|
Post by rizdek on Aug 2, 2021 16:30:52 GMT
there is a god.
I am well aware of the myriad of philosophical definitions, treatises and claims that atheism is the belief that there is no god...that it is a positive claim rather than simply a lack of belief.
A few things.
One, it would seem that there must be a word for not believing that something is true while not being certain that it is not true. And I don't think agnostic/agnosticism fits.
Let's take an example that isn't god related or steeped in religious meaning. Let's think of intelligent live elsewhere in the universe. I believe there is very likely intelligent life somewhere else in the galaxy/universe. I don't KNOW there is, but I believe there probably is. I am sure there are other people who don't believe it likely that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the galaxy/universe. I am pretty certain they don't KNOW this for certain. They may have what they consider good reasons to think it unlikely, But they can't know. So I would say in both cases we are agnostic about intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I am agnostic, but I believe it likely. Another person is also agnostic, but believes it unlikely. I think the same thing applies to belief in God. I don't think there is a god. I don't know for sure...but that's partly because of the fluid definition of 'god.' But I think it unlikely that god exists...and by that I mean the traditional view of god as in the creator, the 'that which none can be greater than,' and a moral/personal non-material being that exists outside of time/space but that somehow interacts with the world we live in and concerns itself with our daily lives. Now...if someone wants to screw around withe definition/concept they might say that what I call the natural world...which I believe is not only the explanation for everything I'm aware of, it is its own explanation is really god...then...ok. But it seems a pointless academic exercise to even discuss god belief if you can just jimmy the definition and say that thus and so is god despite it not being personal or having a mind, a will and morality.
Besides, if the person who really doesn't believe there is a god has to call himself an agnostic because he's not certain, does that mean the theist who is not certain or harbors doubts must instead call herself an agnostic and cannot consider herself a bone fide theist unless she has shed every single niggling doubt?
Two, I can assure theists that there is little cognitive dissonance in my not believing there is a god in the traditional sense. I am about as certain as I'm sitting here that the Christian version of God...a Trinitarian view of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit with the son having come to earth and died on the cross for the atonement of sin so sinful man can be redeemed and made new in God the Father's sight, does not exist. Regardless of what kind of god there might be, unless he's a barbarian, he did not incorporate human sacrifice in his plan of salvation. Just did NOT happen. But even if we set that aside, I am pretty comfortable with not thinking there is a god...I've been comfortable with that position for 40+ years.
Finally...it seems quite important that atheists abide by some definition that includes that atheism is the positive belief that there is no god. But it only seems important to theists. Why is that? Is it because there is something unsettling about someone who goes about their daily lives happily not believing that God exists? Is there something warmer and cuddlier about the term agnostic...like maybe the person really does harbor a deep down belief and is just unsure and unwilling to say it out loud?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2021 16:46:40 GMT
Being sure there are no Gods takes as much faith as being sure there are Gods.
Every culture in every society around the world has had beliefs in Gods. Indigenous cultures all over the world have similar spiritual beliefs stretching as far back as recorded history.
Discounting all spiritual experiences others have had as being symptoms of delusion or psychosis is tempting because it's so simplistic.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Aug 2, 2021 17:06:18 GMT
Well I, for one, couldn't care less what atheists call themselves. It's not something I have the slightest interest in. I enjoy exploring religion, philosophy, cultures, and the human condition in every aspect, and atheism has little to contribute in that regard. You don't believe in something? That's great. It's just not very interesting to me, personally.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Aug 2, 2021 21:31:28 GMT
Being sure there are no Gods takes as much faith as being sure there are Gods. Every culture in every society around the world has had beliefs in Gods. Indigenous cultures all over the world have similar spiritual beliefs stretching as far back as recorded history. Discounting all spiritual experiences others have had as being symptoms of delusion or psychosis is tempting because it's so simplistic. Not true. www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religionAtheism goes back thousands of years (and was generally happily tolerated). It's only when monotheistic religions like Christianity came along that atheism was no longer deemed to be "socially acceptable" in many societies... (there's a wild departure from current form! Christianity being intolerant of people being different and persecuting them?!?)
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 2, 2021 21:37:39 GMT
Being sure there are no Gods takes as much faith as being sure there are Gods. Every culture in every society around the world has had beliefs in Gods. Indigenous cultures all over the world have similar spiritual beliefs stretching as far back as recorded history. Discounting all spiritual experiences others have had as being symptoms of delusion or psychosis is tempting because it's so simplistic. There are so many fallacious rguments here it is hard to know where to begin. The best example is "Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance, and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct." Did you perhaps mean 'without evidence' either way? Add in the stupidest of all To quote Winter King and others from another thread
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2021 21:40:16 GMT
Being sure there are no Gods takes as much faith as being sure there are Gods. Every culture in every society around the world has had beliefs in Gods. Indigenous cultures all over the world have similar spiritual beliefs stretching as far back as recorded history. Discounting all spiritual experiences others have had as being symptoms of delusion or psychosis is tempting because it's so simplistic. Not true. www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religionAtheism goes back thousands of years (and was generally happily tolerated). It's only when monotheistic religions like Christianity came along that atheism was no longer deemed to be "socially acceptable" in many societies... (there's a wild departure from current form! Christianity being intolerant of people being different and persecuting them?!?) Just because atheists co-existed with religious/spiritual people doesn't discount the fact spiritually is a component of pretty much every culture. Aboriginal cultures separated by thousands and thousands of miles geographically have extremely similar spiritual practices. I realize Materialists probably won't be interested in reading Joseph Campbell or Mircea Eliade... Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2021 21:40:56 GMT
Fuck off airhead. You're not worth my dogs time.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 2, 2021 21:52:55 GMT
Fuck off airhead. You're not worth my dogs time. Proof positive, as if we needed any, that you don't have any substantive arguments, have been caught out and are now just using some of the tricks of the utterly 'argumentum ad concederet cladem'
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Aug 2, 2021 23:44:11 GMT
It’s pretty much the latter.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 3, 2021 1:07:18 GMT
One, it would seem that there must be a word for not believing that something is true while not being certain that it is not true. And I don't think agnostic/agnosticism fits.Skepticism? I know it is clumsy however I have always called it agnostic atheism.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 3, 2021 1:13:46 GMT
Both, but in the most broad sense it is lacking a belief. You are unconvinced that God exists and live your life as if God doesn't exist. Whether God actually exists is something nobody can know.
Usages of words change over time.
The Roman use to consider Christians atheists. That certainly isn't how anybody uses the term atheism anymore.
Atheism is non-belief. If you don't believe God exists, then you are an atheist by default. Whether you want to use the word is up to you.
The whole atheism definition debate is pedantic and is mostly brought up by theists, because they are threatened by non-believers who are able to use a word to come together.
A - theism. Not a theist.
Most people who use the word are people who find theism extremely harmful. There are many people who just don't care to think about it one way or the other, because it is unknowable. This is agnosticism, but these people are still atheists by definition. There are plenty of loose theists as well. You don't need to claim to know God exists to be a theist. It is the theists that tell other people that if they don't believe what they believe that they will be punished that atheism is mostly a response to. If everyone was just spiritual, but didn't claim that there is a God and he is handing down rules and if you don't abide by these rules that you will be killed or rejected by your community that is the problem. If you take the position that there IS NO GOD and are trying to get everyone to believe this, then you have a burden of proof. Otherwise you just have the burden is just within your own mind.
Non-believer and atheist are the same thing. They represent a rejection of the claim that a God exists. Theists would be bitching either way, because they are both a threat to their belief system. We could make up a new word for "lack of belief in God" that fixed any problems of confusion and maybe we should try to. It would still be a threat to believers.
The reason atheism is a big deal (as opposed to not believing in other stuff like bigfoot or aliens) is because of the control that religion has had throughout history and the extreme harm it has done.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Aug 3, 2021 2:59:28 GMT
People used to talk about "strong" and "weak" atheism. The former is where you assert there is no God and the latter is where you just lack a positive belief in one. Not sure if that's still a thing though.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 3, 2021 9:13:01 GMT
I don't believe in God and I'm fine with identifying myself as atheist. If some person thinks that means I'm agnostic or something else, I'm okay with them thinking that.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 3, 2021 10:56:33 GMT
One, it would seem that there must be a word for not believing that something is true while not being certain that it is not true. And I don't think agnostic/agnosticism fits.Skepticism? True. I am skeptical that God exists or that there are any gods. But doesnt that mean that I don't believe that God exists? And what is the term for someone who doesn't believe God exists?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 3, 2021 11:12:50 GMT
Being sure there are no Gods takes as much faith as being sure there are Gods. Every culture in every society around the world has had beliefs in Gods. Indigenous cultures all over the world have similar spiritual beliefs stretching as far back as recorded history. Discounting all spiritual experiences others have had as being symptoms of delusion or psychosis is tempting because it's so simplistic. To me...having faith is not a problem. So what if it takes faith? I know I differ from other atheist/skeptic types, but I own to having faith. I believe the natural world is the explanation for everything I am aware of and all the experiences I think others have had, including spiritual experiences and things they term miraculous. To the extent there are we don't understand how they could be due to said natural world, I have faith that they are, nonetheless. So I don't discount spiritual experiences as symptoms of delusion or psychosis...rather I see them as feelings that come about by natural but not understood phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 3, 2021 11:24:23 GMT
Just because atheists co-existed with religious/spiritual people doesn't discount the fact spiritually is a component of pretty much every culture. Aboriginal cultures separated by thousands and thousands of miles geographically have extremely similar spiritual practices.
I realize Materialists probably won't be interested in reading Joseph Campbell or Mircea Eliade... Oh well. IT is interesting to me that most (all?) cultures have had some concept of spiritualism. Perhaps such concepts developed early on as humans were evolving into a communicating species and were passed along as humans spread across the earth. So yes...most cultures have forms of spiritualism now because it was passed down to them by their parents....much like we can trace the line of the development of Christianity back thousands of years. But the fact that there IS such a divergent view of what spiritualism is suggests it evolved as humans developed and were tailored to their surroundings rather than being based on some immutable source.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 3, 2021 11:38:06 GMT
Just because atheists co-existed with religious/spiritual people doesn't discount the fact spiritually is a component of pretty much every culture. Aboriginal cultures separated by thousands and thousands of miles geographically have extremely similar spiritual practices.
I realize Materialists probably won't be interested in reading Joseph Campbell or Mircea Eliade... Oh well. IT is interesting to me that most (all?) cultures have had some concept of spiritualism. Perhaps such concepts developed early on as humans were evolving into a communicating species and were passed along as humans spread across the earth. So yes...most cultures have forms of spiritualism now because it was passed down to them by their parents....much like we can trace the line of the development of Christianity back thousands of years. But the fact that there IS such a divergent view of what spiritualism is suggests it evolved as humans developed and were tailored to their surroundings rather than being based on some immutable source. Supposedly there is a tribe in the Amazon that has no concept of God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 3, 2021 11:49:38 GMT
IT is interesting to me that most (all?) cultures have had some concept of spiritualism. Perhaps such concepts developed early on as humans were evolving into a communicating species and were passed along as humans spread across the earth. So yes...most cultures have forms of spiritualism now because it was passed down to them by their parents....much like we can trace the line of the development of Christianity back thousands of years. But the fact that there IS such a divergent view of what spiritualism is suggests it evolved as humans developed and were tailored to their surroundings rather than being based on some immutable source. Supposedly there is a tribe in the Amazon that has no concept of God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people They apparently believe in spirits...
'However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment.'
This would fit in with my idea that something was passed on to them by their ancestors and they retained the idea that there is a spirit world but NOT a supreme being. I think the idea of one supreme being is a late comer for the human species as a whole. I think most cultures throughout history believed in a multitude of supernatural 'spirit' beings.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 3, 2021 11:56:44 GMT
They apparently believe in spirits...
'However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment.'
This would fit in with my idea that something was passed on to them by their ancestors and they retained the idea that there is a spirit world but NOT a supreme being. I think the idea of one supreme being is a late comer for the human species as a whole. I think most cultures throughout history believed in a multitude of supernatural 'spirit' beings.
I didn't overlook that. It isn't God though. As far as I can tell coming to unwarranted and similar conclusions is just what a highly functioning, but extremely flawed human brain does. It seems that it wants to anthropomorphize everything. From random stuff in nature, to noises and lights, to the cause of our experienced universe and sometimes just the universe itself.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 3, 2021 12:55:03 GMT
I didn't overlook that. It isn't God though. As far as I can tell coming to unwarranted and similar conclusions is just what a highly functioning, but extremely flawed human brain does. It seems that it wants to anthropomorphize everything. From random stuff in nature, to noises and lights, to the cause of our experienced universe and sometimes just the universe itself.This anthropomorphizing can be applied to God. I don't know what you mean. Isn't the common definition of God a conscious being? That is my whole point about applying human like thought and consciousness to the cause of the universe and giving it a name.
|
|