Is there anything inconsistent with the premise of no gods?

[Agondonter]

Metabolism would fit that definition, but I doubt that's what you or Thief mean. That's where the difficulty lies.

I mean exactly what the definition says, and "metabolism" does NOT fit that definition. "Metabolism" has to do with chemistry; i.e., "The organic processes (in a cell or organism) that are necessary for life." That's why there are two words instead of one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It depends on how you define your God(s). If you're a pantheist, polytheist, animist, etc. divinity is viewed as immanent in the Cosmos, the Cosmos itself is seen as divine in its own right. So you would see the actions of divinity all around you.

- "I guess Thor has been busy in Asgard. That would explain why nobody's seen him here on Earth."

Thunder and lightning are his manifestations (or manifestations of his actions), so you see him in action every time there's a storm.

"Thor also played a large role in the promotion of agriculture and fertility (something which has already been suggested by his blessing of the lands in which the first Icelanders settled). This was another extension of his role as a sky god, and one particularly associated with the rain that enables crops to grow. As the eleventh-century German historian Adam of Bremen notes, “Thor, they say, presides over the air, which governs the thunder and lightning, the winds and rains, fair weather and crops.”[7] His seldom-mentioned wife, Sif, is noted for her golden hair above all else, which is surely a symbol for fields of grain. Their marriage is therefore an instance of what historians of religion call a “hierogamy” (divine marriage), which, particularly among Indo-European peoples, generally takes place between a sky god and an earth goddess. The fruitfulness of the land and the concomitant prosperity of the people is a result of the sexual union of sky and earth."
http://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/the-aesir-gods-and-goddesses/thor/

- "Nun's realm is the cosmos. It wouldn't make sense for him to come to Earth."

Nun didn't tend to be viewed as a personal being:

"In ancient Egyptian mythology and religion, Nun was both a place or a state of being and a god who animated that place or state of being. Nun was the name the ancient Egyptians gave to the primordial waters of chaos that were all that existed prior to the creation of the cosmos. In most of the various ancient Egyptian accounts of how the cosmos came into being, Nun was “merely” a passive source of raw materials that the creator god – usually Ra, Atum, Amun, or Ptah – used to fashion the world.[1]
...
The conception of Nun as a passive location or state of being was more widespread than the conception of Nun as an active force; in an important sense, the latter was only an extension of the former. All bodies of water, including the Nile, were referred to as “Nun” at some point. Stillborn babies and those who failed the Judgment of the Dead were banished to this realm, and thus to effective nonexistence by being formless – having utterly lost any trace of their earlier identity and being “nothing” in the sense of being “no-particular-thing.” And yet, since all form and existence ultimately sprang from Nun, it was a place of infinite creative potential. The underworld was often equated with Nun as the formlessness through which even the righteous dead who passed the Judgment had to travel before being reborn, the same route that the sun god followed during the night.[5]"
http://egyptianmythology.org/gods-and-goddesses/nun/

- "God X was killed/banished/whatever by god Y. Of course we wouldn't expect to see God X wreaking miracles."

The deities of indigenous religions don't tend to care about "miracles". They're more concerned with overseeing the laws of reality, not breaking them for the sake of magic tricks. "Miracles" are basically an Abrahamic concept.

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks for having the patience to do that, @Saint Frankenstein. Sometimes, I just get so tired of folks interpreting non-Abrahamic religions and theologies through an Abrahamic lens that all I can muster is an exasperated sigh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean exactly what the definition says, and "metabolism" does NOT fit that definition. "Metabolism" has to do with chemistry; i.e., "The organic processes (in a cell or organism) that are necessary for life." That's why there are two words instead of one.

You said "animating force"; I gave you an animating force.

You're welcome to give it another try and come up with a definition that better reflects the concept you're trying to describe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thinking to a recent thread about God's inaction in the face of human suffering, I got to thinking: it isn't just that God doesn't seem to act in response to suffering; it's that God doesn't seem to act at all.

I've seen theists try to reconcile this with different justifications for why God might exist but be "hands-off", but all this ignores the fact that the inaction of God (or gods) can also be reconciled with a different premise: that no gods exist.

With this in mind, a challenge for theists: can you think of any reason why to reject this premise? Is there any compelling evidence or valid logical argument that is demonstrably true and is incompatible with the premise that no gods exist?

I put a lot of stock in experiences I have, the interpretations and associations I have with those and the spirits. As such, logically (objectively) the spirits (an to theist, god/s I assume) interact through our observations, associations, interpretations, and experiences in life. The quote on quote god/s exist "within" ourselves. That is how I see it.

If you mean an entity floating in the sky looking down on us and doing nothing, I dont believe that entity exist: one, because floating, angry, etc are human emotions so they reflect human thought of how they see the unknown and two, it sounds surreal. I know no theist that amorphosize god this way. They use language as if god is separate from us but the context is that "he" is not.

So, asking why god doesnt respond to suffering is asking why dont "we" respond to it. If according to more than one religion we are children of god, like jesus, We help with suffering with god working through Us. He is not an isolated being. Just in the sci fi movies.

 

[Agondonter]

You said "animating force"; I gave you an animating force.

You're welcome to give it another try and come up with a definition that better reflects the concept you're trying to describe.

You gave me an example of sophistry of the worst kind. "Sophistry" is a deliberately invalid argument or statement displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone and a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty. Your "challenge" is moot if you refuse to speak directly, without sophistry.

"Metabolism" has to do chemical (mechanical) processes; "spirit" is the actuating principle that also governs them. Deal with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for having the patience to do that, @Saint Frankenstein. Sometimes, I just get so tired of folks interpreting non-Abrahamic religions and theologies through an Abrahamic lens that all I can muster is an exasperated sigh.

Is that like the sigh I let out when people accuse me of looking at things "through an Abrahamic lens" just because I don't see things their way?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is that like the sigh I let out when people accuse me of looking at things "through an Abrahamic lens" just because I don't see things their way?

You may be. The Abrahamic worldview is still the foundation of current Western society, including of the sciences, even though we're moving away from the religious manifestation of it. The modern atheist movement is pretty much a reaction against Abrahamic religious concepts. Concepts outside of that are ignored, mostly because of ignorance of them. It's something you have to take a concerted effort in rooting out of yourself and moving beyond.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends on how you define your God(s). If you're a pantheist, polytheist, animist, etc. divinity is viewed as immanent in the Cosmos, the Cosmos itself is seen as divine in its own right. So you would see the actions of divinity all around you.

At the moment, I'm not a pantheist, polytheist, or animist. Am I making a mistake by not being one of these?

Thunder and lightning are his manifestations (or manifestations of his actions), so you see him in action every time there's a storm.

I see static electric charge in action when I see thunder and lightning. Are you going for some sort of "Thor of the gaps" thing here?

"Thor also played a large role in the promotion of agriculture and fertility (something which has already been suggested by his blessing of the lands in which the first Icelanders settled). This was another extension of his role as a sky god, and one particularly associated with the rain that enables crops to grow. As the eleventh-century German historian Adam of Bremen notes, “Thor, they say, presides over the air, which governs the thunder and lightning, the winds and rains, fair weather and crops.”[7] His seldom-mentioned wife, Sif, is noted for her golden hair above all else, which is surely a symbol for fields of grain. Their marriage is therefore an instance of what historians of religion call a “hierogamy” (divine marriage), which, particularly among Indo-European peoples, generally takes place between a sky god and an earth goddess. The fruitfulness of the land and the concomitant prosperity of the people is a result of the sexual union of sky and earth."
http://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/the-aesir-gods-and-goddesses/thor/

At the moment, I don't attribute crop fertility to Thor. Is there any fact out there that can't be reconciled with a Thor-less worldview?

Nun didn't tend to be viewed as a personal being:

"In ancient Egyptian mythology and religion, Nun was both a place or a state of being and a god who animated that place or state of being. Nun was the name the ancient Egyptians gave to the primordial waters of chaos that were all that existed prior to the creation of the cosmos. In most of the various ancient Egyptian accounts of how the cosmos came into being, Nun was “merely” a passive source of raw materials that the creator god – usually Ra, Atum, Amun, or Ptah – used to fashion the world.[1]
...
The conception of Nun as a passive location or state of being was more widespread than the conception of Nun as an active force; in an important sense, the latter was only an extension of the former. All bodies of water, including the Nile, were referred to as “Nun” at some point. Stillborn babies and those who failed the Judgment of the Dead were banished to this realm, and thus to effective nonexistence by being formless – having utterly lost any trace of their earlier identity and being “nothing” in the sense of being “no-particular-thing.” And yet, since all form and existence ultimately sprang from Nun, it was a place of infinite creative potential. The underworld was often equated with Nun as the formlessness through which even the righteous dead who passed the Judgment had to travel before being reborn, the same route that the sun god followed during the night.[5]"
http://egyptianmythology.org/gods-and-goddesses/nun/

Okay - so there are other reasons for explaining away a lack of effects that could be attributed to Nun. Does the worldview that assumes Nun (or any other god) exists fit better with reality than the worldview that assumes no gods exist?

The deities of indigenous religions don't tend to care about "miracles". They're more concerned with overseeing the laws of reality, not breaking them for the sake of magic tricks. "Miracles" are basically an Abrahamic concept.

I'd say that's painting with quite a broad brush, but regardless: one would think that a god that interacts with the world on a day-to-day basis would leave even more signs for his existence than a god that only interacts once in a while. Does a worldview that assumes that such gods exist agree better with reality than a worldview that assumes no gods exist? If so, in what way does the godless worldview fall short?

 

[Agondonter]

SF is right where he says, "The modern atheist movement [like the resurgence in nature religions] is pretty much a reaction against Abrahamic religious concepts. Concepts outside of that are ignored, mostly because of ignorance of them. It's something you have to take a concerted effort in rooting out of yourself and moving beyond."

The Abrahamic religions are largely, though not exclusively, anthropomorphic; i.e., belief in a God "out there." The OP is an attack on those kinds of conceptions and to someone familiar with more sophisticated conceptions, it looks inane (to put is politely).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You may be. The Abrahamic worldview is still the foundation of current Western society, including of the sciences, even though we're moving away from the religious manifestation of it. The modern atheist movement is pretty much a reaction against Abrahamic religious concepts. Concepts outside of that are ignored, mostly because of ignorance of them. It's something you have to take a concerted effort in rooting out of yourself and moving beyond.

And you think I haven't done this?

The majority of the members here - and therefore the majority of the discussions - tend to focus on Christianity or Islam. The majority of the religious people and organizations that try to make impositions on me are Christians. This tends to skew the discussions here, but it doesn't mean that I'm not familiar with other religious concepts.

... but mainly, I get annoyed with this "you don't agree with me, so you must be closed-minded" nonsense.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

At the moment, I'm not a pantheist, polytheist, or animist. Am I making a mistake by not being one of these?

I don't care if you are or not, and I'm not of the belief that you have to believe certain things.

I see static electric charge in action when I see thunder and lightning. Are you going for some sort of "Thor of the gaps" thing here?

"Nowadays, the Norse gods and goddesses are often described as being “the god of this or that,” but this easily leads to the misinterpretation that the gods exist outside of these things and merely control them from a distance. A more accurate way of speaking about them would be to say that, for example, Thor is not “the god of thunder,” but rather the god thunder. This is not merely symbolism, nor is it an attempt to “explain natural phenomena” in a “pre-scientific” idiom. It’s an account of the direct experience of the storm as a personal and divine force."
http://norse-mythology.org/concepts/pantheism/

At the moment, I don't attribute crop fertility to Thor. Is there any fact out there that can't be reconciled with a Thor-less worldview?

To the Germanic peoples, Thor is the storm and the rain that brings fertility to crops. Such a Power was viewed as a great animator and divine in its own right. Whether or not you recognize it as divine depends on your personal worldview.

Pantheism is the opposite of modern physicalism, which views matter as dumb and unalive. When it comes to pantheism vs. atheist physicalism, it's more a matter of desacralizing the Cosmos. It removes the transcendent notions of God and spirit, in the Abrahamic sense, but keeps physicalist side of the dualism. It lends to view matter, including consciousness, as mechanistic. Pantheism, like animism, views the Cosmos and everything that exists within it as having agency and consciousness of its own.

Okay - so there are other reasons for explaining away a lack of effects that could be attributed to Nun. Does the worldview that assumes Nun (or any other god) exists fit better with reality than the worldview that assumes no gods exist?

Whose reality? The real issue here is whether you have a sacred worldview of the Cosmos or not.

I'd say that's painting with quite a broad brush, but regardless: one would think that a god that interacts with the world on a day-to-day basis would leave even more signs for his existence than a god that only interacts once in a while. Does a worldview that assumes that such gods exist agree better with reality than a worldview that assumes no gods exist? If so, in what way does the godless worldview fall short?

Again, it's a matter of worldview. If you choose to view the sky, the Sun, the Moon, sexuality, etc. as sacred, then you will experience the sacred every moment of your life. But if your worldview sees nothing as sacred, then you won't experience the sacred because you have defined your belief system as such to exclude it by definition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The OP is an attack on those kinds of conceptions and to someone familiar with more sophisticated conceptions, it looks inane (to put is politely).

In only five posts in this thread, you've managed to call me asinine, inane, and accuse me of dishonesty. Don't pretend that you're being polite.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, it's a matter of worldview. If you choose to view the sky, the Sun, the Moon, sexuality, etc. as sacred, then you will experience the sacred every moment of your life. But if your worldview sees nothing as sacred, then you won't experience the sacred because you have defined your belief system as such to exclude it by definition.

Please don't conflate things. Viewing things as sacred does not necessarily imply viewing them as gods.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And you think I haven't done this?

The majority of the members here - and therefore the majority of the discussions - tend to focus on Christianity or Islam. The majority of the religious people and organizations that try to make impositions on me are Christians. This tends to skew the discussions here, but it doesn't mean that I'm not familiar with other religious concepts.

... but mainly, I get annoyed with this "you don't agree with me, so you must be closed-minded" nonsense.

I don't know if you've done that or not. Probably 99% of people haven't, making it very difficult to take part in these conversations when you're someone who falls completely outside of that paradigm.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please don't conflate things. Viewing things as sacred does not necessarily imply viewing them as gods.

Regardless of the terms, it still comes down to how you wish to define those terms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know if you've done that or not. Probably 99% of people haven't, making it very difficult to take part in these conversations when you're someone who falls completely outside of that paradigm.

I just find it hypocritical when someone who dislikes people jumping to conclusions about his beliefs jumps to conclusions about someone else.

I've also seen a tendency by some non-mainstream religious adherents to engage in the Courtier's reply (i.e. basically "you haven't studied enough of the right things to be qualified to criticize what I'm saying, so I can dismiss your criticisms without considering their merits"), which just gets in the way of legitimate discussion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I just find it hypocritical when someone who dislikes people jumping to conclusions about his beliefs jumps to conclusions about someone else.

I've also seen a tendency by some non-mainstream religious adherents to engage in the Courtier's reply (i.e. basically "you haven't studied enough of the right things to be qualified to criticize what I'm saying, so I can dismiss your criticisms without considering their merits"), which just gets in the way of legitimate discussion.

My apologies if I've misjudged you, but it's not so much a personal statement about you as it is of modern Western society in general. I can understand your criticisms, I just tend to view them as irrelevant in regards to my own beliefs.

 

[George-ananda]

For a pantheist, God and nature are interwoven so all activity is God at work.

 

[Quintessence]

Is that like the sigh I let out when people accuse me of looking at things "through an Abrahamic lens" just because I don't see things their way?

What do you mean by "see things their way?"

If by "see things their way" we mean "agree with and convert to," that's not at all what I'm getting at. Diversity of perspectives is both welcome and valued. This kind of "see things their way" is neither interesting to me nor desirable. I get maybe you were raised surrounded by Evangelicals, but I'd think you'd get by now that this is never my MO.

If, however, by "see things their way" we mean "understand the nature of this person's culture from its own perspective as told by its own people" this is not only desirable, but necessary to truly understand others. What I often see happening is people (perhaps without realizing it) overwriting the narratives told by other cultures with their own, or projecting their cultural habits onto a culture that does not share those habits. That's what I see nestled in the OP, because the OP applies poorly outside of classical monotheism, and to theologies that are non-transcendent or non-dualistic.

You ask: "a challenge for theists: can you think of any reason why to reject this premise?"
Yes; as with the "problem of evil" the framing of this question is not applicable to my theology.