Happy Atheist Forum

Hi. I just joined this forum and said hello in another post. I'm afraid this is a little long but it's been on my mind a lot lately and maybe some of you thoughtful people can help me out. Also, apologies for my sloppy language. I'm working on it.

I currently call myself an atheist but I am considering taking a weaker nontheistic stance in some cases. This will seem like a triviality to some folks I'm sure but I will explain my thoughts.

It seems to me that a statement declaring the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods must be made with respect to a specific meaning for god. The "meaning" may not actually be meaningful at all in the semantic sense, in which case I think the statement does not have a truth value. If it passes that first hurdle, then the statement is either true or false. I'm no mathematician so if anyone can help me out with my logic here, please do! Also, there's a name for the world view of someone who does not think there are gods but does not declare that there are zero gods because they think that the description of the gods is semantically meaningless. I forget the name but it's only a wikipedia search away!

By way of example, I will give three descriptions of god which I think cover the three categories: false, true(!) and lacking truth value.

False example: I will borrow the flying spaghetti monster (whom I will call the FSM) for this. The FSM was invented in protest to the decision of the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design. I haven't read the "gospel" of the FSM but I'm going to assume for the purpose of argument that it is semantically meaningful (though it may not be). Since the FSM was made up, probability tells us that a statement that the flying spaghetti monster exists is almost certainly false.

"True" example: I've never met someone who worships the sun (at least not in the religious sense!) but wikipedia says this practice has occurred throughout history. To me, an interesting thing about a religion like this is that the thing the worshiper calls "god" really does exist. It's scientific fact (in the sense that a statement that the sun exists is testable, falsifiable and we have a great deal of supporting evidence for the existence of the sun). Now I'm not saying that, because the sun exists, sun worship is a rational thing to do. It's irrational for a different reason: because there is no reason to worship the sun!

So this is the first part of my puzzle. When someone says "my god exists", they mean something specific when they say "god". They are implying something. What they are saying is equivalent to, for example, "the FSM exists", which is false, or "the sun exists", which is true.

It's different for me as an atheist though because I think there are no gods. I cannot imply one particular meaning for god when I make a statement about there being no gods. When I, as an atheist, say "there are no gods", what do I mean by god? Unless I specify otherwise, I think a reasonable person might argue that, having implied no particular description for the "gods" in question, I am referring to all gods, perhaps even the gods of all religions throughout human history. So I am really saying "the FSM does not exist and the sun does not exist and Allah does not exist and Titan does not exist and ... etc". Now since this is an atheist group, we'll all most likely agree that most of those "gods" don't exist (my exception is the sun). And of those that do technically exist, they aren't actually "gods". But all it takes is for one and only one of those things identified as "god" to exist (like the sun) and my whole statement becomes false.

This is only a problem if I make a statement like this without limiting what I mean by "god". For example, if someone asks me if I believe in god and I ask them what they mean by god and they reply "the flying spaghetti monster", then I think the statements "there is no flying spaghetti monster" and "your god does not exist" are true.

But often I am asked to state my stance on the existence of gods in a universal way, i.e. without any specific meaning for what "gods" are. I think on those occasions, atheism might be too strong a stance, because in the universal sense at least, it is false (because, for example, the sun exists and some people mean "sun" when they say "god"). On these occasions, I think a weaker stance like nontheism might be appropriate and that's what I am considering doing for myself. I will be able to say generally, "I am a nontheist". But in cases where I want to be more specific I can say "with respect to the flying spaghetti monster,
I am an atheist".

But it gets worse! There are also ways of describing god which are not even meaningful. I'll invent a new "god" for the purpose of argument: "god is everywhere but has no physical form". I think this is meaningless. It's a paradox of sorts. It's worse than false in a sense because it doesn't have truth value.

This further confounds the problem for me when I am implicitly implying a universal description for god because now it includes all gods that cannot be described meaningfully. All it takes is a single semantically meaningless description of god and my statement also becomes semantically meaningless by including that one semantically meaningless element.

So again, I should be careful when I claim to be an atheist and make sure I am not unintentionally making a statement that is false or, arguably worse, semantically meaningless. I could call myself something like a nontheist if I am making a universal statement. But I can still call myself an atheist if I am working with a specific description of "god" that is both semantically meaningful and false.

But I don't like taking a weaker stance when it comes to stating how many gods I think there are. I have a good sense of what I mean when I say I am an atheist and I don't want to take a weaker stance just because god believers are all over the place when it comes to describing their gods! I think I need to have a clear definition of exactly what "god" means when I say I think there are none. Then I can reply "in a sense I am an athiest". And if they ask me in what sense, I can tell them exactly what I don't think exists. Is there any agreement among the atheist population over what exactly we don't think exists? Maybe just the supernatural?

Interesting post.  I think in the long run you have to consider your view and state it how it makes you most comfortable and how you think your thoughts are getting properly interperated.  I don't think there is a consensus or there wouldn't be so many "names" for what people consider themselves.  I myself don't spend that much time thinking about it, and don't really consider myself, or my view, by any label.  It is only in comparison when I think about it, like when someone mentions prayer or church or God, then I see the dramatic difference in how I think and feel from those people.  Otherwise I just float around not relying on any grand design or divine intervention because I don't consider them as valid or possible.

For anyone who is interested, I resolved this issue in the following way. When stating I am an atheist, if I feel there might be any confusion, I can qualify it in the following way:

"I think there are no deities, where a deity is a postulated supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, sacred, held to high regard and respected by human beings"

The qualification as to what I mean when I say "deity" is based on the wikipedia definition of "deity". I like this because now I am not implicitly relying on a definition of "deity" or "god" provided by a believer, which could undermine my position by being, in a sense, true (e.g. the sun exists and some people call the sun "god") or semantically meaningless (which could render my statement semantically meaningless also).

I think it is important that atheists should not allow believers to decide what they do not believe in. If we cannot provide our own definition of "deity" or "god", we are in danger of implicitly relying on a religious definition. I'm not suggesting an official atheist definition of what we don't believe in. Such a thing could never be anyway!

If you were asked to define the "deities" or "gods" you think do not exist, how would you do so?

I appreciate your efforts toward semantic rigor, and have no argument with your definition of deity. I am not a semanticist, though, and if I were ever to encounter one who happened to be interested in arguing the proposition of the existence of gods from the positive side, I'm sure they could tear apart any statement I would make like a hawk shreds a pigeon. They are welcome to do so; it does not make their faith any more sound or profound than my lack thereof.  In fact I am willing to let believers define their gods in any way that pleases them.  When they have done so, I still won't believe in whatever they come up with.

 It's been clear to me for a long time that we are a species of very intelligent primates who love to tell each other stories.  When those stories can be tested and confirmed in the real world, as we understand it, then they are accepted as 'true.'  Until then, they occupy the vast realm of fiction.  Also, it's obvious that our understanding of reality has grown, over thousands of years, and thus many things regarded as true in the past have slipped into the fiction side. I think that gods of any kind belong there.

 If pressed to define what gods I don't believe in ( ) I guess I would say something along the lines of "Any and all things, persons or entities invented or chosen by  human beings to be worthy of worship as divine."  Not too different from the one you came up with, if perhaps less semantically exact.  Just because a thing (in your example, the sun) undeniably exists, does not mean that divine attributes assigned to it by believers in the sun-god are as real as the thing itself, except, of course, in their minds. So I don't see any stumbling block there.  Maybe I'm just being obtuse?   Anyway, I enjoyed your posts on the subject.

I think Asimov describes the atheist stance best (certainly for me):

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it ... I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." Isaac Asimov

I don't believe there is no god, I cannot know one way or the other but given that so many claims are made that it does and that all such claims, when closely examined are found to be lacking or based on some kind of twisted interpretation of or even fabricated evidence I strongly suspect there is not.

With specific reference to your post it is easy to simply say I reject all claims to deity until someone provides some validatable evidence to support one and that is exactly where I stand

So, in essence, I am technically an agnostic but philosophically an atheist (a very, very strong one).

Kyu

QuoteI have a good sense of what I mean when I say I am an atheist and I don't want to take a weaker stance just because god believers are all over the place when it comes to describing their gods! I think I need to have a clear definition of exactly what "god" means when I say I think there are none. Then I can reply "in a sense I am an athiest". And if they ask me in what sense, I can tell them exactly what I don't think exists. Is there any agreement among the atheist population over what exactly we don't think exists? Maybe just the supernatural?

I don't think you even really need to go through all those steps you did in your post.

Hardcore atheism is really just the same as hardcore christianity. Both claim to know it all. Asserting that God does not exist requires you to be able to prove an untestable negative hypothesis, so good luck on that one. Militant atheism fails a bit as well, since the emphasis on reason and intellect is overshadowed by zealous ambition to supplant traditional christian thinking and values, which is not necessarily bad, but easily led astray.

I think your best bet is to just say that you are not religious, and let the ambiguity of the statement carry its own meaning to whoever is listening. Surely, if you are a person of science, you would be willing to rethink your atheist status if evidence suggested otherwise. But for now, you might as well just ignore empty claims until evidence entices you otherwise. There's a subtle and eloquent difference between simply dismissing an empty claim, versus beating the death out of it because you can. With the growing discomfort and disagreement with major religions in general, it has been my experience that the "not religious" line is accepted very well, and does not carry the negative stigma that the word "atheist" conveys. It is also a huge umbrella term that dismisses most everything else.

Oh please don't imply I claim to know it all. It hurts :banna: Actually it might depend on whether we're counting atoms or going by mass... Help! Is there a scientist in the room? What am I made of (mostly)?

You all have a splendid evening.

It is claimed that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

But evil exists

- If God doesn't know about evil he is not omniscient.
- If God knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.

QED: God does not exist.

Apologists have come of with dozens of explanations for this "problem of evil" (as it is known) but all of them have been refuted and the conclusion holds good: God does not exist.

F

Quote from: "Moigle"It is claimed that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

But evil exists

- If God doesn't know about evil he is not omniscient.
- If God knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.

QED: God does not exist.

Apologists have come of with dozens of explanations for this "problem of evil" (as it is known) but all of them have been refuted and the conclusion holds good: God does not exist.

This assumes two major things, the arguer gets to define absolute, and objective good and evil, and decide what kind of behavior qualifies as "omnibenevolent", and that a god's ultimate goal is the maximum pleasure and happiness of the human species.

The first assumption is simply absurd, and relies on a tautology, and the second assumption is simply not agreed upon by most theists, so is a straw man.  

All the argument from evil does is formulate a conception of god, and a conception of good and evil to be mutually exclusive from each other, and then claim that they have disproved any possibility of any god, across the board.

My atheism is the rejection of all consuming gods that judge humans and act like humans, be that for Christians or Jews or Muslims or any of their gods. I'm much more open minded and agnostic towards metaphysical beings and metaphysical universal forces, just not absolutely omnipotent or omniscient, I think.

Quote from: "liveyoungdiefast"My atheism is the rejection of all consuming gods that judge humans and act like humans, be that for Christians or Jews or Muslims or any of their gods. I'm much more open minded and agnostic towards metaphysical beings and metaphysical universal forces, just not absolutely omnipotent or omniscient, I think.

Pretty much this. I consider myself a strong atheist when it comes to monotheistic abrahamic gods as depicted in the Tanakh, New Testament and Qur’ân. I can feel agnostic towards some sort of uninvolved creator of sorts, but I wouldn’t imbue it with the qualities we usually give god: sentience, getting involved in human affairs, prophetic revelations, and suchlike.

F

I'm interested in trying to understand a little of how atheists and Christians can communicate. I think one of the many problems with the term atheist is that it is a denial of "God", but "God" has so many meanings which one are you denying? This I think is your original point, should you try to think of a better way to describe your view of life?

I would make two observations.

1. Some people look at things from the first-person: they are egotistical and are only interested in themselves. These are one-dimensional people. Some people look at things from the other person's point of view, they think of others, they are ethical. These are two-dimensional people. The two-dimensional people can't prove that one-dimensional people are wrong, that is just the way they view the world, it is their choice. Some people look at things spiritually, they look at things from a spiritual perspective. They are three-dimensional people. They can't prove the one- and two-dimensional people wrong, they aren't wrong, they just lack a dimension. In practise people are all three: sometimes they are selfish and act egotistically, sometimes they are ethical and think of others, sometimes they go beyond even that and operate from a spiritual perspective. Different people will have different proportions of these dimensions in their lives. Perhaps you need a balance. Like this, only those people how never think or operate in three dimensions ever could possibly call themselves atheists.

What do I mean by spiritual? I can think of three themes: radical forgiveness (being able to forgive others for hurts done to you or your family), prayer and visualisation (including experiences of God and the infinite), grace and joy (experiencing life as a gift, the delight of existence). I'm sure there are others. This is just a set of radically different perspectives and ways of being associated with spiritual practises and experiences.

2. Where does man end? Let's accept that for most religious people, the experience(s) comes first, and then they try to make sense of these experiences that are nothing like experiences of the self or the other. The language they then develop and use is religious language. In fact perhaps it is cultural and learned as well. Perhaps "atheists" could learn the experience through learning the language. Perhaps atheists already have these experiences but don't have the language so they don't organise and structure the experience, and don't value it as leading to something significant and important.

You know of course that the early Christians were called atheists don't you.

QuoteI'm interested in trying to understand a little of how atheists and Christians can communicate. I think one of the many problems with the term atheist is that it is a denial of "God", but "God" has so many meanings which one are you denying? This I think is your original point, should you try to think of a better way to describe your view of life?

Yes that was my point. I've learned a lot since posting this and it's not something that troubles me anymore. You took some time to write your post though so I will take a little time to reply.

QuoteSome people look at things from the first-person: they are egotistical and are only interested in themselves. These are one-dimensional people

I agree that there are people who are egotistical. I personally would not use the phrase "one-dimensional". I have a background in mathematics and that phrase means something different to me.

QuoteSome people look at things from the other person's point of view, they think of others, they are ethical.

I think most people think of things in terms of others' points of view. That is important for ethical concepts. Thinking in terms of other people does not necessarily lead to "ethical" behavior though. They might be a torturer.

QuoteThe two-dimensional people can't prove that one-dimensional people are wrong, that is just the way they view the world, it is their choice.

The "two dimensional person" you refer to is a moral relativist? Some people who think from another's point of view are moral absolutists though. Some Christians for example. Are they "two dimensional"?

QuoteSome people look at things spiritually, they look at things from a spiritual perspective. They are three-dimensional people. They can't prove the one- and two-dimensional people wrong, they aren't wrong, they just lack a dimension. In practise people are all three: sometimes they are selfish and act egotistically, sometimes they are ethical and think of others, sometimes they go beyond even that and operate from a spiritual perspective. Different people will have different proportions of these dimensions in their lives. Perhaps you need a balance. Like this, only those people how never think or operate in three dimensions ever could possibly call themselves atheists.

Damn it I wish I was "three dimensional" now. The way you've phrased it, it seems that being spiritual is better than not being spiritual because three is a bigger number than two. Brilliant!

QuoteWhat do I mean by spiritual? I can think of three themes: radical forgiveness (being able to forgive others for hurts done to you or your family), prayer and visualisation (including experiences of God and the infinite), grace and joy (experiencing life as a gift, the delight of existence). I'm sure there are others. This is just a set of radically different perspectives and ways of being associated with spiritual practises and experiences.

I have no idea what spirituality is.

QuoteWhere does man end? Let's accept that for most religious people, the experience(s) comes first, and then they try to make sense of these experiences that are nothing like experiences of the self or the other. The language they then develop and use is religious language. In fact perhaps it is cultural and learned as well. Perhaps "atheists" could learn the experience through learning the language. Perhaps atheists already have these experiences but don't have the language so they don't organise and structure the experience, and don't value it as leading to something significant and important.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

I also have a background in mathematics and remember one of my lecturers Ron Atkin had a book which still seems to be available called "The multidimensional Man", the concept of dimension in that book was used in a similar way to how I am using it.

I'm not saying the two-dimensional person won't disagree with the one-dimensional person, it is just that if the one-dimensional person insists on interpreting the world wholly in selfish terms it is very difficult to have a dialog with them. They only interpret the world in terms of what they can get out of it, they only do something that provides a benefit to them. They just don't understand how or why someone would want to do something for wholly unselfish reasons. However anyone who lives a two-dimensional existence can testify that it is far better to live thinking of others rather than just thinking of yourself. Can they "prove" that to the one-dimensional person? All they can do it try to get them to shift their perspective and encourage them to make a leap into a fuller,  richer, mode of existence.

But what if breaking free from this selfish, one-dimensional way of living is just the step on to something even better? What if it doesn't stop there? What if our experience of the good, the true, the spiritual and the beautiful are all pointers on to a richer, more complex mode of existence? Have you found a strength from being able to totally forgive someone for a huge wrong they did you? Did you feel that strength came from something greater than yourself? Have you ever wondered if the experience of beauty and nature led beyond the appearance into something deeper? Do you sometimes feel a simple joy of living, a delight in existence itself, in spite of what is happening in your life? Have you experienced "mindfulness", the joy of the now, without worry or concern for the past or the future? In genuine friendships do you get a glimpse of what a radical community of people who care for each other would be like?

Life is full of glimpses into the infinite, opportunities to step sideways from this world, today. We should shine like lights in the universe. Never shut off the possibility of achieving a greater intensity of existence.

I thought of two other points following your comments.

#1 The Two Dimensional View

QuoteSome people look at things from the other person's point of view, they think of others, they are ethical.

QuoteI think most people think of things in terms of others' points of view. That is important for ethical concepts. Thinking in terms of other people does not necessarily lead to "ethical" behaviour though. They might be a torturer.

Thanks for this response as I don't think I have communicated what I mean very clearly. By two-dimensional I mean acting unselfishly, acting and seeing the world altruistically. The one dimensional person sees everything in terms of what does it mean for them. When they spend their money they are thinking how they can spend it to benefit themselves. When the consider how they will spend their time they think how they can spend it to please or benefit themselves. They see the other as a threat to satisfying their own desires. Another way of describing this would be to say they see things from a narrow perspective. It is also possible to open this a little wider and say some people see things in terms of their family or own group. It doesn't just have to be as narrow as an individual perspective on everything. The point is that there is a general framework of viewing the world that is narrow and selfish.

"Most people think of things in terms of others' point of view" - this is too broad. Yes, an egotistical person may worry about what other people will think of them, they are worried about their reputation. They may think of others' actions so they can counter-act them, they think of the other, but as a threat or a competitor. A torturer would consider the feelings of the other, but simply to identify whether they were in pain or not. They are not viewing the world from an ethical, open perspective, valuing others as people.

A two-dimensional person is also a one-dimensional person, they know what it means to see the world from their own point of view. They understand that when asked for money for a charity they could keep the money to spend on themselves. They may on occasion act selfishly, they may sometimes see the other as a competitor, however they at least understand and acknowledge a higher level of living than that, and can also see the other as someone they have ethical obligations towards.

#2

QuoteDamn it I wish I was "three dimensional" now. The way you've phrased it, it seems that being spiritual is better than not being spiritual because three is a bigger number than two. Brilliant!

Atheists by definition lack something the theist has. The whole definition of atheist is a negative one. Any discussion of atheism must acknowledge that and try to articulate what that space or gap means. For the atheist they believe the lack is a lack of error and confusion. All the things a theist does (that make them a theist), the atheist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong".

I am trying to suggest that instead of a set of beliefs - which is a very logocentric way of viewing life - we look at theism in terms of experiences, actions and articulations of those experiences and actions. Look at the resources you use to forgive someone who has wronged you. Are these really totally distinct and separate from the way a Christian speaks about forgiveness? Can you begin to occupy this perspective, if you start to understand how the language works?

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"Perhaps "atheists" could learn the experience through learning the language. Perhaps atheists already have these experiences but don't have the language so they don't organise and structure the experience, and don't value it as leading to something significant and important.

You seem not to have taken into account that a lot of atheists were former theists and are steeped in religious terminology and ways of thinking.

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"Atheists by definition lack something the theist has. The whole definition of atheist is a negative one. Any discussion of atheism must acknowledge that and try to articulate what that space or gap means. For the atheist they believe the lack is a lack of error and confusion. All the things a theist does (that make them a theist), the atheist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong".

This is completely arbitrary based on the quality chosen. One could easily turn it around: theists lack the ability to avoid magical thinking and superstition, which they atheists have. All the things the atheist does (that makes them an atheist), the theist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong". Language is fun, isn't it? Sure, the word "atheist" is defined as "without belief" but the person "atheist" is much more than that.

What atheists lack is a believe in a god.  A non-belief in god, doesn't mean that someone couldn't  be spiritual. For example many people think of the historical Buddha that he was a spiritual person, nethertheless Buddha never expressed a believe in god and even discouraged his followers from such "speculation".  There are also atheists, who are spiritual without believing in a god. Here is an interesting quote from a spiritual atheist that I found on http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-spir ... rship.html (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-spiritual-atheist-finding-spirituality-without-worship.html)

Quote.... How can I express this sort of spirituality, then? There are many ways, really. Nature walks can bring us closer to the natural universe. Meditation can bring us closer to ourselves and our thoughts. Reading can bring us closer to the vast array of knowledge collected by humanity. Showing compassion towards others brings us closer to each other and strengthens our complex human bonds.

QuoteI'm not saying the two-dimensional person won't disagree with the one-dimensional person, it is just that if the one-dimensional person insists on interpreting the world wholly in selfish terms it is very difficult to have a dialog with them. They only interpret the world in terms of what they can get out of it, they only do something that provides a benefit to them. They just don't understand how or why someone would want to do something for wholly unselfish reasons. However anyone who lives a two-dimensional existence can testify that it is far better to live thinking of others rather than just thinking of yourself. Can they "prove" that to the one-dimensional person? All they can do it try to get them to shift their perspective and encourage them to make a leap into a fuller, richer, mode of existence.

This is a false analogy. I understand the concept of a mathematical dimension. All people exist in a 3 dimensional physical space (the universe). I understand that you are talking about an ethical or spiritual space. But its just an an analogy and a false one.

QuoteBut what if breaking free from this selfish, one-dimensional way of living is just the step on to something even better? What if it doesn't stop there?

In general, as time progresses, I change things and I learn to change things. My motivations for changing them are arbitrary. Sometimes I change things to make them (as I see it at the time) better. That is arbitrary.

QuoteWhat if our experience of the good, the true, the spiritual and the beautiful are all pointers on to a richer, more complex mode of existence?

What if?

QuoteHave you found a strength from being able to totally forgive someone for a huge wrong they did you?

Yes. But it is not strength.

QuoteDid you feel that strength came from something greater than yourself?

No.

QuoteHave you ever wondered if the experience of beauty and nature led beyond the appearance into something deeper?

Nature is beautiful. It is so beautiful it frequently reduces me to tears. Of course it has significance beyond its simple appearance. But it is an arbitrary significance conjured up by my mind. Nothing more.

QuoteDo you sometimes feel a simple joy of living, a delight in existence itself, in spite of what is happening in your life?

Yes.

QuoteHave you experienced "mindfulness", the joy of the now, without worry or concern for the past or the future?

Yes but I don't call it mindfulness. I call it nihilism. And its not just the past and the future I reject. I meditate on nothing. I try and reject everything.

QuoteIn genuine friendships do you get a glimpse of what a radical community of people who care for each other would be like?

I like my isolation and independence. That doesn't appeal to me.

Quote"Most people think of things in terms of others' point of view" - this is too broad. Yes, an egotistical person may worry about what other people will think of them, they are worried about their reputation. They may think of others' actions so they can counter-act them, they think of the other, but as a threat or a competitor. A torturer would consider the feelings of the other, but simply to identify whether they were in pain or not. They are not viewing the world from an ethical, open perspective, valuing others as people.

Human animals evolved to be altruistic towards one another (their group at least). Many social animals are that way.

QuoteAtheists by definition lack something the theist has. The whole definition of atheist is a negative one. Any discussion of atheism must acknowledge that and try to articulate what that space or gap means. For the atheist they believe the lack is a lack of error and confusion. All the things a theist does (that make them a theist), the atheist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong".

Your use of the word "lack" shows your bias. I could define atheist as someone who is free of something a theist has. That means the same thing but I have chosen a word that expresses it in a positive way.

There is no space or gap. You're returning to your false analogy of the 3-dimensional person. There is no such space and therefore nothing for there to be a gap in.

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"But what if breaking free from this selfish, one-dimensional way of living is just the step on to something even better? What if it doesn't stop there? What if our experience of the good, the true, the spiritual and the beautiful are all pointers on to a richer, more complex mode of existence?

Is this "what if" a believe in god and the good and true will lead us to enlightenment?  I'm not sure what the mode of existence is.  Are you thinking that it would exist here on this planet in this life, because I don't think it has, or is this mor of an afterlife thing?

QuoteHave you found a strength from being able to totally forgive someone for a huge wrong they did you? Did you feel that strength came from something greater than yourself?

My forgiving a person comes from my thought process that either I am willing to forgive them and move on or I choose not to forgive and to consider that person no longer worth my time in dealing with or thinking about.  I don't need strength to do that, more a process of pros and cons and is it something I am willing to overlook.

QuoteHave you ever wondered if the experience of beauty and nature led beyond the appearance into something deeper? Do you sometimes feel a simple joy of living, a delight in existence itself, in spite of what is happening in your life? Have you experienced "mindfulness", the joy of the now, without worry or concern for the past or the future? In genuine friendships do you get a glimpse of what a radical community of people who care for each other would be like?

When I take my Wellbutrin I feel all of those things and more!  I'm not sure if you are thinking that these things are coming from some outward force or if you are just wondering if we still have feelings of awe even when we do not attribute that to a god.

QuoteLife is full of glimpses into the infinite, opportunities to step sideways from this world, today. We should shine like lights in the universe. Never shut off the possibility of achieving a greater intensity of existence.

This is very poetic.  I'm not real sure what we are supposed to take from this other than that we should be more aware of the wonders occuring around us and be open to things.  I think we are very open and experience many wonders, feelings, emotions, and even undefined things in our lives.

A few more thoughts.

QuoteYou seem not to have taken into account that a lot of atheists were former theists and are steeped in religious terminology and ways of thinking.

Every dimension has a pull and an attraction. There is an attraction towards the immediate - meeting the demands of your job, your family, watching TV, it is possible to just get pulled into the rush and flow of the immediate, the world of a million different things. It takes a certain discipline to take time out to reflect on your life and where it is going. I'd suggest that reflection is also part of the third dimension, it is outside of the here-and-now. Is there a stable self? The self is pulled in many directions, we have conflicting beliefs, hopes, desires. Having the ability or gift to take yourself out of time, to look at time from the perspective of eternity, to live in such a way that life doesn't just hurry by is a spiritual discipline.

I'm trying to suggest that everyone has intimations of immortality: we can all reflect on being and time, there is a way to live that enriches your spirit that isn't arbitrary.

QuoteMy motivations for changing them are arbitrary.

QuoteBut it is an arbitrary significance conjured up by my mind. Nothing more.

QuoteI don't call it mindfulness. I call it nihilism.

Quote2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
       says the Teacher.
       "Utterly meaningless!
       Everything is meaningless."

 3 What does man gain from all his labor
       at which he toils under the sun?

 4 Generations come and generations go,
       but the earth remains forever.

 5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
       and hurries back to where it rises.

 6 The wind blows to the south
       and turns to the north;
       round and round it goes,
       ever returning on its course.

 7 All streams flow into the sea,
       yet the sea is never full.
       To the place the streams come from,
       there they return again.

 8 All things are wearisome,
       more than one can say.
       The eye never has enough of seeing,
       nor the ear its fill of hearing.
Ecclesiastes 1:2-8

Life is hermeneutical. You can write the story of your life where everything is arbitrary and meaningless or where there is a thread and pattern of meaning and significance. The text is open to interpretation and you can weave in beauty and design or nihilism.

Not every religious life is lived in the third dimension. Jesus' main opponents were the religious leaders of his time.

Quote13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

 15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Matthew 23:13-15

Christians were called atheists because they weren't religious in the way everyone else was religious at the time - trying to appease the gods in order to win their favour, but religion - man's search for God - now appears in Christianity today.

There are plenty of links between original Christianity and Buddhism - read the "Jesus Sutras", the writings of the early Christians in China, and you can see they are saying a lot of things in common, but Buddhism today is very superstitious, you have to go beyond the appearance of religion to get to the inner meaning.

The theologian Paul Tillich defined God as depth. If you have any ultimate concern, something of ultimate significance then that is your god, the centre to which you gravitate. You either do that consciously or unconsciously, you either live reflectively or as part of the herd.

There is a spiritual dimension to life that doesn't have to be entered through prior adherence to irrational beliefs. It can be experienced empirically and reflected on rationally, but it is beyond the here and now.

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"There are plenty of links between original Christianity and Buddhism - read the "Jesus Sutras", the writings of the early Christians in China, and you can see they are saying a lot of things in common, but Buddhism today is very superstitious, you have to go beyond the appearance of religion to get to the inner meaning.

How true. Some years ago I was on vacation in Sri Lanka, where I visited a Buddhist temple. In this temple they kept a tooth of Buddha and many people believed that this tooth would bring them luck. In that respect, I don't think that they are much different than the Christians of the roman catholic church, who worship bleeding Maria statues or the bones of a well forgotten bishop .

QuoteI'm trying to suggest that everyone has intimations of immortality: we can all reflect on being and time, there is a way to live that enriches your spirit that isn't arbitrary.

I honestly don't think there is. Believing so is delusion IMHO. I'm not sure what you mean by "intimations of immortality". My thoughts on mortality are these. Every human dies. When I die I will stop thinking. I do not fear it. In fact I rather look forward to it. But I try to avoid it, both for myself and others. Mortality is also a useful measuring tool. By comparing the significance of whatever pretensions I find in the world against the significance of my approaching death, I can see just how unimportant they are.

QuoteLife is hermeneutical. You can write the story of your life where everything is arbitrary and meaningless or where there is a thread and pattern of meaning and significance. The text is open to interpretation and you can weave in beauty and design or nihilism.

I find nihilism to be beautiful and designed. Beauty is subjective. Design is arbitrary.

F

What has struck me in this exchange is how empty atheism is - what does it do? It doesn't inform the atheist in any meaningful way - it doesn't give them any instruction or guidance on anything that is important to them. Should I seek money and fame or should I live an ethical life? Atheism won't help you. How should I bring my kids up? Atheism won't help you. How should I treat my partner? Atheism won't help.

To say "I am an atheist", what does it mean? What does it tell you about the person? It doesn't tell you if they are moral or immoral, if they are have given all their money to the poor or if they are a mass murderer, if they sit and watch TV all day or work hard, if it is right to lie, cheat and steal or if you should live honest and help others.

It defines itself in what is isn't, not what it is, and so it is empty of content. If someone were to claim atheism implies nihilism (and such a link is arbitrary), we might think this indicated a mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence, but an atheist might respond that for them nihilism is beautiful. Since everything is arbitrary for the atheist, nihilism can be beautiful, helping the poor can be evil, mass murder can be art and saving the planet can be a big joke. Anything can mean what they want it to mean.

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"What has struck me in this exchange is how empty atheism is - what does it do? It doesn't inform the atheist in any meaningful way - it doesn't give them any instruction or guidance on anything that is important to them. Should I seek money and fame or should I live an ethical life? Atheism won't help you. How should I bring my kids up? Atheism won't help you. How should I treat my partner? Atheism won't help.

Right...just like theism is not a life philosphy.

QuoteIt defines itself in what is isn't, not what it is, and so it is empty of content. If someone were to claim atheism implies nihilism (and such a link is arbitrary), we might think this indicated a mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence, but an atheist might respond that for them nihilism is beautiful. Since everything is arbitrary for the atheist, nihilism can be beautiful, helping the poor can be evil, mass murder can be art and saving the planet can be a big joke. Anything can mean what they want it to mean.

I should point out that most atheists are not nihilists. I am not speaking for atheism. Maybe you just landed on the wrong thread :).

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"What has struck me in this exchange is how empty atheism is - what does it do? It doesn't inform the atheist in any meaningful way - it doesn't give them any instruction or guidance on anything that is important to them. Should I seek money and fame or should I live an ethical life? Atheism won't help you. How should I bring my kids up? Atheism won't help you. How should I treat my partner? Atheism won't help.

This is what communication is for. You see emptiness because you need that structure. We, by-and-large, do not. It informs atheists in a tremendous way, a way which is often difficult for me to express because there's no tenets or list I can point to. I often refer to the Charles Bukowski quote:

Quote"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us."

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"To say "I am an atheist", what does it mean? What does it tell you about the person? It doesn't tell you if they are moral or immoral, if they are have given all their money to the poor or if they are a mass murderer, if they sit and watch TV all day or work hard, if it is right to lie, cheat and steal or if you should live honest and help others.

And obviously someone wearing a little gold cross would never do anything morally questionable simply because of their affiliation with a belief, right?

^ Indeed, like molest little boys…

Well Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.  So the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.  Since there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept or not aware of any alternative knowledge, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know.  Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Well Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.  So the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.  Since there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept or not aware of any alternative knowledge, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know.  Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

I will repeat what you just said with a few subtle differences ...see if you can spot them :pop:

QuoteWell Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.

In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) Technically, one can be an atheist without purporting it to be based on current knowledge.

QuoteSo the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.

My answer today is that I will endeavor to believe nothing, holding only a minimal and continuously revised set of working beliefs necessary to function efficiently as a human. I have been working quite hard recently to destroy all my existing "deep rooted" beliefs like morality, personal possession and personal identity. With the loss of those and others, I no longer find it important to take an atheist position, though I suppose I still am an agnostic atheist. My position has changed since I wrote the OP. And I have just "come out" as a nihilist  .

QuoteSince there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know. Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

Yeah I think you understand the point I was making at the time.

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"that your willing to accept

that your willing to accept

Bravo, sir. You win three internets.

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Well Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.  So the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.  Since there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept or not aware of any alternative knowledge, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know.  Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

I will repeat what you just said with a few subtle differences ...see if you can spot them :pop:

Agreed, however I accept all evidence, not all interpretations.

I believe in God based on what it is written in the Bible. However, I did not always believe what was written.  I had to go through great lengths to validate what was written in order to accept its contents.  I already had a good grasp of the alternative knowledge prior to my conversion.

So again, its like you said, it works both ways.

Final note: I would admit that I have filters on my eyes as everyone does.  I filter everything through scripture now.  But when I was an Atheist a few years ago, I also had filters on my eyes.  I filtered everything through my non-belief.  So I made a conscious decision to listen to the other side of the story.

In politics for example, I found you can often get to the truth by reading Bias views on both sides.  As a result, I often found middle ground that way. This is how I researched Christianity.  I guess this is my version of researching "Alternative Knowledge."

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"that your willing to accept

that your willing to accept

Bravo, sir. You win three internets.

Sorry I had to modify my post:)  People reply quick around here:)

I think perhaps it would have been better to have simply left your original reply unmodified and then expanded on what you meant to say in a new post  :shock: because you had thought rationally again (at least for a few moments).

You then decided (IMHO) to modify your initial agreement/reaction to fit your need to be seen to actually be disagreeing .

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"I think perhaps it would have been better to have simply left your original reply unmodified and then expanded on what you meant to say in a new post  :shock: because you had thought rationally again (at least for a few moments).

You then decided (IMHO) to modify your initial agreement/reaction to fit your need to be seen to actually be disagreeing .

Absolutely right, ill be sure to do next time.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Final note: I would admit that I have filters on my eyes as everyone does.  I filter everything through scripture now.  But when I was an Atheist a few years ago, I also had filters on my eyes.  I filtered everything through my non-belief.  So I made a conscious decision to listen to the other side of the story.

I do admit that I have filters on my eyes as well... that is a great way of putting it.  One thing that bugs me about the paragraph above is that it implies that atheists don't listen to the other side of the story.  I may be reading into it, but I hear that ALL the time, here on these forums and in my real life.

I was raised Lutheran, did the whole baptism (as an infant), confirmation, teaching Sunday School thing.  I read with an open mind, I asked questions, I read, I bible-studied.  I prayed.  This was before I EVER considered myself to even be a doubter much less an atheist.  I listened... boy, did I listen.  To my mom, my pastor, my friends, my coworkers.  I discussed... with the same people.

There was no way to bend my brain around the stories contained in the bible, much less the "Truth" it preaches.  It all defies logic and reason and rational thought.  I don't NEED anyone to prove that god exists.  The god from the bible can't possibly exist and even if he did, he's not a being I'd worship (based on the acts portrayed in the bible).

It's wonderful that you and the majority of the people in this country believe in the god of the bible and are Christians.  It gives my mother great comfort to be a Christian.

But not everyone is a believer.  And that's wonderful too.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Final note: I would admit that I have filters on my eyes as everyone does.  I filter everything through scripture now.  But when I was an Atheist a few years ago, I also had filters on my eyes.  I filtered everything through my non-belief.  So I made a conscious decision to listen to the other side of the story.

I do admit that I have filters on my eyes as well... that is a great way of putting it.  One thing that bugs me about the paragraph above is that it implies that atheists don't listen to the other side of the story.  I may be reading into it, but I hear that ALL the time, here on these forums and in my real life.

I was raised Lutheran, did the whole baptism (as an infant), confirmation, teaching Sunday School thing.  I read with an open mind, I asked questions, I read, I bible-studied.  I prayed.  This was before I EVER considered myself to even be a doubter much less an atheist.  I listened... boy, did I listen.  To my mom, my pastor, my friends, my coworkers.  I discussed... with the same people.

There was no way to bend my brain around the stories contained in the bible, much less the "Truth" it preaches.  It all defies logic and reason and rational thought.  I don't NEED anyone to prove that god exists.  The god from the bible can't possibly exist and even if he did, he's not a being I'd worship (based on the acts portrayed in the bible).

It's wonderful that you and the majority of the people in this country believe in the god of the bible and are Christians.  It gives my mother great comfort to be a Christian.

But not everyone is a believer.  And that's wonderful too.

Well I can only speak for myself, but when I was an Atheist,  I did not know the whole story but I was willing to listen.  With that said, if you were given new information or a new  understanding, would you consider it?  And what I mean by that is consider it in such a way that you would investigate further to maybe correct previous misunderstandings? Or are you pretty much done and not willing to entertain Christianity any longer?  Thanks.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Well I can only speak for myself, but when I was an Atheist,  I did not know the whole story but I was willing to listen.  With that said, if you were given new information or a new  understanding, would you consider it?  And what I mean by that is consider it in such a way that you would investigate further to maybe correct previous misunderstandings? Or are you pretty much done and not willing to entertain Christianity any longer?  Thanks.

I would indeed listen and I would consider it, yes.  We are always learning here on this big blue marble of ours.  Life is never stagnant.  Ideas and understandings can and do change all the time.  That's what science is all about.  I don't know how willing I am to embrace Christianity, but I am willing to listen, investigate, and learn.

HOWEVER... I seriously doubt that any believer has anything to add to my already HUGE religion knowledge base.  

I've also found that believers, by and large, want me to consider their faith, their "truth," all the while discounting my nonfaith.  Fingers in ears and la-la-la-ing while I try to tell them my POV, yet insisting I listen to everything they have to say.

Not your fault... that's just my experience.  You probably have run into the same thing with atheists and other nonbelievers as well, I'm sure.

So at this point, I just want people to respect each others' respective beliefs and not force their "truth" on others in any manner, including preaching, passing laws based on their scriptures, and killing others who don't practice what they practice (from flying planes into buildings to blowing up abortion clinics).

Considerate discussion, however, is always welcome.

Sounds good to me.

Quote from: "Recusant"If pressed to define what gods I don't believe in ( ) I guess I would say something along the lines of "Any and all things, persons or entities invented or chosen by  human beings to be worthy of worship as divine."

I really like that definition. To me, that explains it all.

Quote from: "thirteen31"I really like that definition.

Thank you.  I tried to be as succinct and comprehensive as possible.  The wording is my own, but no doubt it would be possible to find something similar if one were to look.  

And may I say, 'Welcome back, thirteen31;"  I haven't seen you here in a while.