor "victim"... it must be so hard.

Personally, I am solid enough in my own beliefs that anyone ever saying anything - even if they were actually attempting to undermine my ideas (something you don't claim is even at issue in what peeves you) - wouldn't ruffle a single one of my feathers. In fact, I don't even have feathers to be ruffled. I feel that if you are sure enough in yourself on any topic, people can't shake you unless they are attempting to physically or politically suppress you. If you find yourself being razzed by people's words - ESPECIALLY IF THAT ISN'T EVEN THEIR INTENT - then you probably need to re-evalute something.

Pantheism suggests something neither inanimate nor unintelligent.

Arguably, consciousness does too.

 

[Marsh]

You're missing something.
It's possible to be a religious atheist, although I am not.

Religious in what sense? I know Dawkins claims to feel somewhat spiritual when contemplating that natural world, and I have on occasion felt in awe of the night sky on a moonless night away from city lights, but I don't see either of these as religious experiences.

 

[Ouroboros]

I thought more about this, and my original beef with the use of the word "god" was when it is used to refer to something that is not an actor on the grander scale - like something inanimate, or without intelligence or some form of consciousness. Is this how you even use it? If not, then you were apparently just looking for an argument (which is ridiculous), and if you DO use it to refer to non actors or inanimate objects then I would STILL contend that you are completely in the wrong. The accepted definition of "god" infers this idea of an "actor" - something acting in a way that affects the universe, or the area of its purview. You can say that you "deify" an object - but that still doesn't make it a god according to the classic definitions. So it is no wonder people are confused, or that you get yourself misunderstood, etc. And then you get angry about it. Poor "victim"... it must be so hard.

Who defines the use and definition of God(s)? The theist who has the idea? Or other people who disagree?

The idea of what God(s) is/are is personal to everyone. And every theism has a different perspective and concept.

Atheists are (apparently) in charge of defining the word "atheism". But also, theists (of every kind) are each in charge of defining their theism and their view of what God(s) is/are.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Religious in what sense? I know Dawkins claims to feel somewhat spiritual when contemplating that natural world, and I have on occasion felt in awe of the night sky on a moonless night away from city lights, but I don't see either of these as religious experiences.

Religious as in truly religious. An honest to goodness structured religion which doesn't include a supernatural being.
To be clear, that's not me. I don't really 'get it' to be honest, but there are definitely people who live in that manner, be they Unitarians, or Buddhists of certain philosophical leanings, etc.

I'm not talking about a more vague form of materialist spirituality or awe.

There are examples of this on RF. Just to upset her, I'm gonna tag @Quintessence in as an atheist. She's not, so I'm being facetious, but she worships physical objects, near as I can understand.
But there are others here who do self identify as atheists, and yet hold religious views.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who defines the use and definition of God(s)? The theist who has the idea? Or other people who disagree?

The idea of what God(s) is/are is personal to everyone. And every theism has a different perspective and concept.

Atheists are (apparently) in charge of defining the word "atheism". But also, theists (of every kind) are each in charge of defining their theism and their view of what God(s) is/are.

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.
Obviously there will be some basic commonalities in this...the word does at least have some basic principles without which it becomes meaningless. But it kinda end there, I would have thought.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Apparently that's what some other discussions on the forum suggests. And, some atheists don't agree with other atheists about the "proper" definition, and it usually ends up with name calling and comments like "boohoo" or "derp" and other cute comments.

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.

It seems like the current dominant definition of atheism is that many atheists don't self-identify but rather just fall into the default group of lacking the belief in God(s). Meaning, they lack belief in God(s), therefore they're automatically atheists.

If (conditional statement) atheists consider that atheism should be defined by atheists, then theism as well as God(s) should be defined by theists. Regardless if you or I don't agree to the atheists definitions of themselves.

Obviously there will be some basic commonalities in this...the word does at least have some basic principles without which it becomes meaningless. But it kinda end there, I would have thought.

I do think there are basic principles to how the words are used, but language is evolving as well as convoluted. Theistic (or religious) words form its own language, just like science and math use words, even common words, in specific contexts with specific meanings. Each theist would form his/her own understanding of what he/she consider to be represented by God(s). It's been like that since the ancient Greek. The philosophers introduced individual thought in these areas.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If (conditional statement) atheists consider that atheism should be defined by atheists, then theism as well as God(s) should be defined by theists. Regardless if you or I don't agree to the atheists definitions of themselves.

Speaking as a (conditional statement) atheist , I take people's self identity at their word. Even if they define gods as something I don't agree with, I won't (for example) tell someone identifying as a (conditional statement) theist that 'because I don't think the universe meets the requirements of a god in common use, you are therefore an atheist.' Because that would be both disrespectful and rude, as well as kind of missing the point of what 'self identity' is. Just as surely as if a Christian told someone that their god isn't a real one, therefore they are an atheist, or if a pantheist told a monotheist that they have a mistaken view of god, therefore they're not allowed to identify as 'theist.'

Besides, I think it's pretty well established that neither atheists nor theists always agree with each other on what 'god(s)' are. So instead of assigning a sort of 'person in charge' of setting the definition for them, we should just talk to each other and try and figure out why someone might disagree with a more commonly held definition. Personally I like qualifiers and am not allergic to additional labels other than just 'atheist,' because it really is such a big huge umbrella term.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Apparently that's what some other discussions on the forum suggests. And, some atheists don't agree with other atheists about the "proper" definition, and it usually ends up with name calling and comments like "boohoo" or "derp" and other cute comments.

Some atheists are special little snowflakes. They worry about semantics, for some unknown reason. If I'm picking a group to belong to, atheism is a poor one, because it is more about not belonging to the theist 'group' than of any particular dogmatic commonality amongst atheists. Some people seem to miss the point, and want atheism to mean 'science' or 'rationality' (or 'devil-worshipper' or 'immoral' just as bizarrely...it's not just atheists who can be a little special in this sense!!).

It seems like the current dominant definition of atheism is that many atheists don't self-identify but rather just fall into the default group of lacking the belief in God(s). Meaning, they lack belief in God(s), therefore they're automatically atheists.

Implicit atheism, basically. I mean, the definition makes sense, in so far as those babies (for example) are not theists. But it's about as useless an argument as I've heard here, in my opinion.

If (conditional statement) atheists consider that atheism should be defined by atheists, then theism as well as God(s) should be defined by theists. Regardless if you or I don't agree to the atheists definitions of themselves.

I'm an atheist though. So if atheists are supposedly in charge of defining atheism, surely I can cast my vote in the 'ffs...get over yourselves. Atheism is just a shorthand description for a range of non-belief, and should promote rather than inhibit meaningful discussion'...right?

I do think there are basic principles to how the words are used, but language is evolving as well as convoluted. Theistic (or religious) words form its own language, just like science and math use words, even common words, in specific contexts with specific meanings. Each theist would form his/her own understanding of what he/she consider to be represented by God(s). It's been like that since the ancient Greek. The philosophers introduced individual thought in these areas.

I completely agree that language evolves, and is convoluted. It's why I get tired of semantic argument. Establishing a common term of reference with someone for a particular discussion is of course important. But trying to work out the 'right' meaning of a word is doomed to become an exercise in derailment.
Whilst not offering myself as an expert in linguistics, I used to lecture at undergraduate level in English language development, so I have at least some understanding of the movement of language. It is a tool of communication, and that doesn't require the 'right' definitions to be used, but rather agreed definitions between the communicating parties.

 

[Ouroboros]

Speaking as a (conditional statement) atheist , I take people's self identity at their word. Even if they define gods as something I don't agree with, I won't (for example) tell someone identifying as a (conditional statement) theist that 'because I don't think the universe meets the requirements of a god in common use, you are therefore an atheist.' Because that would be both disrespectful and rude, as well as kind of missing the point of what 'self identity' is. Just as surely as if a Christian told someone that their god isn't a real one, therefore they are an atheist, or if a pantheist told a monotheist that they have a mistaken view of god, therefore they're not allowed to identify as 'theist.'

That's not quite what I was talking about, but okay.

There are atheists who self-identify themselves as atheists (I used to, but gave it up for multiple reasons). But the idea of a default atheism that are assigned to people who are not self-identified because they just lack belief, is not the same as self-identifying. Self-identify is when... someone identify themselves as such. Default assignments of atheism is not a self-identification.

But that's neither here nor there, because if the proposition is that atheists decide the definition of atheism, so should theist have the right to define theism. It's just a matter of fairness. If theists can't define atheism, then atheists can't define theism. But on the other hand, if atheists have the right to define both theism and what God(s) is, then it should go both ways and theists can define atheism.

Besides, I think it's pretty well established that neither atheists nor theists always agree with each other on what 'god(s)' are. So instead of assigning a sort of 'person in charge' of setting the definition for them, we should just talk to each other and try and figure out why someone might disagree with a more commonly held definition. Personally I like qualifiers and am not allergic to additional labels other than just 'atheist,' because it really is such a big huge umbrella term.

It's not about putting a person in charge at all. It's a matter of... a theist says, "God is this" or "gods are this", and some atheists respond with "no, he's not!" Then the dialogue has broken down already, especially when phrases like "oh, that's just word play" are thrown around. It's not word play to the theist to define his/her own concept of what he/she thinks God(s) is/are.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's not quite what I was talking about, but okay.

There are atheists who self-identify themselves as atheists (I used to, but gave it up for multiple reasons). But the idea of a default atheism that are assigned to people who are not self-identified because they just lack belief, is not the same as self-identifying. Self-identify is when... someone identify themselves as such. Default assignments of atheism is not a self-identification.

But that's neither here nor there, because if the proposition is that atheists decide the definition of atheism, so should theist have the right to define theism. It's just a matter of fairness. If theists can't define atheism, then atheists can't define theism. But on the other hand, if atheists have the right to define both theism and what God(s) is, then it should go both ways and theists can define atheism.


It's not about putting a person in charge at all. It's a matter of... a theist says, "God is this" or "gods are this", and some atheists respond with "no, he's not!" Then the dialogue has broken down already, especially when phrases like "oh, that's just word play" are thrown around. It's not word play to the theist to define his/her own concept of what he/she thinks God(s) is/are.

Sorry if I misread. Today is my Friday and it's been an exhausting week!

If we're talking about default atheism in the 'babies are atheist' thread sense, then yeah, I call babies implicit atheism because that's how implicit atheism is defined (though if any baby self-identified as something else I would certainly go with what they identify. lol ) Similarly I would call a Christian a theist unless they told me that their Christian belief wasn't actually theistic (yes, Christian atheists exist) because Christianity is usually defined as a theistic belief.

I don't think anyone has the right to define, or at least any group. It's not like the definition of implicit atheism is made for and by atheists, it's used in theological and philosophical discussions at large.

If someone defines a god as including something purely physical I would just respond that I don't agree with that definition, or think that the definition of gods which include no supernatural elements to be equally breaking of dialogue, because it loses significance as a descriptive term, to me. However, I wouldn't say 'no, he's not!' Similarly I would hope that those who do believe in purely physical or materialistic god(s) wouldn't go to an atheist and say 'Well I believe this is god therefore you can't be an atheist and you must admit that my god exists.' We can approach each other and feel out the differences in our belief while simultaneously understanding that we're probably not going to agree on a joint definition of 'god(s).'

 

[Willamena]

It seems like the current dominant definition of atheism is that many atheists don't self-identify but rather just fall into the default group of lacking the belief in God(s). Meaning, they lack belief in God(s), therefore they're automatically atheists.

The apparent current dominant definition is otherwise known as the "popular" definition, i.e. for the present locale and demographic. Popularity doesn't define.

I do think there are basic principles to how the words are used, but language is evolving as well as convoluted. Theistic (or religious) words form its own language, just like science and math use words, even common words, in specific contexts with specific meanings. Each theist would form his/her own understanding of what he/she consider to be represented by God(s). It's been like that since the ancient Greek. The philosophers introduced individual thought in these areas.

One of the more significant theories of philosophy of language about how the words are used is founded in classical logic. Considering that logic is literally about how we, as a people, think, I doubt that the language will evolve beyond that, apart from how a few people on Internet debate forums want to use it. Poor logic will die out, in Darwinian fashion.