"Lack of belief"

[Acim]

No, you haven't.

Yes, I have.

I can't parse this sentence. Can you re-phrase?

I'll put it this way, if someone says they lack a belief in gods, what are they referencing? What is the concept they lack a belief in?
The previous inquiry was stating, if anyone provides answer to the above 2 questions, will their response be 100% indisputable or a matter of further dispute?

Which dictionary definition did you have in mind?

The one I already provided, that you said I haven't.

Most dictionary definitions for "god" that I've seen only work for monotheistic gods, or are figures of speech (e.g. "Wayne Gretzky is a hockey god").

Both of which provide a conceptual framework. And yet, this is not the definition (from dictionary) that I provided earlier.

I don't care. If you think it's unfair that those other people haven't been challenged, you do it.

Your carelessness speaks volumes.

you tried to argue that "the concept of gods" is such a straightforward thing that every adult atheist must know what it is.

If they don't know what the concept is, then I doubt they lack a belief in it, or are akin to baby atheists in that they literally have no idea what their lack of belief means.

The longer you refuse to explain what "the concept of gods" means, the less reasonable your claim that every adult atheist knows "the concept of gods" becomes.

I have already explained it. You disputed it. You've disputed 2 other concepts in this response. Thus demonstrating you do have conceptual understanding of god/gods, but that you dispute them. Show me the baby atheist that does this.

And my point is that any self-described atheist will probably know of at least a few god-concepts, but won't have a concept of "gods" that covers all - or even most - gods.

Really? If you think that is "your" point, then we are in full agreement, end of dispute. You are stating "ANY self-described atheist WILL probably KNOW of at least a few god-CONCEPTS.

And now wish to stipulate your assertions as if I have been arguing that all atheists (or even theists) have a concept to cover all gods. When I never said that.

I do think though that the previously provided dictionary definition does cover most conceptual understandings of gods - that being - an influential, admired, or adored person, or entity. I believe most to all persons that conceive of a god, believe such a being influences their lives or the lives of humanity. I feel fairly confident that there are exceptions to this among theists. I also believe atheists dispute that a) such beings exists, b) that if they exist (i.e. as a person, living now, walking the earth) that they aren't best referenced as a 'god' and c) they lack reason to consider such beings (alive or dead) as gods.

No, I'm not saying that "the concept of gods" is inherently meaningless; I'm saying that if it is meaningful, you're doing a horrible job of explaining what it means.

Which implies that you know what the concept means and have what you consider better understanding of what it does mean or ought to mean.

I'm also saying that the label "gods" applies to many concepts. Some of these concepts are meaningful, others aren't, but each of them only captures a narrow slice of what "god" means.

Yep, very challenging to use sound bite rhetoric to describe such a comprehensive term that no one could possibly dispute. Try doing this with "reality", or "existence", or "truth". Lot of circular reasoning in all those concepts, and subjective inferences. If someone does provide definition, I think they have concept of it. Whether or not those hold up to scrutiny / dispute, is another matter.

But given your latest stipulation, such definition must account for "all realities" or "all existences" or "all truths" otherwise they are a narrow slice that might be considered 'silly' or 'horrible' in their attempt to define such a concept.

What this is all getting back to is how people become atheists. If it's possible to articulate a concept of "gods" that really does apply to all gods, then it would be possible to become an atheist by rejecting the concept as a whole.

... but doing this requires a concept. And so far, you've refused to define this concept properly.

Use any of the words I just provided and let's see if you can "properly" define the concept, such that I cannot dispute it. If I can, and I conclude your definition is horrible, then what? Is that on me (the assessment that it is horrible) or on you?

 

[Willamena]

If you have a set of god-concepts that takes into account all gods, please share. I've yet to see such a thing.

If you concede that the god-images I have been exposed to in my life-time, that compose what "gods" means for me, is "all gods," then I'll proceed.

 

[Acim]

Hi Acim,

I really do not have the time to continue a very wordy debate at present. I'll just say this for now.

Basically, I continue to find it bizarre for someone to question the reality of physical existence. I can understand questioning our broader perceptions about reality, perceptions about the realities of physical existence vs. what our sensory perceptions tell us about it, or more deeply questioning what we think we know about reality. We don't know everything, that's a given.

Yet, while we are limited beings living in limited ways in a universe we do not fully understand, everything in our knowledge and experience points to physical existence as real: as matter, energy, and forces interacting in ways entirely independent of human imagination.

I disagree with this. Not everything in our knowledge points to physical existence as real. There's actually scientific understandings that point to physical existence as unreal, holographic / illusion. Then there's many millennia of spiritual knowledge that points in the direction of unreal.

None of this, I observe, is truly independent of all human imagination / consciousness.

These facets of physical reality even behave in ways we can reliably predict to a great extent. These are not subjective fantasies we have about physical existence, but are actual, real phenomena we can measure and test independently of our imaginations.

The idea of being able to measure is use of imagination. Again, not truly independent of human consciousness. Given all meaning they have for us, by us.

Gravity is a real force, for instance. We understand its relationship to space-time, and can measure its strength with respect to mass and distance.

All imagination. All dependent on human consciousness to be considered knowledge.
Once the fundamental faith is accepted, rational correlations and patterns can be imagined, verified, predicted.

We do not generally expect to begin floating up into the air and tumbling about, as in a dream. We do not expect that the power of our imagination can overcome gravity, as in a dream. Do you think otherwise?

Yes. In a night dream, I don't expect to float up and do expect to fall. I have plenty of dreams about heights and in all of them, I fear falling. I don't entertain the notion that I'm dreaming this and that I can step off the ledge and I'll be fine (as in float in mid air).

Do you believe gravity is only in our minds, an imagined reality that is really unreal, like a dream?

Yes. Though I would say "imagined existence."

Do you think that you can throw an apple up into the sky and through the power of faith make it never fall back to the Earth since you believe physical existence is unreal?

I think it is plausible, but not sure if it would be 'faith' that would do this. It could be faith, but not sure what I would call it. Not sure how it would overcome the fundamental faith of physical existence (not that it needs to, but is what I feel you are trying to get at).

I believe if I went outside right now and threw 100 apples in the air, that all 100 would land on the ground within a matter of seconds. I imagine this would occur.

Alas, whether you want to imagine it to be otherwise or not, physical existence behaves in very real and predictable ways. To deny this is, quite frankly, absurd.

But when you can levitate by the power of God or toss apples past the Earth's atmosphere with mindpower, let me know.

Such overcoming of physical existence to me is not really overcoming it. It's spectacles of magical wonders. When I had previous experience (that I described earlier), I do recall on hindsight having 'magical wonders' occur. Honestly, none of that mattered to me in the moment. On hindsight, it does fascinate me, some of it. But if I tell people "I had exponentially increasing joy" vs. telling them "I experienced telepathy" - I get the impression that people wish to know more about the telepathy and to heck with the joy thing. Yet, at the time, it was inverse of how mind looks at things, namely myself, from what I have mentally now. Again, I still get daily 'glimpses' of that mindset, but it's not quite the same as sustained period of time in that mindset. The joy factor, the peace (welcoming all possible situations with confidence, ability to share more joy) and devotion to people over all possible earthly things that relates to me as "overcoming." The idea of "loving my (previous) enemies" was a given, and in a way that on hindsight I would say it would've been impossible for me to be hurt by them, but more that regardless of their physical actions, I would've maintained maximal love.

So, given the state of the world as you understand it today, tell me which you think would be more meaningful: throwing an apple past the Earth's atmosphere with mind power, or loving sworn enemies as if they literally are your Self and having unyielding desire to share utmost joy with them, and everyone?

 

[Acim]

What I see Acim doing, with very wordy and somewhat vague descriptions that take me too long to parse, is essentially claim that physical existence is not real because he (or she?) subjectively feels this is so, and that some kind of supernatural mind is real instead, which of course begs the question.

Fair enough. But I've put forth the challenge about 18 times in the last 4 months on this site for anyone to provide objective evidence of a physical reality. Honestly, the first time I did this online about 20 years ago, I expected someone to provide that evidence. I honestly didn't see it as a trick question. Now, I do. Cause, I now get that it probably won't ever be provided in a way that is truly objective.

What you are referencing as "supernatural mind" is to me natural Self. I think intersubjectivity comes close to describing how it works, but really doesn't explain all that much, just a one word conceptual framework.

I also consistently find that this natural Self is highly tolerant or allowing for belief in physical existence while faith in physical existence nearly forbids any framework outside of it, and deems it - I dunno - words that amount to disparaging remarks and not deserving a second of consideration. Absurd, I think is word you used earlier. While this can be spun a few ways (from each perspective), it really tells me the nature of each perspective. One seeks to include all things while having actual knowledge of Reality, the other seeks to separate all things while being clueless of actual Reality and (often) fearful of its own existence.

I assume just focus on what each is offering, has offered to date, rather than deliberating on what it could possibly mean - i.e. will I be able to throw an apple past the Earth's atmosphere, cause if not, I can't possibly go along with such ideas. LOL.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you concede that the god-images I have been exposed to in my life-time, that compose what "gods" means for me, is "all gods," then I'll proceed.

Would you concede this for any given person? Would you concede it for a baby?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

In my experience atheism usually involves a rejection of the idea of God, so it's more than a lack of belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my experience atheism usually involves a rejection of the idea of God, so it's more than a lack of belief.

Just so Acim doesn't feel singled out: what do you mean when you say "the idea of God"?

Bonus question: since God-with-a-capital-G usually signifies a monotheistic god, aren't you ignoring all the various types of polytheism out there? Why is just rejecting monotheism enough to make a person an atheist (if we're going to define atheism in terms of rejection)?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Just so Acim doesn't feel singled out: what do you mean when you say "the idea of God"?

The idea of God existing.

Bonus question: since God-with-a-capital-G usually signifies a monotheistic god, aren't you ignoring all the various types of polytheism out there? Why is just rejecting monotheism enough to make a person an atheist (if we're going to define atheism in terms of rejection)?

It's a question of semantics, but I would think atheism applies to gods generally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The idea of God existing.

But what do you mean by "God"?

It's a question of semantics, but I would think atheism applies to gods generally.

So not just "God"?

If, say, someone had never heard of God, but rejected Thor or Quetzlcoatl, would this be enough rejection to make them an atheist?

What about someone who has rejected some versions of God, is ambivalent about other versions of God, and is unfamiliar with still other versions of God?

 

[Willamena]

Would you concede this for any given person? Would you concede it for a baby?

Of course. We each know only what we know.

 

[serp777]

Fair enough. But I've put forth the challenge about 18 times in the last 4 months on this site for anyone to provide objective evidence of a physical reality. Honestly, the first time I did this online about 20 years ago, I expected someone to provide that evidence. I honestly didn't see it as a trick question. Now, I do. Cause, I now get that it probably won't ever be provided in a way that is truly objective.

What you are referencing as "supernatural mind" is to me natural Self. I think intersubjectivity comes close to describing how it works, but really doesn't explain all that much, just a one word conceptual framework.

I also consistently find that this natural Self is highly tolerant or allowing for belief in physical existence while faith in physical existence nearly forbids any framework outside of it, and deems it - I dunno - words that amount to disparaging remarks and not deserving a second of consideration. Absurd, I think is word you used earlier. While this can be spun a few ways (from each perspective), it really tells me the nature of each perspective. One seeks to include all things while having actual knowledge of Reality, the other seeks to separate all things while being clueless of actual Reality and (often) fearful of its own existence.

I assume just focus on what each is offering, has offered to date, rather than deliberating on what it could possibly mean - i.e. will I be able to throw an apple past the Earth's atmosphere, cause if not, I can't possibly go along with such ideas. LOL.

Well how are you defining objective? The entire point of science is to explain physical reality with theories, mathematics, and logic. All scientific evidence constitutes evidence of physical reality unless you deny science.

Also your claims about the "natural self" rely on certain assumptions about how consciousness and our minds work. There are many alternatives to the "natural self" which are just as valid and suggest the natural self is more like an illusion. YOu also don't need faith in physical existence. Its simply empirical. I need food, water, shelter and other material things to continue to exist. These things i need to exist rely on a physical framework that is confirmed by our senses, science, and historical data of cause and effect. Calling this faith is just ridiculous and is a poor attempt to make religious faith reasonable since everybody would have faith according to your claims. If you are going to call this faith then you should create a new word that means "super faith" for religious people.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What about someone who has rejected some versions of God, is ambivalent about other versions of God, and is unfamiliar with still other versions of God?

I reckon it's more useful to think in terms of a spectrum of belief, of the kind suggested by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. This can be applied to beliefs generally, God, gods, space aliens, whatever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

 

[Kartari]

Hi Aupmanyav,

Universal mind/consciousness - I too do not subscribe to that. But if it all arose from 'absolute nothing', that will mean that we are not real and the universe too and what all it contains is just like virtual particles (which science says are not any different from real particles, and the boundary between the two is continuously transgressed).

I'm not a quantum physicist, but when scientists speak of the universe arising from "nothing," I think they're referring to phenomena occurring at either a quantum level and/or in extradimensional space (e.g. "nothing" meaning nothing within normal space-time). Quantum physics is very bizarre, but I think it prudent to wait for more answers to clarify what is going on at a quantum level before we begin to use it to conjecture about the nature of the universe... quantum physics is really still in its infant stage as far as understanding its subject matter. Some of the bizarre things we observe may end up being a matter of having inadequate tools to see things more clearly, for instance. There is also a strong danger of misunderstanding when the average person, even a well educated person, tries to read technical papers on quantum physics when they are not experts in the field.

That said, lets begin with the definition of the term reality. Reality refers to that which actually exists, as opposed to appearances or fantasies. Philosophically, it can refer to that which exists independently of our ideas about it. Physical existence fits this description adequately. While like I wrote we don't have all the answers, physical existence as we understand it does not fail to qualify as real as far as we can discern, as evinced from not only our objective experiences (i.e. experiencing the effects of gravity) but from what we understand through the objective methodologies of science.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

I disagree with this. Not everything in our knowledge points to physical existence as real. There's actually scientific understandings that point to physical existence as unreal, holographic / illusion. Then there's many millennia of spiritual knowledge that points in the direction of unreal.

None of this, I observe, is truly independent of all human imagination / consciousness.

To address this one point for now, please read my recent response to Aupmanyav regarding the dangers of reading about quantum physics when you're not an expert in the field. I think at least part of the problem here appears to be that you are drawing false impressions from a field of science that, not only (I presume?) you are not an expert in, but the field of quantum physics itself is still in its infancy truth be told. There are several reasons (two of which I mention in my response to Aupmanyav) why it's not wise to conjecture about the nature of existence from what we think we know about quantum physics.

Apologies, but I have to get to work now...

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think they're referring to phenomena occurring at either a quantum level and/or in extradimensional space (e.g. "nothing" meaning nothing within normal space-time). Quantum physics is very bizarre, but I think it prudent to wait for more answers to clarify what is going on at a quantum level before we begin to use it to conjecture about the nature of the universe ..There is also a strong danger of misunderstanding when the average person, even a well educated person, tries to read technical papers on quantum physics when they are not experts in the field.

That said, lets begin with the definition of the term reality. Reality refers to that which actually exists, as opposed to appearances or fantasies. Philosophically, it can refer to that which exists independently of our ideas about it. Physical existence fits this description adequately. While like I wrote we don't have all the answers, physical existence as we understand it does not fail to qualify as real as far as we can discern, as evinced from not only our objective experiences (i.e. experiencing the effects of gravity) but from what we understand through the objective methodologies of science.

I vote exactly for that. If 'nothing' means normal space-time, where from the forces in such space-time arose? For what reason? Same problem exists with the consciousness theory of the religionists and mystics. That is why I do not subscribe to that. I do not think a well educated person today can understand quantum mechanics, it baffles even the qualified scientists. I agree, at the moment there is no reason to disregard totally what we perceive (Vyavaharika Satya/Pragmatic Reality) Advaita accepts it completely, while differing only on the question of appearances.

 

[Acim]

Well how are you defining objective? The entire point of science is to explain physical reality with theories, mathematics, and logic. All scientific evidence constitutes evidence of physical reality unless you deny science.

Objectivity with regards to physicality would mean one isn't using physical senses to establish physicality, for that would be inherently biased and/or circular reasoning. You are free to use math and logic to constitute evidence of a physical existence.

I disagree that all scientific evidence constitutes physical reality (or existence). Mathematics would be a prime exception. The fact that the scientific method itself is not part of physical existence is perhaps a better example of how utterly non reliant science is on physical existence and is instead based on logical assumptions resting on a fundamental faith.

Also your claims about the "natural self" rely on certain assumptions about how consciousness and our minds work.

It is the other fundamental faith. Reason and logic are still at work under this type of faith.

There are many alternatives to the "natural self" which are just as valid and suggest the natural self is more like an illusion.

Feel free to name them and within context that I previously brought up "natural self," I'll see how well they hold up.

YOu also don't need faith in physical existence. Its simply empirical.

Well, that's a vast assumption.

I need food, water, shelter and other material things to continue to exist. These things i need to exist rely on a physical framework that is confirmed by our senses, science, and historical data of cause and effect. Calling this faith is just ridiculous and is a poor attempt to make religious faith reasonable since everybody would have faith according to your claims. If you are going to call this faith then you should create a new word that means "super faith" for religious people.

Nope, using primary dictionary definition of faith, not the religious one. Primary definition being: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I would think "religious faith" would work for religious people.

 

[Acim]

I reckon it's more useful to think in terms of a spectrum of belief, of the kind suggested by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. This can be applied to beliefs generally, God, gods, space aliens, whatever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

It was reading this formula by Dawkins (awhile back) that lead me to conclusion that I am, in fact, a strong theist. Though sometimes, I'll float around 2 to 4, for the fun of it.

 

[Acim]

Hi Acim,

To address this one point for now, please read my recent response to Aupmanyav regarding the dangers of reading about quantum physics when you're not an expert in the field. I think at least part of the problem here appears to be that you are drawing false impressions from a field of science that, not only (I presume?) you are not an expert in, but the field of quantum physics itself is still in its infancy truth be told. There are several reasons (two of which I mention in my response to Aupmanyav) why it's not wise to conjecture about the nature of existence from what we think we know about quantum physics.

Apologies, but I have to get to work now...

Apology accepted.

My previous point still stands: Not everything in our knowledge points to physical existence as real. There's actually scientific understandings that point to physical existence as unreal, holographic / illusion.

I get that QM is still figuring things out, but it has made assertions that physical existence is not as real as we might imagine. Whether or not we'll confirm this as fact via science, remains to be seen, but these silly notions about what science is as if it is 100% in direction of physicality is truly absurd. It relies on logic way more than physicality. The physicality part is the fundamental faith regarding existence. I've not once said that is not a basis for (good) science, and just stating what I see as logical assertion within context of overall (reasonable) assumptions about existence.

Plus I alluded to spiritual knowledge that points to physical existence as unreal. I realize that from the anti-spiritual perspective, that type of assertion is disputable. But that doesn't mean that we don't have knowledge that points to physical existence as unreal. Because of my spiritual bent, I see certain (popular world) religions as either still in their infancy or past their usefulness in their primary aim: to bring individuals closer to God / divine realization(s).

Hi Aupmanyav,
lets begin with the definition of the term reality. Reality refers to that which actually exists, as opposed to appearances or fantasies. Philosophically, it can refer to that which exists independently of our ideas about it. Physical existence fits this description adequately.

I don't see how you/anyone is able to get around the notion that physical (ahem) reality is anything but our ideas about it. The definition of 'reality' is our idea about existence. Also scientific terminology is our idea about what we perceive, ought to be called. All meaning it has for us, is given that meaning by ideas from us. The scientific method is an idea we have for discerning data, and is predicated on idea that we are best to rule out all supernatural causes. Best to have idea (or assumption) that we can be inherently impartial.

The way you are willy nilly using the idea of "physical existence" would apply to night dreams. Thus physical existence in night dreams would fit this description adequately in terms of reality. Of course, one might say dreams are the de facto example(s) of fantasies, but from within the context of the dream, this is not exactly discernible. Just as within the context of the FANTASY that one is 'alive' in physical existence, it is not easily discernible that the experience is one of fantasy, based on appearances, resting on fundamental faith in a self (or selves) that are, magically, outside of the mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. to bring individuals closer to God / divine realization(s).

No proof at all for that. Just peoples' imagination.

 

[Acim]

No proof at all for that. Just peoples' imagination.

There's actually plenty of proof of spiritual knowledge in this world. Plenty of divine realizations written down, spoken about, or otherwise communicated.

Your assertion is akin to saying scientific method doesn't exist, except in people's imaginations.