What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

[blü 2]

So even though these folks acknowledge the existence of Gods, they're still atheists?

Your question was

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?​

If I said,

I don't believe in gods but I acknowledge their existence can benefit believers,​

I'd have contradicted myself, denying the existence of gods while acknowledging the existence of gods.

If I said,

I don't believe in Gods but I acknowledge that belief in gods can benefit believers,​

I'd be an atheist pure and simple.

(As you know, I speak as an igtheist.)

 

[PureX]

The most logical basis is standard common usage.

Explain this logic, please. If people commonly begin to label dogs, "dreams", how does this become logical. And then when we need to discuss dreams, how do you propose that we do so without generating much unnecessary confusion? Unnecessary, because we already had the appropriate terms for both dogs and dreams. And when this is being pointed out, and one still insists that dogs are dreams, what then?

She wasn't defining it...she just uses standard sources that comport with how everyone generally uses it.

Which is untrue, and inaccurate. So I pointed this out. And I explained why it's so. What else do you propose I do?

 

[PureX]

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?

See, this is why it's so important to be as clear as possible about what is being asserted, what is being accepted, and what is being 'believed'. This question recognizes the difference between "believing in" gods, and acknowledging that they exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?

They're atheists. It really isn't that hard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Explain this logic, please. If people commonly begin to label dogs, "dreams", how does this become logical.

If people did that, then the meaning would indeed change.
(BTW, they're not doing that. "Dogs" aren't dreams.)

It isn't about logic or slavish devotion to a rigid etymological system.
It's just communication...which requires only that words used by people
are understood by other people. If they all use the same definitions of
words, then meaning is conveyed efficiently. Dictionaries are compiled
upon common usage, hence they change over time.

Consider the word "awful". We use it to mean terrible.
It once meant worthy of reverence, but it flip flopped in
common parlance.
Is this logical?
No....just natural.
I invite you to join us in the 21st century, &
use definitions found in modern dictionaries.
Accept that language is chaotic & organic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What Makes an Atheist an Atheist?

I understand that Atheism people are those who consider it legitimate to mock/ridicule and deride others but never subject their own Atheism position/no-position under the same yardstick.
Right, please?

Regards

Pretty ridiculous assertion.
Feel free to mock atheism all you like. I certainly have in the past. I doubt anyone will lock you up over it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?

Atheists.

 

[Alonzo Tanner]

Yes, I know an atheist is defined as one who has a lack of belief in any God.

But what is the test to be recognized as an atheist by others?

If an atheist behaves in such a manner that aligns with the morals Jesus' teaches even though they claim to be an atheist, shouldn't they be called a Christian?

According to Wikipedia, there are 500 million atheists in the world. How do we know whether someone who claims to be an atheist secretly believes there is likely a divine power, but claims to be an atheist strictly to avoid ridicule for believing as such?

If we were to weed out these fake atheists, would the 500 million number significantly change?

I like the idea of a Supreme Being but I just don't believe in one. It's never made any sense to me. Neither does the Trinity, Heaven / Hell & Afterlife are mythical to me.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, I know an atheist is defined as one who has a lack of belief in any God.

But what is the test to be recognized as an atheist by others?

If an atheist behaves in such a manner that aligns with the morals Jesus' teaches even though they claim to be an atheist, shouldn't they be called a Christian?

According to Wikipedia, there are 500 million atheists in the world. How do we know whether someone who claims to be an atheist secretly believes there is likely a divine power, but claims to be an atheist strictly to avoid ridicule for believing as such?

If we were to weed out these fake atheists, would the 500 million number significantly change?

Does one figure that Advaita Vedanta are in a way Atheists, please? Is it so, please?
Just for information please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[ppp]

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?

You ask asking who do you classify people who don't believe that god exist, yet still believe that they have existence

 

[PureX]

I like the idea of a Supreme Being but I just don't believe in one. It's never made any sense to me.

Why would you assume that it must make sense to you? That you should be able to understand it? The origin and purpose of existence is a complete mystery to all humans. Maybe it always will be. Yet not knowing doesn't mean that there is no origin, or purpose. Ignorance does not logically default to non-existence. Not knowing does not presume not being. So if anyone wants to call this great existential mystery "God", and proclaim that "God exists", they most certainly can. Because the great existential mystery does exist, from our cognitive perspective. And because it is a mystery, we are free to characterize, and to imagine it to be however we want. So long as we understand that this is what we're doing. That our imaginings aren't resolving the mystery of it; they're just providing us with a way of relating ourselves to it.

There is no fact or logical reason that you should not allow yourself to imagine "God" to be whatever you most hope that God would be. So long as you understand that you are conceptualizing a mystery. THE mystery ... of everything.

 

[blü 2]

Why would you assume that it must make sense to you? That you should be able to understand it?

We are a species very curious about our world. It's in our genes to assume we can make sense of things and indeed we constantly try to do so.

The origin and purpose of existence is a complete mystery to all humans.

It seems to me that the evidence is very clear ─ the universe exists because of the operations of cause and effect within physics. Nothing suggests it's constructed for a purpose, and nothing suggests that purposes are found anywhere but in the brains of relatively advanced living creatures. Nothing suggests that life began on earth for a purpose, and nothing suggests that humans have been directed by any overarching external intelligence to become what we've become.

Yet not knowing doesn't mean that there is no origin, or purpose.

There's evidence for the Big Bang, which offers two principal possibilities ─ that the matter and energy of our universe pre-existed the universe, OR that the matter and energy of the universe came into existence out of absolutely nothing ─ from nowhere in time, nowhere in space, nowhere anywhere else. I'm drawn to the first rather than the second of those.

But there's no sign of a purpose. Nor does the existence of self-replicating cells capable of evolving, and known to exist only in one place in a universe that may contain septillions of stars and however many planets that might imply, and which took 9 billion years to happen, suggest that life on earth is intelligently designed. (If it did, it would raise the question of where and how the designers evolved, of course.)

Ignorance does not logically default to non-existence. Not knowing does not presume not being. So if anyone wants to call this great existential mystery "God", and proclaim that "God exists", they most certainly can.

Yet as I've mentioned more than once before, there's no definition of god that's appropriate to a being with objective existence, no objective test that will tell me whether my keyboard is God or not. Devising gods is apparently something humans have evolved to do, either because such beliefs are good for survival and breeding, or because they're an artifact of other evolved traits.

Because the great existential mystery does exist, from our cognitive perspective.

But there is zero demonstrated necessity for the mystery to be solved outside of physics, the examination of the evidence of reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

So if anyone wants to call this great existential mystery "God", and proclaim that "God exists", they most certainly can. Because the great existential mystery does exist, from our cognitive perspective. And because it is a mystery, we are free to characterize, and to imagine it to be however we want. So long as we understand that this is what we're doing. That our imaginings aren't resolving the mystery of it; they're just providing us with a way of relating ourselves to it.

I guess some people prefer make-believe to admitting they don't know something. I just find that bizarre.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I like the idea of a Supreme Being but I just don't believe in one. It's never made any sense to me. Neither does the Trinity, Heaven / Hell & Afterlife are mythical to me.

I don't believe in the Trinity, Hell, Heaven, or an afterlife, at least an "afterlife" in the sense most others do, either.

But if you like the idea of a Supreme Being, however, you're in luck. I happen to be one.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does one figure that Advaita Vedanta are in a way Atheists, please? Is it so, please?
Just for information please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Advaita teachings have been called atheistic, but I don't believe the majority of Advaitins are atheists, though there are some exceptions, even on this forum, @Aupmanyav being one that identifies with atheism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You ask asking who do you classify people who don't believe that god exist, yet still believe that they have existence

I'm not sure if this is a statement or a question. Can you please rephrase?

 

[ppp]

I'm not sure if this is a statement or a question. Can you please rephrase?

Yeah. Sorry. Clearly I was distracted and didn't proof that at all!

How do you classify those who don't believe in Gods or Creators but acknowledges their existence has a benevolent affect on those who believe in them?

This sentence is difficult to parse. There is what it says, versus what I think you meant.

What it seems to say is, How do you classify those who do not believe that gods exist, but acknowledge that they do exist and that the gods' existence has a benevolent effect on those who believe.

What I think you meant is, How do you classify those who do not believe that gods exist, but acknowledge that those who believe in one or more gods experience a beneficial effect from that belief.

If you meant the first, those people do not exist, and cannot (logically) exist.

If you meant the second, those people are still atheists. They simply acknowledge that one can gain benefit from falsehoods. Both intentional falsehoods, and simply being incorrect.

If I missed your meaning entirely, I apologize. Please explain.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yeah. Sorry. Clearly I was distracted and didn't proof that at all!



This sentence is difficult to parse. There is what it says, versus what I think you meant.

What it seems to say is, How do you classify those who do not believe that gods exist, but acknowledge that they do exist and that the gods' existence has a benevolent effect on those who believe.

What I think you meant is, How do you classify those who do not believe that gods exist, but acknowledge that those who believe in one or more gods experience a beneficial effect from that belief.

If you meant the first, those people do not exist, and cannot (logically) exist.

If you meant the second, those people are still atheists. They simply acknowledge that one can gain benefit from falsehoods. Both intentional falsehoods, and simply being incorrect.

If I missed your meaning entirely, I apologize. Please explain.

I just noticed in reading my text you quoted that my plural pronoun doesn't match the singular verb. I'll fix that in a moment. But I digress.

Your first example, on the surface, appears contradictory. Either they exist or they don't, right?

But I think it can be both. In my reality, these Gods and Creators do not exist. But in the reality of others, they exist and are very real. So much to the point where these Gods/Creators have a profound influence over their lives.

And before we go into discounting what I'm saying with the whole "there is only one reality" rigmarole, my own personal experiences tell me otherwise. As does some neuroscience...

“Our minds aren’t passive observers, simply perceiving reality as it is. Our minds actually change reality,” said Alia Crum, an assistant professor of psychology and director of the Stanford Mind and Body Lab.
​

How the human mind shapes reality | Stanford News.

Here are some TED talks as well...

7 TED Talks on how your brain constructs reality

 

[ppp]

And before we go into discounting what I'm saying with the whole "there is only one reality" rigmarole, my own personal experiences tell me otherwise.

I don't have any patience for the "everyone has their own reality" claptrap. All I have to do is say that in my reality there is only one reality and that reality is my own. Your realty does not exist. Only mine. And that is the end of it. Anything you say that contradicts my reality is necessarily humbug.

--

Either there is one reality that we all experience and interpret to various degrees of accuracy, or you are the only extant being and all the rest of us are figments of your imagination.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't have any patience for the "everyone has their own reality" claptrap. All I have to do is say that in my reality there is only one reality and that reality is my own. Your realty does not exist. Only mine. And that is the end of it. Anything you say that contradicts my reality is necessarily humbug.

--

Either there is one reality that we all experience and interpret to various degrees of accuracy, or you are the only extant being and all the rest of us are figments of your imagination.

How would you know whether or not you are the only extant being and the rest of us are figments of your imagination?

How do you know that you didn’t create in your own mind this reply and you aren’t just imagining these are the words of another?

Do people in your dreams experience the same dream reality you’re experiencing? Wouldn’t they have to if that’s the only one dream reality they all experience and interpret with varying degrees of accuracy?