Originally posted by The MISTERby your definition i'm not an atheist. by other definitions that i've heard i am. here's the thing... what makes your definition correct and the others incorrect? i'm really not that worried about the semantics of it all. at the end of the day i don't think there's a god but i acknowledge that's basically just a guess. call that what you will.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about spiritual belief systems and atheism since I first started posting in the religion forum. To me the subject was important then and has stayed a priority in my mind until today. After much thinking on the idea of atheism I realized that it's not the person who calls himself an atheist that brings a negative feeling out of me, because my fellow humans can call themselves anything within their power to call themselves. The word atheist has a meaning that is not up for discussion and though some people may fit that definition, most that say that they do will quickly contradict themselves under scrutiny.Certain words invoke negative feelings immediately. A molester can be someone who is simply teasing (molesting) someone else. Despite knowing that fact if a person were to use that word rather than teasing, when describing what they do with their kids they would probably be investigated quickly.
Atheism is a rigid position of belief about faith in anything supernatural. I believe most people would agree that a praying atheist is an oxymoron. Anyone who says that there may some truth in faith placed in prayers doesn't meet the base definition of an atheist.
A true atheist KNOWS that all believers unspoken prayers fall on deaf ears. An agnostic may THINK that prayers are not received by any god, but by definition an atheist knows. Uncertainties about god doesn't fit the term atheism any more than slightly flawed fits the term perfect.
A person who describes themselves as perfect can believe it, but it will likely make other people feel that they are arrogant. It's pretty easy to produce evidence that nobody is perfect, so a person that uses that word to describe themselves is going to invoke negative feelings simply by their choice of words. Atheism is similar because an atheist knows ALL spiritual beliefs are incorrect. Negative feelings are invoked as this is impossible to know yet the claim to know lies in the title "atheist". Arrogance is implied to the person calling themselves an atheist whether they truly are an atheist or not. Arrogance invokes negative feelings. No offense is intended in this post but I do believe that the idea of atheism (as it is literally defined) is offensive to me and others who feel that humans have a responsibility to treat others lovingly. In conclusion I say this.. Words can be powerful so choose how you describe yourself carefully.
Originally posted by The MISTER
I've spent a lot of time thinking about spiritual belief systems and atheism since I first started posting in the religion forum. To me the subject was important then and has stayed a priority in my mind until today. After much thinking on the idea of atheism I realized that it's not the person who calls himself an atheist that brings a negative feeling out of me, because my fellow humans can call themselves anything within their power to call themselves. The word atheist has a meaning that is not up for discussion and though some people may fit that definition, most that say that they do will quickly contradict themselves under scrutiny.Certain words invoke negative feelings immediately. A molester can be someone who is simply teasing (molesting) someone else. Despite knowing that fact if a person were to use that word rather than teasing, when describing what they do with their kids they would probably be investigated quickly.
Atheism is a rigid position of belief about faith in anything supernatural. I believe most people would agree that a praying atheist is an oxymoron. Anyone who says that there may some truth in faith placed in prayers doesn't meet the base definition of an atheist.
A true atheist KNOWS that all believers unspoken prayers fall on deaf ears. An agnostic may THINK that prayers are not received by any god, but by definition an atheist knows. Uncertainties about god doesn't fit the term atheism any more than slightly flawed fits the term perfect.
A person who describes themselves as perfect can believe it, but it will likely make other people feel that they are arrogant. It's pretty easy to produce evidence that nobody is perfect, so a person that uses that word to describe themselves is going to invoke negative feelings simply by their choice of words. Atheism is similar because an atheist knows ALL spiritual beliefs are incorrect. Negative feelings are invoked as this is impossible to know yet the claim to know lies in the title "atheist". Arrogance is implied to the person calling themselves an atheist whether they truly are an atheist or not. Arrogance invokes negative feelings. No offense is intended in this post but I do believe that the idea of atheism (as it is literally defined) is offensive to me and others who feel that humans have a responsibility to treat others lovingly. In conclusion I say this.. Words can be powerful so choose how you describe yourself carefully.
This whole thing falls apart because most atheists don't claim to "know" anything for certain. They either lack a belief in God/gods, or believe there is none. You're treating atheism as though it's indefensibly absolutist. As a wonderful example, Richard Dawkins himself would say your definition of atheist doesn't include him, per his book "The God Delusion" where he tackles this exact misconception. And if it doesn't include the figurehead for modern atheists, it's your definition that is undoubtedly wrong.
Because if your definition described me or any atheist I've ever met, read, or learned about, you'd be largely right. Alas. But as it is, the number of times I've been confronted with arguments like this, sometimes framed as "You can't prove a negative" or "how can you know there isn't a God?", it reinforces my own belief that atheism is largely misunderstood by its detractors.
Yeah, Gnosticism has to do with knowledge. Theism has to do with belief. Agnostic means "I don't know". Atheist means "I don't believe". You can mix and match both: Agnostic Theist [I don't know, but believe], Agnostic Atheist [I don't know, nor do I believe], Gnostic Theist [I do know and I do believe], Gnostic Atheist [I do know but I don't believe], or just simplify to a base Theist, Agnostic, or Atheist. I'm an Agnostic Atheist or just plain Atheist. I don't know whether the supernatural exist, but having been presented with zero evidence to support the existence of anything supernatural I don't believe it exists. My lack of belief isn't just in Gods, it's in the supernatural/magic as a whole. I think people just made those concepts up and ran with superstitions, and there's actual evidence to support that practice occurring. However, that's not a hard unwavering belief. I'd reassess my position if actual evidence (non-anecdotal, empirical evidence) were presented establishing that magic and magical beings actually exists. Then it would become a fact that magic actually exists.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Then it would become a fact that magic actually exists.
I'd go a step further and say it only becomes a fact that there are unexplainable elements to the universe that are, perhaps, at odds with our fundamentally agreed-upon understanding of physics. "Magic" is a term I'd avoid. Because magic as it is commonly understood - as something that is non-causal or beyond reality bounds - is probably impossible.
We deal with comics a lot where a few characters - Mr. Terrific comes to mind - contend that magic is just as-yet unexplained science. But it's comics, so his contentions remain unresolved. But anything with the ability to interact with the existing universe would have to be causal and, therefore, able to be analyzed empirically. Thus, the whole concept of "supernatural" is a bit idiotic. If it did exist, it might be extradimensional, quantum, etc., or something we don't have a name for yet. But it would have an explanation. Labeling anything as supernatural, magic, or, for that matter, divine or "God" is, to me, just an intellectual shortcut for saying "I don't know, but I want closure, justified or not."
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think an atheist can experience the divine, but they would just use different words to describe it.
👆
From my - and I'm guessing your - perspective, everything we experience is an intrinsic thing. If a person believes they experience the divine in a religious sense, all I see is someone having a profound inner experience that isn't caused by a creator. So an atheist can experience the divine, because we all have the same basic wiring and are capable of the same types of experiences.
But you're right, I'd almost certainly use different words to describe it. Though I wouldn't consider it incorrect to use "divine" in a general sense, because things like wonder, awe, contentedness, joy/rapture, etc. are what the "divine" experience is made of. Divine may simply be the most appropriate descriptor.
Originally posted by Bentley
I guess, you could argue that a man of faith could experience the divine, while an atheist can never experience the "lack of divine", but in most cases such clarity is a subjective thing that cannot be used as a generalization. The idea of a human brain being able to unequivocally experience God poses a certain number of problems.
Indeed. The brain is capable of remarkable things, and equally as capable of ascribing those things to the wrong root causes.
Originally posted by Digi
...
👆From my - and I'm guessing your - perspective, everything we experience is an intrinsic thing. If a person believes they experience the divine in a religious sense, all I see is someone having a profound inner experience that isn't caused by a creator. So an atheist can experience the divine, because we all have the same basic wiring and are capable of the same types of experiences.
But you're right, I'd almost certainly use different words to describe it. Though I wouldn't consider it incorrect to use "divine" in a general sense, because things like wonder, awe, contentedness, joy/rapture, etc. are what the "divine" experience is made of. Divine may simply be the most appropriate descriptor...
I didn't mean to exclude the possibility of using the word divine. But I would find it shocking to hear an atheist use such a word, with so much baggage. However, it is a perfectly good word.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheism isn't a set of beliefs. So, such an experience would be unique to the individual.
Well, it is a set of beliefs, is just not an organized set of beliefs in the way religion is considered organized.
Unless you meant atheism is a set of non-beliefs, which is arguable at best. I don't care much of the distinction between pure belief and thought to be honest.
Originally posted by Digi
Thus, the whole concept of "supernatural" is a bit idiotic. If it did exist, it might be extradimensional, quantum, etc., or something we don't have a name for yet. But it would have an explanation. Labeling anything as supernatural, magic, or, for that matter, divine or "God" is, to me, just an intellectual shortcut for saying "I don't know, but I want closure, justified or not."
Prove that every supernatural "thing" will have an explanation you hater ahah
Originally posted by DigiThis whole thing falls apart because most atheists don't claim to "know" anything for certain. They either lack a belief in God/gods, or believe there is none. You're treating atheism as though it's indefensibly absolutist. As a wonderful example, Richard Dawkins himself would say your definition of atheist doesn't include him, per his book "The God Delusion" where he tackles this exact misconception. And if it doesn't include the figurehead for modern atheists, it's your definition that is undoubtedly wrong.
Because if your definition described me or any atheist I've ever met, read, or learned about, you'd be largely right. Alas. But as it is, the number of times I've been confronted with arguments like this, sometimes framed as "You can't prove a negative" or "how can you know there isn't a God?", it reinforces my own belief that atheism is largely misunderstood by its detractors.
THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE
Steven D. Hales
A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.
Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website
that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’
Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia,
agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we
can’t prove a negative proposition.’
University of California at Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we
can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that
something is safe.’
A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.
But there is one big, fat problem with all this.
Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove
a negative?
That’s right: zero.
Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too.
For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true
and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,
you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare
you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable
negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is
not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a
negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you
can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove
it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.
Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative,
thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any
proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P.
So pick anything you think you can prove.
Think you can prove your own existence?
At least to your own satisfaction?
Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation,
you can prove that you aren’t nonexistent. Congratulations,
you’ve just proven a negative.
The beautiful part is that you can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever.
Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
Originally posted by Bentley
Well, it is a set of beliefs, is just not an organized set of beliefs in the way religion is considered organized.
No, it really isn't. It's the lack of belief, or, at best, a single belief. The whole idea is kinda that there isn't a doctrine.
Originally posted by Bentley
Prove that every supernatural "thing" will have an explanation you hater ahah
Setting aside 100% objective proof, which is impossible for literally anything from our subjective viewpoints, I actually think we can build a reasonable empirical case for this based on our observation of the universe's deterministic forces. Everything is deterministic, so far as we know. We don't know everything, of course, but we know a lot. At that point, I could invoke lots of argumentative maxims to make my case as this being the most plausible, including burden of proof, which doesn't currently rest on the determinists. And if something is deterministic, it's empirically testable and repeatable. So there's the start of the defense.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
....yeah, I only said I was often confronted with that logic when it comes to atheism and its detractors, not that it was my stance. It's also not what atheism is (proof of God's nonexistence).
So...ok. You missed the point of my post entirely anyway, but that's not really a surprise. The logic train that was that text dump is a bit odd too, but I don't want to fly down a pointless tangent.
So, I'm on a dating site now, and they give you an option to state your religious inclinations. Originally I had my religion as "atheist," and while I didn't run into any trouble because of it, I recently changed to blank because there are always going to be people who will avoid a stranger who they know is an atheist but will have no trouble accepting them after they've already gotten to know them.
Irrational? Probably. But I'm sticking with this policy.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, I'm on a dating site now, and they give you an option to state your religious inclinations. Originally I had my religion as "atheist," and while I didn't run into any trouble because of it, I recently changed to blank because there are always going to be people who will avoid a stranger who they know is an atheist but will have no trouble accepting them after they've already gotten to know them.Irrational? Probably. But I'm sticking with this policy.
Not at all irrational, and good luck. I still live in the Midwest, but used to live in the Midwest, so to speak. Much closer to the Bible Belt. And I've had struggles numerous times with dating as it relates to my atheism, up to and including being broken up with over it. So...yeah, it's a thing. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's definitely something to leave off a dating profile.
When I did online dating (it was a very brief period, but was interesting), I was always honest, but learned this fairly quickly as well. Lots of girls are fine with it, but far fewer are fine with it when they aren't face to face with you, and can just click "next" to see another guy.
You could always list agnostic, and be truthful on a technicality ("Well, we don't know..."😉 It will keep the hardcore religious ones away that you might not be into, but won't limit you like "atheist" will. In general, though, I'm all about casting a wide net with those things. Too many details of any sort are a hindrance toward that. You can weed them out later.
It's hilarious when girls start an argument preemptively in their profile. Usually not about atheism (although sometimes they do), but often about feminism or other progressive topics.
I'm wincing, thinking, "I agree with you, but damn you're burning a lot of bridges before you can even collect a toll on them."
There's a ton of interesting research on dating profiles, because they're all easily-collected data points. The levels of nuance that you can work toward to maximize your "hits" with the other sex (or same sex, depending) are incredibly fascinating.
Magnificent blog, and a great marriage between the subjective idea of love and the far more erotic world of hard, empirical data.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol racism galore.Poor black women. I grew up in (and am currently back for the holidays) an area where admitting you find black women attractive is like admitting you're a communist.
That's just the first article. But yeah, lol.
But anyway, there are others where he takes a similarly analytical approach, and most aren't racial.
Originally posted by Digi
No, it really isn't. It's the lack of belief, or, at best, a single belief. The whole idea is kinda that there isn't a doctrine.
My point was on semantics, a belief about something not existing is still a belief. Just clarifying as I think you pretty much pointed out that possibility on your second line.
Regarding my other troll comment, I wonder if admitting determinism is by default denying the term supernatural of any absolute value...