Suspending Reality

Obtenebrator said:
Correct.



I fail to see sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of a god. This is not a "belief" per se (anymore than failing to believe in Bigfoot is an active belief).



I fail to see sufficient evidence for the existence of any gods. Full stop.
Click to expand...

I also fail to see sufficient evidence for the existence of any gods....and fail to see sufficient evidence that no gods exist.

But that was not the question.

Let me frame it differently:

If you truly do not "believe" there are no gods...or do not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...why on Earth would you chose the descriptor "atheist" when there are several more indisputably more appropriate descriptors to use? Or why not do away with any descriptor and simply state your position?
 
Frank Apisa said:
I also fail to see sufficient evidence for the existence of any gods....and fail to see sufficient evidence that no gods exist.

But that was not the question.

Let me frame it differently:

If you truly do not "believe" there are no gods...or do not "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...why on Earth would you chose the descriptor "atheist" when there are several more indisputably more appropriate descriptors to use? Or why not do away with any descriptor and simply state your position?
Click to expand...

What would be a more appropriate descriptor? If I fail to believe in any gods then I am a-theistic.
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist



atheist
noun
athe·​ist ˈā-thē-ist
Synonyms of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
atheistic
ˌā-thē-ˈi-stik
adjective
or atheistical
ˌā-thē-ˈi-sti-kəl
atheistically
ˌā-thē-ˈi-sti-k(ə-)lē
adverb


Did you know?
How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. This distinction can be troublesome to remember, but examining the origins of the two words can help.
Agnostic first appeared in 1869, (possibly coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley), and was formed from the Greek agnōstos (meaning "unknown, unknowable"). Atheist came to English from the French athéisme. Although both words share a prefix (which is probably the source of much of the confusion) the main body of each word is quite different. Agnostic shares part of its history with words such as prognosticate and prognosis, words which have something to do with knowledge or knowing something. Atheist shares roots with words such as theology and theism, which generally have something to do with God.
 
Cypress said:
The most militant of atheists believe the Gospels are a later fabrication that invented the character Jesus and the things he said

The most fundamentalist of holy rollers believe the bible is inerrant and factually true in all detail.

I've gotten both types screaming at me if I challenge their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yup, so have I.

Challenging anyone's "beliefs" does cause problems.

Anyway...it is my opinion that "beliefs" in this particular area are just guesses.

Some of those guesses may be correct.

Certainly between the "there are no gods" and "there is at least one god" continuum, it does appear one of them is correct.

If so...wonder which guess is correct.
 
evince said:
Life has no meaning


You imbue it with meaning


You create the meaning

You examine the world around you and analyze what would make this a better endeavor


Then you champion that and find ways to create that meaning in this life


I don’t think there is someone who built the ship


I don’t believe there is a captain at the wheel



I believe this is just the nature of what exists


What we have is what we have


Let’s make the best of it


I have always cared about others

From my tiniest memories


For me caring about others was just part of what exists



I’m proud as hell that is just a part of my being


If you pay attention most humans truly care about others


It’s so easy to spot

It’s so easy to tell its genuine


That is far more important than whatever an individual is indoctrinated into as a child


We are designed to care for others


That is what should guide us



Not the person who managed to wriggle their way into some power structure created by a “church” which has become more of a self perpetuating free ride for a few instead of a force of good



It’s just soooo corruptible compared to ANY other power structure


Just trust us

Faith


Believe and follow

You dont have understand

Just have faith


Asking people to just do what we say because you are to lowly to understand it all


We know

So do what we say



No thanks
Click to expand...
It's perfectly legitimate to believe life has no meaning, and it is a question I have to ask myself if I am being authentic.

The materialists and and reductionists believe there is no higher meaning, and I have to accept there is a possibility nothing is real but quarks, electrons, and other fermions and my existence is irrelevant to the universe .

I'm not ready to accept that as factually true. To me, selfhood and the process of questioning doesn't have an endpoint
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yup, so have I.

Challenging anyone's "beliefs" does cause problems.

Anyway...it is my opinion that "beliefs" in this particular area are just guesses.

Some of those guesses may be correct.

Certainly between the "there are no gods" and "there is at least one god" continuum, it does appear one of them is correct.

If so...wonder which guess is correct.
Click to expand...

Which is why it’s called faith


Just believe it

Otherwise the gods wont like you
 
Cypress said:
It's perfectly legitimate to believe life has no meaning, and it isea question I have to ask myself if I am being authentic.

The materialists and and reductionists believe there is no higher meaning, and I have to accept there is a possibility nothing is real but quarks, electrons, and other fermions and my existence is irrelevant to the universe .

I'm not ready to accept that as factually true. To me, selfhood and the process of questioning doesn't have an endpoint
Click to expand...



It’s fact we exist


So how does that comment make sense
 
Yes the system would still exist if you never happen to be born


So in a sense you don’t matter to the universe


In fact the universe doesn’t matter to the universe


It’s a system not a being


Why do you matter in this universe


Because caring beings believe you matter


I have known many a non human animal that cared deeply for the other beings around them


They made it so you matter if you let them



We don’t need an all knowing master king
 
Obtenebrator said:
What would be a more appropriate descriptor? If I fail to believe in any gods then I am a-theistic.
Click to expand...

That is not a correct etymological condition, O.

The fact is that the word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years before the word "theist." Atheist does not derive from theist at all. It comes to us from the Greek through the French in this form:

"a" (without) prefixing "theos" (a god)...and means without a god.

Now I grant that it has been corrupted (since about the mid 1950's) to mean, without a "belief" in any gods, but that IS a corruption...not a logical consistency. It is NOT "a" (without) prefixing "theist" (belief in a god) = without a belief in a god.
 
Frank Apisa said:
That is not a correct etymological condition, O.

The fact is that the word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years before the word "theist." Atheist does not derive from theist at all. It comes to us from the Greek through the French in this form:

"a" (without) prefixing "theos" (a god)...and means without a god.

Now I grant that it has been corrupted (since about the mid 1950's) to mean, without a "belief" in any gods, but that IS a corruption...not a logical consistency. It is NOT "a" (without) prefixing "theist" (belief in a god) = without a belief in a god.
Click to expand...

There is literally nothing etymologically or historically that requires it be the strong form of atheism. In your etymology it literally says "without God" (no requirement for an active, positive belief). There is a large amount of literature which explains the development of atheism since the 19th century. I prefer to speak in terms of atheism as atheists represent themselves.

As such I will grant there are some with "beliefs" (ie "there is no god") but there are also those, like myself, who simply "fail to believe" (ie lack belief). This is a perfectly well described version of atheism in the literature.
 
evince said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist



atheist
noun
athe·​ist ˈā-thē-ist
Synonyms of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
atheistic
ˌā-thē-ˈi-stik
adjective
or atheistical
ˌā-thē-ˈi-sti-kəl
atheistically
ˌā-thē-ˈi-sti-k(ə-)lē
adverb


Did you know?
How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. This distinction can be troublesome to remember, but examining the origins of the two words can help.
Agnostic first appeared in 1869, (possibly coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley), and was formed from the Greek agnōstos (meaning "unknown, unknowable"). Atheist came to English from the French athéisme. Although both words share a prefix (which is probably the source of much of the confusion) the main body of each word is quite different. Agnostic shares part of its history with words such as prognosticate and prognosis, words which have something to do with knowledge or knowing something. Atheist shares roots with words such as theology and theism, which generally have something to do with God.
Click to expand...

I align more closely with agnostic, though labels have weaknesses
 
Obtenebrator said:
There is literally nothing etymologically or historically that requires it be the strong form of atheism. In your etymology it literally says "without God" (no requirement for an active, positive belief). There is a large amount of literature which explains the development of atheism since the 19th century. I prefer to speak in terms of atheism as atheists represent themselves.

As such I will grant there are some with "beliefs" (ie "there is no god") but there are also those, like myself, who simply "fail to believe" (ie lack belief). This is a perfectly well described version of atheism in the literature.
Click to expand...

I agree...it is a perfectly decent description of atheism.

But the choice of using "atheist" is A CHOICE.

You've made it.

From what I can determine from your earlier response to my question...you believe it is no more likely that there are no gods...than that there is at least one.

You indicated you do not believe it is more likely that there are no gods than at least one.

It just seems to me that considering that...the choice of "atheist" is unusual.

Agnostic is available...and probably comes closer in the mind of the public to what you are describing as your position.

I no longer use a descriptor. I state my position. Here it is:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

I think most people reading that would term it an agnostic position...not an atheistic one. But I do not need to characterize it.

Anyway, I thank you for answering my question. Obviously each of us is free to use whatever we prefer to describe ourselves...and I appreciate you telling me that you prefer "atheist."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top