Atheism

Originally posted by inimalist
??

as someone who isn't an atheist, don't you think the majority of us here, who are atheists, might have a better understanding of what the "point" of atheism is?

This is sloppy. What you are saying is that only Atheists can understand Atheists. I don't think there is any unified belief about what Atheists are or are not. It is an individual belief.

Originally posted by inimalist
This is essentially the same debate I was having with 753. Not believing in "God" is not the same as saying "I, a priori, will not believe in anything you want to call God."

You can probably assume that most people came into atheism through the rejection of the idea of a God that interferes with the universe and created things. Redefining God so that it fits your purpose is intellectually sloppy, and you have reduced the significance of what God is anyways (to the point where even using the same term is very misleading).

😄 Please understand what I believe, and it is just a belief, that God cannot be understood by humans. Understanding of God cannot be written down, or passed from one person to the next. Anything that humans can say about God is at some level wrong, including this statement. So, I have not changed God to fit my beliefs. What I have done is understand what is meant by the Mystic Law.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't pretend to tell people what boxes they fit into, but I would probably see it that way.

Good answer!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you brake the idea of a god down to humans belief about god's attributes, then it is falsifiable. However, you are only disproving humans belief about god's attributes.

It lets you disprove particular gods.

If you claim that dogs have nine feet and I prove it isn't true then your version of dogs clearly aren't real.

The wishy-washy "god" you want to defend is pointless, exactly as pointless as the po-mo sort of thing where you apply a wishy-washy definition to "dog" that lets anything be called a dog. The man who says dogs are a large yellow/golden feline hunter that lives in Africa is wrong, saying that "to me what you call a lion is a dog" doesn't make him clever, it makes him a smug moron.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It lets you disprove particular gods.

If you claim that dogs have nine feet and I prove it isn't true then your version of dogs clearly aren't real.

The wishy-washy "god" you want to defend is pointless, exactly as pointless as the po-mo sort of thing where you apply a wishy-washy definition to "dog" that lets anything be called a dog. The man who says dogs are a large yellow/golden feline hunter that lives in Africa is wrong, saying that "to me what you call a lion is a dog" doesn't make him clever, it makes him a smug moron.

Where do you get the idea I am defending a god? 😆

Anything humans can say about God is wrong at some level, and that includes Atheists, and Theists.

Your analogy about a dog is just laughable. Not because its wrong, but because it illustrates your lack of understanding what I am plainly saying. You cannot know if God exists or not, so, be happy, and believe what you wish.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is sloppy. What you are saying is that only Atheists can understand Atheists. I don't think there is any unified belief about what Atheists are or are not. It is an individual belief.

well, yes, that was my point.

You probably shouldn't tell me what the point of my belief system is, because I understand it better than you do.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😄 Please understand what I believe, and it is just a belief, that God cannot be understood by humans. Understanding of God cannot be written down, or passed from one person to the next. Anything that humans can say about God is at some level wrong, including this statement. So, I have not changed God to fit my beliefs. What I have done is understand what is meant by the Mystic Law.

ok, maybe you havent changed definitions, but do you see what I'm saying? In the culture that the philosophy of atheism developed, God had a fairly rigid definition. Was this a political-cultural thing that has more to do with church authority than theology? sure!

while you can probably guess my feelings toward "mystic laws", you have to agree they come from a different cultural understanding of what God is.

this just becomes semantics then, as there are potentially billions of ways to interpret what God might be. To me, atheism is probably uninteresed in these interpretations, but it isn't right to say that it stands as an outright rejection of any concept that might someday or in some context be a God. Hell, for as little as I like Dawkins' religious writings, he even addresses this in the opening to the God delusion.

The God that atheists deny is the one that sits there and involves itself in human life, not some spiritual whatever that someone has redefined as God. You have to agree, the two understandings of "God" are mutually exclusive from eachother, thus why I said it is misleading to call them both "God".

With the unicorn example, one could say "I don't believe in unicorns", then I can come out with some pseudo-Platonic "well, all horses or 4 legged animals have genetics that could produce horns, and all of these genes belong to a greater semantic category which unicorns belong to, and thus, there is an essence of 'unicorn' in all things" or whatever. The first statement is not even addressing the concept of "unicorn" presented in the second.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, that was my point.

You probably shouldn't tell me what the point of my belief system is, because I understand it better than you do.

ok, maybe you havent changed definitions, but do you see what I'm saying? In the culture that the philosophy of atheism developed, God had a fairly rigid definition. Was this a political-cultural thing that has more to do with church authority than theology? sure!

while you can probably guess my feelings toward "mystic laws", you have to agree they come from a different cultural understanding of what God is.

this just becomes semantics then, as there are potentially billions of ways to interpret what God might be. To me, atheism is probably uninteresed in these interpretations, but it isn't right to say that it stands as an outright rejection of any concept that might someday or in some context be a God. Hell, for as little as I like Dawkins' religious writings, he even addresses this in the opening to the God delusion.

The God that atheists deny is the one that sits there and involves itself in human life, not some spiritual whatever that someone has redefined as God. You have to agree, the two understandings of "God" are mutually exclusive from eachother, thus why I said it is misleading to call them both "God".

With the unicorn example, one could say "I don't believe in unicorns", then I can come out with some pseudo-Platonic "well, all horses or 4 legged animals have genetics that could produce horns, and all of these genes belong to a greater semantic category which unicorns belong to, and thus, there is an essence of 'unicorn' in all things" or whatever. The first statement is not even addressing the concept of "unicorn" presented in the second.

You make it sound like atheism is a belief that a particular god does not exist.

it does really only address a specific ontology of God, yes. Materialism, skepticism, positivism, reductionism, etc, things that are often associated with atheism, and are directly part of the scientific world view, certainly make much wider statements about the liklihood of other types of Gods, but no, to me atheism reflects more the rejection of an active God, which, lets not kid ourselves, is the God that is almsot always the one people are talking about. (for instance, the fact that over 50% of americans think the rapture will occur in their lifetime. This is a stance incongruent with "mystic law"😉

or, maybe a better way to put it is, no, atheism is unable to make a statement about a God that is defined by the inability to make statements about it.

Originally posted by inimalist
it does really only address a specific ontology of God, yes. Materialism, skepticism, positivism, reductionism, etc, things that are often associated with atheism, and are directly part of the scientific world view, certainly make much wider statements about the liklihood of other types of Gods, but no, to me atheism reflects more the rejection of an active God, which, lets not kid ourselves, is the God that is almsot always the one people are talking about. (for instance, the fact that over 50% of americans think the rapture will occur in their lifetime. This is a stance incongruent with "mystic law"😉

or, maybe a better way to put it is, no, atheism is unable to make a statement about a God that is defined by the inability to make statements about it.

😆 You are stating to sound like me.

Under that way of thinking, I would be considered an atheist, and have been call one by Christians.

My point was that Atheism is a belief. It sounds like we agree. My second point was that the argument (god or no god) was a waist of time. On that point we may disagree. My belief looks only at the bigger picture. If you look at the every day life, I cannot say if the world would be better without a god, or not. Only a human can destroy utopia.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Under that way of thinking, I would be considered an atheist, and have been call one by Christians.

I can understand why Christians might think that...

I guess to me atheism is more of an epiphenomenon that comes from accepting certain methods about understanding the universe. Like, you believe in a "supernatural" thing (lol, honestly thats lack of a better term, I'm not mocking), something that wouldn't be congruent with positivism or empiricism or materialism etc. To me, that means you aren't an atheist.

I know many people would debate this, and that definition does get very close to skeptcism, but it is sort of my thought. Atheism is much more, imho, the position on God that comes from accepting the scientific world view. Because you believe things that would not fall into that view, you aren't an atheist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My point was that Atheism is a belief. It sounds like we agree.

we don't agree on this. I know we have been throught it on the boards a couple of times, and I don't have the stamina that Kandy does, but the most important part of it, to me, boils down to:

"Belief" cannot mean the same as "disbelief". There is nothing gained from conflaiting the two, and in fact, it reduces the specificity of the term "belief".

I've actually gone out of my way to use terms like "ontology" or "stance" or "statement" instead of "belief", because I think they work much better (ontology being the most accurate, imho).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My second point was that the argument (god or no god) was a waist of time. On that point we may disagree.

very much. I don't personally spend too much time on the issue, but how can it be a waste of time if that is what someone wants to do?

Being forced to ponder it against your will might be, I guess

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My belief looks only at the bigger picture. If you look at the every day life, I cannot say if the world would be better without a god, or not. Only a human can destroy utopia.

well, this depends very much on the type of God

if it is any of the Gods of the Book, I'm with Hitchens, we are demonstrably better off knowing that they don't exist.

A God that enforces segregation and inequality through violence is an evil spirit

Originally posted by inimalist
I can understand why Christians might think that...

I guess to me atheism is more of an epiphenomenon that comes from accepting certain methods about understanding the universe. Like, you believe in a "supernatural" thing (lol, honestly thats lack of a better term, I'm not mocking), something that wouldn't be congruent with positivism or empiricism or materialism etc. To me, that means you aren't an atheist.

I do not believe in any supernatural “thing”. Although I understand why you might think that. For example, Karma and Reincarnation seem to be supernatural, and at face value, they are. But I believe that they are just a reflection of things noticed by human in the natural world. I believe that Karma and Reincarnation are flawed “theories” that reflect a profound aspect of nature that has not been discovered by Western Science (or maybe they have) . I only believe in them, in the form they are, because I don’t know the complete story in nature. It would be like believing Newton’s Laws of Gravity, but knowing they do not describe nature accurately. I will leave it at that for another topic.

Originally posted by inimalist
I know many people would debate this, and that definition does get very close to skeptcism, but it is sort of my thought. Atheism is much more, imho, the position on God that comes from accepting the scientific world view. Because you believe things that would not fall into that view, you aren't an atheist.

I see nothing in science that disagrees with my Buddhist, or personal beliefs. The most science can say about god is that one is not needed for creation of the universe. Gravity alone will create the universe out of nothing. However, the multiverse makes the need for such a creation, moot.

Originally posted by inimalist
we don't agree on this. I know we have been throught it on the boards a couple of times, and I don't have the stamina that Kandy does, but the most important part of it, to me, boils down to:

"Belief" cannot mean the same as "disbelief". There is nothing gained from conflaiting the two, and in fact, it reduces the specificity of the term "belief".

I've actually gone out of my way to use terms like "ontology" or "stance" or "statement" instead of "belief", because I think they work much better (ontology being the most accurate, imho).

very much. I don't personally spend too much time on the issue, but how can it be a waste of time if that is what someone wants to do?

Being forced to ponder it against your will might be, I guess

Is pursuing the theory of aether productive, or a waist of time? To me, it would be a waist of time. Atheism is the same to me. I am simply expressing my feelings.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, this depends very much on the type of God

if it is any of the Gods of the Book, I'm with Hitchens, we are demonstrably better off knowing that they don't exist.

A God that enforces segregation and inequality through violence is an evil spirit

There is one part of the equation that you cannot eliminate, and that is humanity. If we got ride of all gods, we would still be stuck with humans. If it is humans that created gods, then it is humans that got us into this mess in the first place. So, placing blame on a fictitious god will have no effect. We will just argue and fight over something else.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that Karma and Reincarnation are flawed “theories” that reflect a profound aspect of nature that has not been discovered by Western Science (or maybe they have) .

that would be the stance that would disqualify you as an atheist, in my books at least.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is pursuing the theory of aether productive, or a waist of time? To me, it would be a waist of time. Atheism is the same to me. I am simply expressing my feelings.

productive in what way?

I support research into anything, so yes, even if unfruitful, the quest for knowledge is productive, and I certainly can't say that it would never produce results.

no, I personally, as a layman physcist, don't think it would find results, but even then, if it is the ambition of the researcher to do this work, I don't consider it wasteful.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is one part of the equation that you cannot eliminate, and that is humanity. If we got ride of all gods, we would still be stuck with humans. If it is humans that created gods, then it is humans that got us into this mess in the first place. So, placing blame on a fictitious god will have no effect. We will just argue and fight over something else.

that is moot though. All I said was that, were a biblical God to exist, man should resist its influence rather than worship it.

Originally posted by inimalist
that would be the stance that would disqualify you as an atheist, in my books at least.

Buddhism is technically an Atheist doctrine and teaching.

An individual Buddhist may believe in a god or "something out there", but at its core, its an Atheist/non-theist belief system.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Buddhism is technically an Atheist doctrine and teaching.

An individual Buddhist may believe in a god or "something out there", but at its core, its an Atheist/non-theist belief system.

fair enough

I do get where you are coming from, I'm just sort of explaining how it works to me

Originally posted by inimalist
...

that is moot though. All I said was that, were a biblical God to exist, man should resist its influence rather than worship it.

Oh! Not to worry, a biblical god is easy to disprove.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Buddhism is technically an Atheist doctrine and teaching.

An individual Buddhist may believe in a god or "something out there", but at its core, its an Atheist/non-theist belief system.

Originally posted by Mindship
My understanding is, Zen Buddhism doesn't even concern itself with the question of a God's existence (apatheism?). Just zazen.

Nichiren Buddhism also does not concern itself with the question of a God's existence.

Originally posted by inimalist
that would be the stance that would disqualify you as an atheist, in my books at least...

That's ok because I am a theist, but not for your reasons.

inimalist, is to you then a believe in ghosts or fairies, for example, at odds with being an atheist?

Sticking my 2 cents in...

I would say, as a rule, atheism would attribute such phenomena to non-supernatural causes (eg, overactive imagination).

I tend to view atheism as "rejecting" (or at least being skeptical of) any sort of transcendent reality.

Originally posted by Mindship
Sticking my 2 cents in...

I would say, as a rule, atheism would attribute such phenomena to non-supernatural causes (eg, overactive imagination).

I tend to view atheism as "rejecting" (or at least being skeptical of) any sort of transcendent reality.

Is there a hidden eigenstates in this post? 😄

Shouldn't atheists not believe in quantum mechanics? If you want to see supernatural in the real word, check out an electron that is in more then one at the same time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is there a hidden eigenstates in this post? 😄

Shouldn't atheists not believe in quantum mechanics? If you want to see supernatural in the real word, check out an electron that is in more then one at the same time.

"If we attempt to describe the behavior of a single electron when fired at a thin screen of metal containing two minute holes, we should be constrained to infer that the particle passed through the screen in two places at once--a feat which has never yet (as far as I am aware) been performed by the ghosts of either folklore or psychical research"
-- Sir Cyril Burt

And yet, quantum mechanics has proven to be the most powerful scientific theory ever developed and is responsible for the plethora of electronic and computer devices in our daily lives.

Now that's an eigenstate for ya.