What does it mean to be an Atheist ( not a mocking thread)

[PureX]

You aren't using the words to a useful meaning. So, everything you believe is an 'act of faith', ok, great.

We humans live by faith because our knowledge is limited, and suspect. We can't ever know for sure that what we think we know is accurate. The fact that we don't like this, or that we prefer imagining that we "know the truth" just because we think we know it, doesn't change the reality of our profound limitations when it comes to knowledge of the truth (what is).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We humans live by faith, because we do not have omniscience. So we can't ever know that what we think we know is accurate. The fact that we don't like this, or that we prefer imagining that we "know the truth" just because we think we know it, doesn't change the reality of our profound limitations when it comes to knowledge of 'what is' (truth).

And when does this solipsistic line of thinking make evident the existence of "God" I wonder?

This is an old theistic trick. Can't win them over with assertions of knowledge you can't possibly have? Go to the old stand-by - claiming that we can't really know that anything at all is sufficiently true/real. So, in order to try and make God more plausible, you try to make EVERYTHING ELSE less plausible. In other words, it's nothing more than trying to bring the entire rest of the universe down to the pitiful level of "God" - to the place where evidence doesn't matter, we can't know our butts from holes in the ground, can't be sure of anything or trust anything. And THAT'S where you put God with a crap argument like this.

So way to go... I honestly feel that's exactly where the idea belongs.

 

[PureX]

And when does this solipsistic line of thinking make evident the existence of "God" I wonder?

Whenever we decide that it does. Just like every other version of truth we decide is true.

This is an old theistic trick. Can't win them over with assertions of knowledge you can't possibly have? Go to the old stand-by - claiming that we can't really know that anything at all is true. So, in order to try and make God more plausible, you try to make EVERYTHING ELSE less plausible.[/QUOTE]Only a fool would think this is the scenario being presented.

The scenario being presented is that once we recognize and accept the reality of our own ignorance (unknowing), we are still going to have to choose what we're going to accept at being true, and what we're not. And we're not going to be able to do that based on the surety of our knowledge because we don't have that (not if we are being honest, anyway). So we will have to do it based on some OTHER criteria. Most of the time, that other criteria is reasoned probability. But sometimes even that doesn't provide a clear deciding factor, and then we are left with choosing between desired and undesired results. Which is in fact how we choose both our "truth" and our actions a great deal of the time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Only a fool would think this is the scenario being presented.

I maintain it is exactly the scenario being presented. If that makes me a fool in your eyes... so be it. I can brush that aside as inconsequential as easily as I brush a fly away from my plate at a picnic.

The scenario being presented is that once we recognize and accept the reality of our own ignorance (unknowing), we are still going to have to choose what we're going to accept at being true, and what we're not. And we're not going to be able to do that based on the surety of our knowledge because we don't have that (not if we are being honest, anyway). So we will have to do it based on some OTHER criteria. Most of the time, that other criteria is reasoned probability. But sometimes even that doesn't provide a clear deciding factor, and then we are left with choosing between desired and undesired results. Which is in fact how we choose both our "truth" and our actions a great deal of the time.

The problem being that SOME things are a bit more obviously present between any two individuals. Some things require vast amounts of delusion to deny, because I can experience it along with you, or vice versa, and our accounts of the thing being experienced are highly similar. In other words, the mutually-shareable evidence for the thing in question is of such a high caliber that we can very nearly assume its existence/correctness. Some things don't have as air-tight a defense, or are experienced slightly differently between individuals - like what something smells like, and those things are slightly less able to be shared, but are still available enough, and our understanding complete enough for us to still share our experiences with them. And then you have the very worst category - the things that offer nearly no ability to compare versus another person, because the object or experience in question is simply unavailable or is so highly volatile or inconsistent, or people come to such vastly different conclusions about the thing that you can't even be sure you can rely on the "evidence" for it at all. That last category is where God sits, and that was my point all along.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You'll note that there are essentially three beliefs, here.

• belief there is a god or gods, [broadest definition

• 'i don't know',

• 'there are no gods',

▪▪▪
every belief, is one of these. In order to have non vague way of describing these, you don't put two beliefs, in the same category.

"I don't know" isn't a belief, and a person can be an agnostic and a theist at the same time, or an agnostic and an atheist.

 

[Desert Snake]

We humans live by faith because our knowledge is limited, and suspect. We can't ever know for sure that what we think we know is accurate. The fact that we don't like this, or that we prefer imagining that we "know the truth" just because we think we know it, doesn't change the reality of our profound limitations when it comes to knowledge of the truth (what is).

That makes an effective discussion between believers, or theists, just more vague. Can you say that? Sure. Is it practical in all theisms? No. Is it practical in religious discussion? Not really.

 

[Desert Snake]

We humans live by faith because our knowledge is limited, and suspect. We can't ever know for sure that what we think we know is accurate. The fact that we don't like this, or that we prefer imagining that we "know the truth" just because we think we know it, doesn't change the reality of our profound limitations when it comes to knowledge of the truth (what is).

So, going beyond semantics, I do use 'truths', that do not allow for certain wingnut religious ideas. If you believe, that you have some truth, that refutes my theism, from my perspective, then you are wrong. That is what study determines, actual religious study.

 

[Nakosis]

According to the American Atheists website they state this

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

But in many discussions in this forum with many good Atheists i come across many ways to describe what atheism is.

Could i get some more info from Atheists in this forum? What is Atheism to you?

I see atheism as a self acceptance of lacking any valid knowledge about any god. Therefore having zero information about any god there is no reason to have any belief about any god.

 

[PureX]

I maintain it is exactly the scenario being presented. If that makes me a fool in your eyes... so be it. I can brush that aside as inconsequential as easily as I brush a fly away from my plate at a picnic.

The problem being that SOME things are a bit more obviously present between any two individuals.

This does not change the fundamental human situation, however, because two humans are just as limited and subjectively biased as one is. Or 100, or 10,000. Every human that ever lived agreeing that X = X still doesn't make it so. Nor does it make it even more likely to be so than if only one human claimed it to be so, and everyone else disagreed. Consensus does not equate to accuracy/truthfulness.

Some things require vast amounts of delusion to deny, because I can experience it along with you, or vice versa, and our accounts of the thing being experienced are highly similar.

All that means is that we share the same limited and biased experience and understanding of the "thing" in question. This does not mean that our joint conceptualization of it is accurate or true, however.

In other words, the mutually-shareable evidence for the thing in question is of such a high caliber that we can very nearly assume its existence/correctness.

That's just two biased opinions confirming each other.

Some things don't have as air-tight a defense, or are experienced slightly differently between individuals - like what something smells like, and those things are slightly less able to be shared, but are still available enough, and our understanding complete enough for us to still share our experiences with them. And then you have the very worst category - the things that offer nearly no ability to compare versus another person, because the object or experience in question is simply unavailable or is so highly volatile or inconsistent, or people come to such vastly different conclusions about the thing that you can't even be sure you can rely on the "evidence" for it at all. That last category is where God sits, and that was my point all along.

The thing that you're overlooking, here, is that the unknown remains unknown, and thereby can inflict any degree in-exactitude on anything we think we do know. So that no matter how certain we allow ourselves to feel, the chances of our being wildly wrong remain so great as to be immeasurable.

 

[Desert Snake]

This does not change the fundamental human situation, however, because two humans are just as limited and subjectively biased as one is. Or 100, or 10,000. Every human that ever lived agreeing that X = X still doesn't make it so. Nor does it make it even more likely to be so than if only one human claimed it to be so, and everyone else disagreed. Consensus does not equate to accuracy/truthfulness.
All that means is that we share the same limited and biased experience and understanding of the "thing" in question. This does not mean that our joint conceptualization of it is accurate or true, however.
That's just two biased opinions confirming each other.
The thing that you're overlooking, here, is that the unknown remains unknown, and thereby can inflict any degree in-exactitude on anything we think we do know. So that no matter how certain we allow ourselves to feel, the chances of our being wildly wrong remain so great as to be immeasurable.

That would be your subjective opinion.

 

[PureX]

We humans live by faith because our knowledge is limited, and suspect. We can't ever know for sure that what we think we know is accurate. The fact that we don't like this, or that we prefer imagining that we "know the truth" just because we think we know it, doesn't change the reality of our profound limitations when it comes to knowledge of the truth (what is).

That makes an effective discussion between believers, or theists, just more vague. Can you say that? Sure. Is it practical in all theisms? No. Is it practical in religious discussion? Not really.

It's the foundation of theism. It's where all the "God(s)" begin. It's sets the parameters of the Great Mystery that theism responds to with the conception of deity. If you don't understand this, you have no business discussing theistic religion.

 

[PureX]

So, going beyond semantics, I do use 'truths', that do not allow for certain wingnut religious ideas. If you believe, that you have some truth, that refutes my theism, from my perspective, then you are wrong. That is what study determines, actual religious study.

Religion is not for "studying", it's for living. Studying religion is like studying sex. It's an exercise in meaninglessness until it's applied.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's the foundation of theism. It's where all the "God(s)" begin. It's sets the parameters of the Great Mystery that theism responds to with the conception of deity. If you don't understand this, you have no business discussing theistic religion.

That is 'abstract', as religiously, we have names [and attributes, of different deities.
So, your answer isn't true at all, in usual theistic discussion.

Also, that 'great mystery', is again contextual, and opinions vary.

So, you really didn't say anything.

 

[PureX]

That is 'abstract', as religiously, we have names [and attributes, of different deities.
So, your answer isn't true at all, in usual theistic discussion.

Also, that 'great mystery', is again contextual, and opinions vary.

So, you really didn't say anything.

What's the point of reading the words if you can't understand why they were strung together?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This does not change the fundamental human situation, however, because two humans are just as limited and subjectively biased as one is. Or 100, or 10,000. Every human that ever lived agreeing that X = X still doesn't make it so. Nor does it make it even more likely to be so than if only one human claimed it to be so, and everyone else disagreed. Consensus does not equate to accuracy/truthfulness.

You may be right that it doesn't EQUATE to "accuracy" or "truthfulness," but its damn sure the best we have to go on - and "God" doesn't really fit into "the best we have to go on."

And you know what I find so hilariously funny about your statement above? So many theists want to paint atheism as this nihilistic, "care-for-nothing" sort of position (ever do that yourself I wonder?), and yet here you are, a theist, arguing that we can't know anything else really exists, can't know the true matters of anything, and may all be wildly incorrect about everything under the sun. Is that itself not nihilistic? What the hell could possibly matter when working under the assumption that everything might not be what it seems? And right there I have you trapped, because you do act and react to what we perceive as "reality" as if things matter, and as if things are what they seem. So all of this philosophical humdrum from you is just a big game. A farce you're deploying to distract us from our scrutiny of the invisible, intangible, moving target you call "God."

All that means is that we share the same limited and biased experience and understanding of the "thing" in question. This does not mean that our joint conceptualization of it is accurate or true, however.

But again, you can't deny that it is the best we currently have to go on at this point. What else are we going to do? Live according to the variation of reality some minority of the world (any given religion that is) can only claim is out there? What a ludicrous idea.

That's just two biased opinions confirming each other.

Unfortunately for you, this is the ONLY way we have available to us to advance our cultures and societies within the reality we appear to experience. If we all want to just forgo any sort of advancement or betterment we should all adopt belief in God, is that it? Then we can all just sit around recognizing that none of anything we do or think together is of any consequence. Doesn't that sound nice? And believe me, I KNOW that isn't the position you take, or close to anything you actually believe... but it does make one wonder why you are advocating that sort of thing, then, doesn't it? You're saying that we should all just believe in what appear to be fictions because we can't really know anything anyway, and that two people confirming anything in "reality" is just two biased opinions that amount to nothing. So you ARE, in a way, advocating that we don't accept our own reality, or share any ideas, or worry about making things better... because what's the point? Right? If its all just fluff and confirmation bias, then WHAT IS THE POINT?

And with your statement above, there goes any sort of "argumentum ad populum" that theists also traditionally love to employ by claiming that "so many people believe that there must be something to it." Gone. How about it @PureX? Ever make a variation of that argument yourself?

The thing that you're overlooking, here, is that the unknown remains unknown, and thereby can inflict any degree in-exactitude on anything we think we do know.

And my point is that UNTIL IT DOES there is not much reason to get your panties in a bunch over what amounts to FICTION before that point. I don't give a flying rat's backside about "the unknown" that can't, in any way, be demonstrated to have an effect on my life. If something can be investigated and demonstrated, and the claim is that it is affecting my life in a negative way, and I don't currently know about it, well at least I can investigate it. But God doesn't work that way, does He? You can't just go investigate ANY SINGLE claim about God, can you? All you EVER have at your disposal, and all you can EVER rely on is the word of others. Whether that be The Bible, or people telling you whatever they want to. And if you are feeling the itch to pipe up and say something about "personal experience" don't even bother. You already KILLED the possibility of personal experience being counted as evidence with your tirade about how we can't know anything and are all flawed, subjectively biased, etc. You killed it. You theists really need to learn to watch what you say.

So that no matter how certain we allow ourselves to feel, the chances of our being wildly wrong remain so great as to be immeasurable.

Then the same holds true about any and all claims made about God - who himself is also immeasurable, undetectable, indemonstrable, etc. - even within this "flawed, possibly matrix-like" (à la @PureX) reality we find ourselves in.

 

[PureX]

You may be right that it doesn't EQUATE to "accuracy" or "truthfulness," but its damn sure the best we have to go on - and "God" doesn't really fit into "the best we have to go on."

Is it? Or is it that we are boasting in the face of our own trepidation? After all, the possibilities become overwhelming when everything is possible.

And you know what I find so hilariously funny about your statement above? So many theists want to paint atheism as this nihilistic, "care-for-nothing" sort of position (ever do that yourself I wonder?), and yet here you are, a theist, arguing that we can't know anything else really exists, can't know the true matters of anything, and may all be wildly incorrect about everything under the sun. Is that itself not nihilistic?

No, it's not. Nihilism is just one possible response to this very humbling realization. Faith, would be another. Or even indifference. Millions of human beings have chosen from among these.

What the hell could possibly matter when working under the assumption that everything might not be what it seems?

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. What would truly matter, indeed? An excellent and very pertinent question, don't you think? Much more important than knowing "the truth" (what it is), is knowing "what matters" (what it means). At least millions and even billions of theists the world over, and throughout time, would attest to it.

And right there I have you trapped, because you do act and react to what we perceive as "reality" as if things matter, and as if things are what they seem. So all of this philosophical humdrum from you is just a big game. A farce you're deploying to distract us from our scrutiny of the invisible, intangible, moving target you call "God."

How we react to the realization of our own profound ignorance is what really MATTERS. This is the way out of that "trap" you think the realization of your profound unknowing puts you in. Our existence was never about us learning/knowing "the truth". It was about how we respond to not having it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is it? Or is it that we are boasting in the face of our own trepidation? After all, the possibilities become overwhelming when everything is possible.
No, it's not. Nihilism is just one possible response to this very humbling realization. Faith, would be another. Or even indifference. Millions of human beings have chosen from among these.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. What would truly matter, indeed? An excellent and very pertinent question, don't you think? Much more important than knowing "the truth" (what it is), is knowing "what matters" (what it means). At least millions and even billions of theists the world over, and throughout time, would attest to it.
How we react to the realization of our own profound ignorance is what really MATTERS. This is the way out of that "trap" you think the realization of your profound unknowing puts you in. Our existence was never about us learning/knowing "the truth". It was about how we respond to not having it.

All of this is biased opinion that isn't even confirmed by another. How can I know that anything you say/claim is what you say it is, or has the import that you seem to think it does? Your answer is that I can't. That's my answer also, and mostly for the same reasons. I just count myself different in that I do not delude myself into believing that anything I want to be out there might be out there simply because I don't know what all is out there, or what is entirely "real." I accept the reality I am presented with, and I work within it to affect the lives of those I care about within this reality, because they also report to me that it is what they experience as well. If you experience some other reality, good for you. Does where you are matter more than where I am? Unfortunately, you cannot make that claim, and by your own admission. Therefore I am free to judge where you are in any way I see fit, and assess its importance at zero if I am so inclined. And this mostly because you refuse to demonstrate the importance - and that mostly because we both understand that you cannot.

And here we come to an impasse. You have whittled away all plausible grounding by which we may have found something common to stand upon. I still feel that this was your plan all along - in order that you might push us into a realm so "unknown" that even your God might become plausible. It didn't have to be like this. Hopefully you can experience some form of betterment in your alternate reality, even though I don't see that you can have much help, seeing as how you can't agree on much with anyone since your reality is so open to interpretation and so very ungrounded, without sense of shared verifiability. I can only imagine it must be lonely there.

 

[PureX]

All of this is biased opinion that isn't even confirmed by another. How can I know that anything you say/claim is what you say it is, or has the import that you seem to think it does? Your answer is that I can't. That's my answer also, and mostly for the same reasons. I just count myself different in that I do not delude myself into believing that anything I want to be out there might be out there simply because I don't know what all is out there, or what is entirely "real." I accept the reality I am presented with, and I work within it to affect the lives of those I care about within this reality, because they also report to me that it is what they experience as well. If you experience some other reality, good for you. Does where you are matter more than where I am? Unfortunately, you cannot make that claim, and by your own admission. Therefore I am free to judge where you are in any way I see fit, and assess its importance at zero if I am so inclined. And this mostly because you refuse to demonstrate the importance - and that mostly because we both understand that you cannot.

I agree with all of this. But I think you're missing the freedom, and the amazing possibilities that comes with facing our own profound ignorance.

Many humans won't do it. They won't open their eyes and look at just how little they actually can know. The vulnerability of it frightens them, so they run and hide from it behind scientism, or behind religiosity. But for those who are willing to face their unknowing, and accept it, it becomes reasonable to explore the almost infinite possibilities. And more important, to explore the meaning of 'value' once it becomes decoupled from this perpetual delusion of "Truth" with the big "T". We can then understand and accept that honesty and forgiveness are all we really have. And yet they always seem to be enough! Enough to have a great life, with wonderful fellow humans, on an amazing planet. And that we can trust in it.

And here we come to an impasse. You have whittled away all plausible grounding by which we may have found something common to stand upon.

The commonality is our ignorance. Our 'unknowing'. We have that in common no matter how we have chosen to react to it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Enough to have a great life, with wonderful fellow humans, on an amazing planet. And that we can trust in it.

In the end, this sounds an awful lot like living life according to the reality we are presented with.

The commonality is our ignorance. Our 'unknowing'. We have that in common no matter how we have chosen to react to it.

And I agree that we are all ignorant as compared to the vastness of all that exists and goes on. Our thoughts are the smallest bit of nothings floating on a vast ocean. As much as I am part of the vastness, however, I am also part of the microcosm. I may, at any time, cast things into the vastness so as not to have to mentally/emotionally deal with them, however I will always, at some point, need to deal with some things within the microcosm. To not do so is to live in denial, make no progress, and waste one's life in negligence.

 

[Desert Snake]

What's the point of reading the words if you can't understand why they were strung together?

That is your opinion, and your religious perspective. Not everyone shares your 'deity idea', and that is either your choice, or, your tradition, to view deity in that manner.

I have numerous texts that relate to both my theism, and my religious beliefs, and I'm not really interested in you saying or interpreting, what they 'mean', or how I should perceive my religious traditions whether textual, or not.