defining the atheist life....

[NiftyNiblick]

I don't remember all that I should from anatomy, I guess.

Is the bottom of one's foot considered a sole, or is that just the bottom of one's shoe?

 

[Jack]

Yes! Which is to say, each group operates solely on their blind guesses about the existence or non-existence of gods.

The "god-deniers" are doing what the "god-believers" are doing...essentially making a blind guess on the question.

I believe we have the identical position on this. It seems very clear. It's 'Belief' versus 'Proof'.
(Have you mentioned your prior Religious involvement to the Faithful here?)

 

[Ross Dolan]

Or, they could be like Mr. Owl, who when asked says merely that "There's no evidence for a human soul or for god(s)."

Possible.

Not sure if Mr. Owl identifies using the descriptor "atheist"...but if he does, and if Mr. Owl were asked. "Do you 'believe', suppose, guess, or accept without proof that either no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?"...how would he answer?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I believe that the entire universe and all that occurs within it are merely the random confluence of sub atomic particles interacting in the infinity of space.

The only question remaining to me is whether or not some "god" created the sub-atomic particles.

Wait, one other question: How the fuck does it matter?

 

[Concart]

Yes! Which is to say, each group operates solely on their blind guesses about the existence or non-existence of gods.

The "god-deniers" are doing what the "god-believers" are doing...essentially making a blind guess on the question.

Mostly true. Where you lose me is in your claim that someone cannot passively lack belief and call themselves an atheist. (I don't care what 'label' you want to use for that, it IS my position). i cannot say with absolutely certainty that God does not exist, because I can't say with certainty that ANYTHING doesn't exist. That does not put me in the same position as someone who insists that God does exist. Because we both have the same tools available to establish our positions, and those tools come down 100% on one side of the issue. There is nothing in science to suggest the existence of or the need for a God. That's the fundamental reason I don't believe one exists. I think this is largely a semantics discussion, and you appear to be pretty passionate about what you perceive as the misuse of the term 'atheist'. We'll agree to disagree. The dictionary definitions of atheist includes my position, so I have no problem calling myself that. Not all atheists are created equal. But again, outside of these kinds of threads, that isn't a characteristic that defines my world view, at least not a very important one.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I believe we have the identical position on this. It seems very clear. It's 'Belief' versus 'Proof'.
(Have you mentioned your prior Religious involvement to the Faithful here?)

I have.

I was raised a Catholic...but went to public rather than parochial schools.

I've had periods of my early life where I was what most consider "a religious" inclination. As an adult, while in military service, I learned to serve Mass...learned the Latin and the rites. I was fortunate enough to once serve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican...and to serve the Catholic Primate of England as an acolyte in High Mass.

I gave serious considerations to becoming a priest...but those considerations led to my adopting an agnostic position...which I have posted in this thread a few times. I have many religious and atheistic friends...and we have lots of interesting discussions in which I espouse the position I've indicated...a position I consider more logical than all other positions on the issue.

 

[Concart]

I believe that the entire universe and all that occurs within it are merely the random confluence of sub atomic particles interacting in the infinity of space.

The only question remaining to me is whether or not some "god" created the sub-atomic particles.

Wait, one other question: How the fuck does it matter?

It doesn't. but your question isn't the only question. Because if 'God' created the sub atomic particles, then who created God. This is why the God argument fails the science test and the logic test. Because eventually you reach an unknowable question. And God adds nothing to our ability to answer that question. Whatever answer you give for where God came from, I can use the same answer for the sub-atomic particle. God is redundant.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Mostly true. Where you lose me is in your claim that someone cannot passively lack belief and call themselves an atheist. (I don't care what 'label' you want to use for that, it IS my position). i cannot say with absolutely certainty that God does not exist, because I can't say with certainty that ANYTHING doesn't exist. That does not put me in the same position as someone who insists that God does exist. Because we both have the same tools available to establish our positions, and those tools come down 100% on one side of the issue. There is nothing in science to suggest the existence of or the need for a God. That's the fundamental reason I don't believe one exists. I think this is largely a semantics discussion, and you appear to be pretty passionate about what you perceive as the misuse of the term 'atheist'. We'll agree to disagree. The dictionary definitions of atheist includes my position, so I have no problem calling myself that. Not all atheists are created equal. But again, outside of these kinds of threads, that isn't a characteristic that defines my world view, at least not a very important one.

I suspect we are, for the most part, on the same page, Concart...more in agreement than in significant disagreement. The subtle differences are not worth much time and effort...but that kind of time and effort are what these discussion boards are all about, so I discuss them.

For the record, in your comments above, you wrote, "Where you lose me is in your claim that someone cannot passively lack belief and call themselves an atheist."

Of course a person CAN "lack belief" and call themselves an atheist. MANY people do...so it would be absurd for me to suggest that it cannot be done. I am merely suggesting it seems a bit inappropriate to me that it IS done...and I cannot help but wonder if it is done because the "passive lack of belief" is not actual. I suspect (only suspect...I may be wrong) that anyone who uses the descriptor "atheist" is not doing so because of a passive lack of belief...but rather because of the influence of belief that is on a less conscious level. I suspect everyone who claims to be an atheist because of "passive lack of belief" actually BELIEVES that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

As I said, I may be wrong. You apparently think it is at least as likely that at least one god exists...as that there are none...correct?

 

[Concart]

I suspect we are, for the most part, on the same page, Concart...more in agreement than in significant disagreement. The subtle differences are not worth much time and effort...but that kind of time and effort are what these discussion boards are all about, so I discuss them.

For the record, in your comments above, you wrote, "Where you lose me is in your claim that someone cannot passively lack belief and call themselves an atheist."

Of course a person CAN "lack belief" and call themselves an atheist. MANY people do...so it would be absurd for me to suggest that it cannot be done. I am merely suggesting it seems a bit inappropriate to me that it IS done...and I cannot help but wonder if it is done because the "passive lack of belief" is not actual. I suspect (only suspect...I may be wrong) that anyone who uses the descriptor "atheist" is not doing so because of a passive lack of belief...but rather because of the influence of belief that is on a less conscious level. I suspect everyone who claims to be an atheist because of "passive lack of belief" actually BELIEVES that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

As I said, I may be wrong. You apparently think it is at least as likely that at least one god exists...as that there are none...correct?

On the last point, I don't believe that. For me, this is a logic test, and the existence of God fails that test. So, lacking scientific evidence that God exists, and no logical need for God to exist, I think it is far more likely that God doesn't exist. God being defined as a supernatural entity not subject to natural laws and not existing in the natural world. That's the test I'd apply to any other question about the existence of something in the natural world. Bottom line, my question is 'why do we need God' and the answer is that objectively we don't'. My belief is that God is a man made idea in order to explain the things we don't understand.

But I agree we are for the most part on the same page, and this IS an interesting discussion, so good on you.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Possible.

Not sure if Mr. Owl identifies using the descriptor "atheist"...but if he does, and if Mr. Owl were asked. "Do you 'believe', suppose, guess, or accept without proof that either no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?"...how would he answer?

He doesn't label himself as an atheist; he just IS. He has zero interest in religion, spirituality, and other such musings. As to your question, he would say "There is no evidence that gods or a human soul exist." IOW he only accepts as reality that which can be observed or measured or quantified or otherwise is verifiable.

 

[Jack]

I have.

I was raised a Catholic...but went to public rather than parochial schools.

I've had periods of my early life where I was what most consider "a religious" inclination. As an adult, while in military service, I learned to serve Mass...learned the Latin and the rites. I was fortunate enough to once serve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican...and to serve the Catholic Primate of England as an acolyte in High Mass.

I gave serious considerations to becoming a priest...but those considerations led to my adopting an agnostic position...which I have posted in this thread a few times. I have many religious and atheistic friends...and we have lots of interesting discussions in which I espouse the position I've indicated...a position I consider more logical than all other positions on the issue.

The 'Freedom From Religion Foundation' has an ex religious Preacher as a leader and spokesperson. His past religious credentials give him a little more credibility when he makes his case. I feel the same applies to you. Most of the rest of us know little about the Bible or Scripture and are at a loss when confronted with 'Biblical Argument'. So you, like this guy Dan Barker, are in a more powerful position to offer Reason and Logic against the 'Religious'.

 

[Ross Dolan]

But I agree we are for the most part on the same page, and this IS an interesting discussion, so good on you.

Last part first. Thanks for that, Concart. Good discussion among several people in this thread. Good on all of us.

On the last point, I don't believe that. For me, this is a logic test, and the existence of God fails that test. So, lacking scientific evidence that God exists, and no logical need for God to exist, I think it is far more likely that God doesn't exist. God being defined as a supernatural entity not subject to natural laws and not existing in the natural world. That's the test I'd apply to any other question about the existence of something in the natural world. Bottom line, my question is 'why do we need God' and the answer is that objectively we don't'. My belief is that God is a man made idea in order to explain the things we don't understand.

That last sentence says it all for me. That is your "belief"...and I suspect the reason you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...rather than any notion that you passively lack belief.

As an aside, I have written several times that IF a GOD exists...it would not be a supernatural being. Whatever EXISTS...is a part of nature...whether we humans can detect it or even imagine it. We humans are not the end-all of knowledge...probably not even remotely close. I suspect there is a GREAT DEAL more that we do not know about existence...than we know.

To suggest that "the existence of a GOD...or the suggestion that a GOD MAY exist" fails logic in any way...is itself illogical.

If we continue the discussion, I hope you are able to detach yourself from using "God" (you used it 7 times in this latest comment) and use "a god" or "a God" or "a GOD" or "gods." Using "God" suggests you are referencing a specific God...and I suspect you do not mean Loki or Vulcan or Poseidon.

And the fact that we do not need any gods is not truly an argument that no gods exist. There is no reason to suppose we need lots of stars and planets...but they exist. There is no reason we need space so large it takes light billions of years to traverse it...but it exists. Just as we have no need for a god to explain existence...there is no need for there not to be a god to explain it.

Lastly, it is no more logical to suppose, "It is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist"...and by the same token, it is no more logical to suppose, "It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

One cannot arrive at any of the following four things using logic, science, reason, or math:

1) At least one god exists.
2) No gods exist.
3) It is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist.
4) It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.

 

[Ross Dolan]

He doesn't label himself as an atheist; he just IS. He has zero interest in religion, spirituality, and other such musings. As to your question, he would say "There is no evidence that gods or a human soul exist." IOW he only accepts as reality that which can be observed or measured or quantified or otherwise is verifiable.

Thanks.

My comments here are specific to people who use "atheist" as an identifier.

I am not comfortable supposing all of "REALITY" is stuff humans can detect in any way. My guess is that much of REALITY is not detectable at all by humans. We are merely the dominant life form on a nondescript pebble circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy in a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies.

 

[Concart]

Last part first. Thanks for that, Concart. Good discussion among several people in this thread. Good on all of us.





That last sentence says it all for me. That is your "belief"...and I suspect the reason you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...rather than any notion that you passively lack belief.

As an aside, I have written several times that IF a GOD exists...it would not be a supernatural being. Whatever EXISTS...is a part of nature...whether we humans can detect it or even imagine it. We humans are not the end-all of knowledge...probably not even remotely close. I suspect there is a GREAT DEAL more that we do not know about existence...than we know.

To suggest that "the existence of a GOD...or the suggestion that a GOD MAY exist" fails logic in any way...is itself illogical.

If we continue the discussion, I hope you are able to detach yourself from using "God" (you used it 7 times in this latest comment) and use "a god" or "a God" or "a GOD" or "gods." Using "God" suggests you are referencing a specific God...and I suspect you do not mean Loki or Vulcan or Poseidon.

And the fact that we do not need any gods is not truly an argument that no gods exist. There is no reason to suppose we need lots of stars and planets...but they exist. There is no reason we need space so large it takes light billions of years to traverse it...but it exists. Just as we have no need for a god to explain existence...there is no need for there not to be a god to explain it.

Lastly, it is no more logical to suppose, "It is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist"...and by the same token, it is no more logical to suppose, "It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

One cannot arrive at any of the following four things using logic, science, reason, or math:

1) At least one god exists.
2) No gods exist.
3) It is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist.
4) It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.

So, if we define God as natural rather than supernatural, that changes the entire discussion. We would appear to be Gods to most ancient civilizations. I think by definition, God HAS to be supernatural, otherwise we are just talking about a naturally occurring phenomenon that we don't yet understand so we label it as 'God'. I can't even begin to imagine how many of those phenomenon exists, but it's more than one.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It doesn't. but your question isn't the only question. Because if 'God' created the sub atomic particles, then who created God. This is why the God argument fails the science test and the logic test. Because eventually you reach an unknowable question. And God adds nothing to our ability to answer that question. Whatever answer you give for where God came from, I can use the same answer for the sub-atomic particle. God is redundant.

Right. Forward infinity is easy. More of the same shit forever.
Backward infinity is inexplicable. There can be no beginning because what came before that?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Thanks.

My comments here are specific to people who use "atheist" as an identifier.

I am not comfortable supposing all of "REALITY" is stuff humans can detect in any way. My guess is that much of REALITY is not detectable at all by humans. We are merely the dominant life form on a nondescript pebble circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy in a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies.

That is pretty much my own take on things too. Fifty years ago we didn't know that exoplanets existed, although they were hypothesized, because we didn't have instruments capable of detecting them. Four hundred years ago, we didn't know about the existence of disease-causing microorganisms. A thousand years ago, it was accepted as truth that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

There is so much that we don't know about the universe still to be discovered. Maybe a soul might be detected one day, or evidence for a god. Or maybe not.

 

[Cypress]

I have.

I was raised a Catholic...but went to public rather than parochial schools.

I've had periods of my early life where I was what most consider "a religious" inclination. As an adult, while in military service, I learned to serve Mass...learned the Latin and the rites. I was fortunate enough to once serve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican...and to serve the Catholic Primate of England as an acolyte in High Mass.

I gave serious considerations to becoming a priest...but those considerations led to my adopting an agnostic position...which I have posted in this thread a few times. I have many religious and atheistic friends...and we have lots of interesting discussions in which I espouse the position I've indicated...a position I consider more logical than all other positions on the issue.

I posted the following commentary by an agnostic physicist on a thread several months ago...to howls of protest, curiously.

The point is that reason, inductive logic, and scientific experimentation have limitations - and we might consider being humble about what we can and cannot know about the deepest fundamental nature of reality.

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Its past recipients include scientific luminaries such as Sir Martin Rees and Freeman Dyson, as well as religious or political leaders such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

Across his 35-year scientific career, Gleiser’s research has covered a wide breadth of topics, ranging from the properties of the early universe to the behavior of fundamental particles and the origins of life. But in awarding him its most prestigious honor, the Templeton Foundation chiefly cited his status as a leading public intellectual revealing “the historical, philosophical and cultural links between science, the humanities and spirituality.” He is also the first Latin American to receive the prize.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/

 

[goat]

Nothing at all "evil" about this advice, is there?

LaVey drew heavily from the philosophy of Ayn Rand for his own.

Rand drew heavily from the philosophy of Kant although she would never admit it. I love my right to individual expression but I also know that humans are social animals who need other humans for survival. Only large clans or tribes could afford to lose a member while the smaller clans needed every member. Anyone exiled from the tribe would most likely be a death sentence for that individual.

Did I mention that I like trivia?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Mostly true. Where you lose me is in your claim that someone cannot passively lack belief and call themselves an atheist.

passively lacking belief is not atheism......it is apathy......

i cannot say with absolutely certainty that God does not exist, because I can't say with certainty that ANYTHING doesn't exist

and yet, several people have done that in this thread.....were you one of them?.....

by the way, this is hardly a passive unbelief.....

What I am even MORE certain of is that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That petty, small anthropomorphized schmuck isn't a 'Supreme Being'.

 

[BidenPresident]

Rand drew heavily from the philosophy of Kant although she would never admit it.

Example?