Search for Truth: Atheism

[Wombat]

Again with this... :sarcastic

The term “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that God does not exist”. Notice the word “belief”. That means that being an Atheist does not in any way indicate knowledge about the non-existence of god.

Likewise, the term “Theism” is defined as “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe”. That last part of the sentence is important because it represents the dividing line between a Theist and a Deist. But like in the Atheism example, the active word is “belief”, not knowledge.

The word Gnostic comes from the Greek “gnostikos” and means “to know”, and likewise the connotation “Agnostic” means “not to know”. Therefore someone who considers themselves to be a Gnostic implies that they are absolutely certain about the subject at hand, while someone who uses the term Agnostic implies that they are not certain. This leads to the conclusion that no-one is “just” an Atheist or a Theist, and similarly that no-one is just an Agnostic or a Gnostic, at least in relation to this subject.

So, to sum up, one is either an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist or a Gnostic Theist. The first word implies the certainty with which you hold your position and the second implies the position itself. It’s as simple as that. Still, this position might change depending on which god one is talking about. Unless one was to find that a person believes in all gods everywhere (there are thousands of religions, some with thousands of gods), that person is an Atheist with regards to some, usually most, gods.

A comprehensive and accurate summation.
Especially appreciated-

“while someone who uses the term Agnostic implies that they are not certain”

As opposed to the misplaced certainty of #53-

“Actually, "agnosticism" is a specific theological position :it is impossible to answer the question of whether or not god exists.”

Quote-“So, to sum up, one is either an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist or a Gnostic Theist. The first word implies the certainty with which you hold your position and the second implies the position itself. It’s as simple as that.”

To be a complete pain...I’m wondering if it is “as simple as that”.
Are our beliefs set solid enough for us to know of a certainty? Is our assessment of our beliefs always accurate or are we capable of self deception? i.e. Can I firmly believe I am a theist only to subsequently determine I didn’t really believe in God at all? Can I firmly believe I am an atheist only to subsequently determine that I was just angry at a God I always believed in?

I ask because I’ve worked with a number of people who firmly believed they were in love...but on reflection determined there was nothing loving in their relationship of destructive co dependence. And Depressives also suffer similar self deception.

Are we insightful/infallible experts on what we believe?

 

[LuisDantas]

No, it means that I, as well as the dictionary, consider Agnostic Atheism to be 'weak Atheism', at least be most definitions I've heard of it.

I stand by what I said.

However, you are correct in that most Agnostic Atheist are also weak atheists. There are exceptions, such as yours truly - I'm an agnostic strong atheist, to the puzzlement of some.

But that is besides the point. Are you saying that agnostic atheism is not atheism proper? That is a very odd decision.

But that wasn't the main point. The main point was that Agnosticism is -not- a middle point between Atheism and Theism. Agnosticism does not address your position about god at all, merely the certainty with which you hold that position, which means that no-one is -just- an Agnostic.

To be fair, Agnosticism is a belief about the nature and boundaries of God as well.

Still, I don't understand what the definition of Agnosticism has to do with your surprising claim that weak atheism is not atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure what you mean here.
Could you elaborate somewhat please?

I am fairly certain that Alceste recognizes (as do I) that ultimately it makes no sense for a human being to give oneself the authority to say whether there is a God. (Sure I do that, but it is not a meaningful act. )

If you think about it, the very idea is a bit odd. How could anyone possibly tell a situation where God exists from a situation where God does not exist? What if God does not want to be detected?

It is conceivable that one might define the parameters for the existence of God to their own satisfaction and show that they are fulfilled. But the lack of existence of God is at least as difficult to demonstrate as the lack of existence of McDonald's stores in Mars, regardless of how sound and true that conclusion might ultimately be.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you/anyone find example of-a secular commune- >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resourced and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived.


The worlds Major Living Faith traditions however have produced innumerable communes and communities that have endured for hundreds of years.

Why is that?

Quite frankly, because you are making a jaundiced choice of examples and concepts.

Or perhaps because you are unaware of the enormous secular communities in Europe, including whole countries.

 

[Looncall]

Oh The only thing that "disappoints" is the lame dodge...You introduce the 'Enlightenment' as an answer/example of a question regarding "secular communes"......when corrected you ignore all and persist as if the Enlightenment had something/anything to do with the issues under discussion or the specific question......


Then persist, to the exclusion of all else...to pursue the Enlightment as if it was
relevant to anything under discussion......


From #38
Out of curiosity I repeat the question [open to anyone influenced by or adhering to
Enlightenment principles...]-

Can you/anyone find example of-a secular commune- >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resourced and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived.


The worlds Major Living Faith traditions however have produced innumerable communes and communities that have endured for hundreds of years.

Why is that?

That just shows how effective religious oppression and brainwashing can be, as one would expect of a scam that has been perfected over thousands of years. It shows nothing about the truth of the religions.

 

[Wombat]

Quite frankly, because you are making a jaundiced choice of examples and concepts..

From both ends of the spectrum people had various theories/models of how they could work and live together and demonstrate to the world the effectiveness of their cosmology. Some thrived and most failed. You are not prepared to look at which survived and which died?

Or perhaps because you are unaware of the enormous secular communities in Europe, including whole countries.

Oh...You’re claiming the Majority Religious/Secular Democracies of Europe as exclusively secular "whole countries" ?
Which "whole countries" in Europe do you have in mind as "enormous secular communities"?

No wonder you don’t wish to consider the history of secular communes.

 

[LuisDantas]

From both ends of the spectrum people had various theories/models of how they could work and live together and demonstrate to the world the effectiveness of their cosmology. Some thrived and most failed. You are not prepared to look at which survived and which died?

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I am however saying that your claim that secular communities are inviable is not only wrong, but inherently nonsensical.

Oh...You’re claiming the Majority Religious/Secular Democracies of Europe as exclusively secular "whole countries" ?

Try being clear. What is a "Majority religious/secular democracy"? Give me specific examples as well.

Which "whole countries" in Europe do you have in mind as "enormous secular communities"?

The nordic countries are the most obvious examples, but France and others also qualify. Actually, even the nominal theocracy that is the UK qualifies in practice.

No wonder you don’t wish to consider the history of secular communes.

Considering that it is fictional, I must agree.

 

[Wombat]

I have no idea what you mean by that. .

"From both ends of the spectrum"- Secular and religious.
"people had various theories/models of how they could work and live together"- Secular Political theories- Socialist....Religious theories- Christian/Buddhist.
"demonstrate to the world the effectiveness of their cosmology"- Show the world a working model example of how to live together.

I am however saying that your claim that secular communities are inviable is not only wrong, but inherently nonsensical..

Why do you insist on taking the specific case in point >"commune"< and attempting to transpose it with "communities"/"countries"?
It does not adress my question nor serve as counter arguement.

Try being clear. What is a "Majority religious/secular democracy"? .

The term is clear and common, try looking it up- Majority religious/secular democracy refers to those nations that have a majority of the population holding religious views while being governed by a Democratically elected parliament that maintains the separation of Church and State.
i.e. The vast majority of the Western World.

Give me specific examples as well..

Sure...Want me to cut your lunch as well?

France, Britian, Germany, Australia and the US= Majority religious/secular democracy...or 'Liberal Democracy'.

The nordic countries are the most obvious examples, but France and others also qualify. Actually, even the nominal theocracy that is the UK qualifies in practice..

The Nordic nations and France (like the rest of Europe) have secular Governments... but that does not make them secular countries... a country is not just or exclusively reflected and represented by the Government it chooses. Those nations that have a majority of the population holding religious beliefs cannot be called 'secular'...they are Majority Religious/Secular Democracies.

Considering that it is fictional, I must agree.

To demonstrate it is "fictional" you would need to find/present an example of a sucessful secular commune...a purpose built model and example of the representative political/philosophical secular theory. There have been hundreds...it shouldn't be hard to find one that worked/survived.

But my guess, based on repeat pattern, is that you will once more ignore the question entirely and continue to pursue the bogus 'secular country' diversion gambit.

 

[jarofthoughts]

As opposed to the misplaced certainty of #53.

Agnosticism simply means that one does not claim knowledge that the position one holds is correct or not.
Look, the point I was making is that some people think there is this sliding scale that goes from Theism to Agnosticism to Atheism, and that is just flat out wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to be an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist, just as one can be a Gnostic Theist or a Gnostic Atheist. The words describe different things, one being the degree of certainty you hold a position and the other what that position is.

To be a complete pain...I’m wondering if it is “as simple as that”.
Are our beliefs set solid enough for us to know of a certainty? Is our assessment of our beliefs always accurate or are we capable of self deception? i.e. Can I firmly believe I am a theist only to subsequently determine I didn’t really believe in God at all? Can I firmly believe I am an atheist only to subsequently determine that I was just angry at a God I always believed in?
I ask because I’ve worked with a number of people who firmly believed they were in love...but on reflection determined there was nothing loving in their relationship of destructive co dependence. And Depressives also suffer similar self deception.
Are we insightful/infallible experts on what we believe?

Of course we can delude ourselves, but since these claims are usually made by the people holding these beliefs, well, if you say you believe/do not believe in a god that is what I am going by, and I'll consider you a Theist/Atheist. It's not as if I can read your mind for you and tell you what you -actually- believe. The same goes if you claim you know/don't know for certain. Then I'll consider you a Gnostic/Agnostic.
If you found that you were an Atheist just because you were angry at a god you always believed in, well, I guess that means that you were never an Atheist, but that is a decision you will have to make.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I stand by what I said.

However, you are correct in that most Agnostic Atheist are also weak atheists. There are exceptions, such as yours truly - I'm an agnostic strong atheist, to the puzzlement of some.

So what, according to you, is the dividing line between a 'strong' Atheist and a 'weak' Atheist?

But that is besides the point. Are you saying that agnostic atheism is not atheism proper? That is a very odd decision.

Not in the slightest.

To be fair, Agnosticism is a belief about the nature and boundaries of God as well.

Agnosticism is not a belief in it self. It is a degree by which one holds whatever beliefs one has.

Still, I don't understand what the definition of Agnosticism has to do with your surprising claim that weak atheism is not atheism.

When did I make that claim?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am fairly certain that Alceste recognizes (as do I) that ultimately it makes no sense for a human being to give oneself the authority to say whether there is a God. (Sure I do that, but it is not a meaningful act. )

If you think about it, the very idea is a bit odd. How could anyone possibly tell a situation where God exists from a situation where God does not exist? What if God does not want to be detected?

It is conceivable that one might define the parameters for the existence of God to their own satisfaction and show that they are fulfilled. But the lack of existence of God is at least as difficult to demonstrate as the lack of existence of McDonald's stores in Mars, regardless of how sound and true that conclusion might ultimately be.

Well since, as I'm sure you'll agree, that proving the non-existence of anything is logically impossible, naturally proving the non-existence of a god or gods would be equally impossible.
However, if that is reason enough to believe in a god, then surely, by those same standards, one would have to believe in Santa, unicorns and the tooth-fairy as well.

 

[Alceste]

Not sure what you mean here.
Could you elaborate somewhat please?

Depending on who you talk to, "god" is love, to a voice in your ear, a multi-armed, blue cross dresser with the head of an elephant, the three phases of the moon, the entire universe, demons that can be summoned to do our bidding, a zombie...

There is no single definition of god. Some gods obviously exist. The universe, for example, and the Ganges. Claiming "god does not exist" is an tacit acceptance of the unusual Abrahamic claim that there is only one god. I do not accept that claim. There are six billion gods at least: one or more for every believer.

 

[Alceste]

Well since, as I'm sure you'll agree, that proving the non-existence of anything is logically impossible, naturally proving the non-existence of a god or gods would be equally impossible.
However, if that is reason enough to believe in a god, then surely, by those same standards, one would have to believe in Santa, unicorns and the tooth-fairy as well.

Depends whose definition of god you're going to run with. I think the Abrahamic definition is completely meritless, but other definitions of god refer to things you can see (or swim in) for yourself.

 

[Dan4reason]

Depending on who you talk to, "god" is love, to a voice in your ear, a multi-armed, blue cross dresser with the head of an elephant, the three phases of the moon, the entire universe, demons that can be summoned to do our bidding, a zombie...

There is no single definition of god. Some gods obviously exist. The universe, for example, and the Ganges. Claiming "god does not exist" is an tacit acceptance of the unusual Abrahamic claim that there is only one god. I do not accept that claim. There are six billion gods at least: one or more for every believer.

Atheism does not deny that the universe, but there is no reason to call the universe God.

 

[Orias]

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth. I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

I believe atheism is very "truthful", in a view that next to "theism" they connect peices to the "puzzle".

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

Heh

 

[LuisDantas]

Well since, as I'm sure you'll agree, that proving the non-existence of anything is logically impossible, naturally proving the non-existence of a god or gods would be equally impossible.

Sure.

However, if that is reason enough to believe in a god, then surely, by those same standards, one would have to believe in Santa, unicorns and the tooth-fairy as well.

Of course, people don't believe in God just because it is impossible to prove that he does not exist. Or at least I sincerely hope that is very rare.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Depending on who you talk to, "god" is love, to a voice in your ear, a multi-armed, blue cross dresser with the head of an elephant, the three phases of the moon, the entire universe, demons that can be summoned to do our bidding, a zombie...

There is no single definition of god. Some gods obviously exist. The universe, for example, and the Ganges. Claiming "god does not exist" is an tacit acceptance of the unusual Abrahamic claim that there is only one god. I do not accept that claim. There are six billion gods at least: one or more for every believer.

Depends whose definition of god you're going to run with. I think the Abrahamic definition is completely meritless, but other definitions of god refer to things you can see (or swim in) for yourself.

In normal conversation I go by the dictionary definition of 'god' which states: "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity", and there is no evidence that such a being exists.

Love is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain, voices in your ear when no-one is around is a sign of schizophrenia, the universe is the universe, Ganges is a river and the moon's phases is merely the result of the Earth's shadow upon it.

So, yeah, I go by the dictionary definition.
All that other stuff is just 'flowery language', which, while it has a place in poetry and the like, is just silly when trying to define what's real.

 

[Orias]

Atheism does not deny that the universe, but there is no reason to call the universe God.

I agree, when people here the term "God", a majority think of the Abrahamic, "do as I say not as I do", type of "God", never really considering that one might view themselves as a "God", while believing in no others.

There is no reason to really call anything "God", for it just simply is. Labels only have "meaning" if there is something to perpetuate it's existence. Such an example would be "God", or certainity. So with "doubt' and "certainity" you have a "God", whether it is worshipped as a man in the clouds or denied as nonsense, it is still perceived and defined

I'm going to stick with this argument of, "We were created in "Gods" image", it preludes a great story

 

[LuisDantas]

So what, according to you, is the dividing line between a 'strong' Atheist and a 'weak' Atheist?

It is my understanding that the classical distinction goes like this

Strong Atheist: "There is no god".

Weak Atheist: "I don't believe (or trust) there is any god".

Sure, it isn't the sharpest of distinctions, but it is clear and real enough.

Agnosticism is not a belief in it self. It is a degree by which one holds whatever beliefs one has.

There are certainly those who hold such an opinion, but it is classicaly considered incorrect.

Agnosticism is usually defined as a philosophical stance theorically unrelated to any personal degree of conviction about whether there is a god.

It is a belief about the possibility of knowledge of god's existence, not a degree.

 

[Wombat]

In normal conversation I go by the dictionary definition of 'god' which states: "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity", and there is no evidence that such a being exists. .

I am obliged to disagree re "no evidence".
While it is true to say 'no proof' it is not true to say 'no evidence'...they are not one in the same/interchangable.

It may be fair to say from a given perspective "No evidence that I, or Science or Police Forensics would find acceptable"...but that is still not to say there is 'no evidence'.

Love is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain....

If this is so, and a satisfactory explanation for what 'love is', is there >any< thought, experience or belief held by humans that cannot be defined/explained in exactly the same terms?

"Contentment is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?
"Violence is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?
"Theism and/or atheism is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?
"Marxism is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?

Love, like anger, may register as a stronger 'electrochemical reaction'...but all emotion and thinking will register as 'electrochemical reactions'.

Does the fact that everything we think and feel registers as an electrochemical reaction not render the conclusion that "love is the result" of such reaction...well... useless?

One might just as well say 'Love is the result of existing', no existing- no love.
Likewise "Love is the result of electrochemical reactions"...what transpires in the brain that >isn't<?