The Most Astounding Fact (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

[Opsa]

Once again, we have the challenge of understanding the definition of god as some sort of independent being vs. the definition of god as everything that exists. What kind of god would be immature enough to slam two clouds together just to startle little us? What if god is the two clouds?

I am guessing that most atheists are against the idea of god as an independent being, who helps or harms at will. I am with them, in this case.

If god is a floating pile of spaghetti just kinda putzing along with no real intention of anything, that's a little more feasible to me.

On the other hand (uh-oh, all these hands are making us look a tad like the Hindu gods...), if all of us together with all that exists is god, and the goal is to be here and now and do the best we can together, then I am not an atheist.

So what I'm asking is, are atheists against all ideas of god, or just the man-in-the-sky kind?

[Aggie]

So what I'm asking is, are atheists against all ideas of god, or just the man-in-the-sky kind?

Might as well ask if god is against the idea of all atheists, or just certain kinds? 

The idea of an atheist seems to be as necessarily fluid as the idea of a god (because you need to use your own idea of god to frame a rejection of it). However, can definitely say that I believe that atheists exist. Otherwise I'd be an aatheist, I suppose. 

[Swatopluk]

Well, US fundies tend to deny the existence of atheists categorically. 'No atheist in the foxhole' has become a dogma.
But they also deny 'real' homosexuality.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Indeed they do Swato, indeed they do...



Opsa:

I rather like the notion that the whole universe is god (little-g).    It means that any self-aware entity be it biological or electronic (or other) in origin would have a nice, automatic built-in purpose to exist:  in order to see.

Of course, the cynic in me has to quote the following counter-point.

We exist to bear witness.
We had to be.
The infinite needs us to see it.
Without the perceiver,
the perceived does not exist.
That gives us leverage.
Don't look until you get what you want.

--Chuck Lorre, #225

[Opsa]

Is that a counter-point or just a counter attitude? 

So if you can allow that we may be the wondering and appreciating pieces of the all, are you an atheist? And am I?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I freely admit here that I do have some kinds of faith.   I would never admit such to a fundamentalist, though-- it fuels their delusions, for they misconstrue what I say to their own nefarious ends.

But I do admit that I have faith that our human senses: eyes, ears, etc, can actually perceive the real universe around us, especially if we utilize tools which help us get an unbiased opinion.

For example:  look at the height of say, a tree.  We can use just our eyes, and guess-- an opinion.  Or we can use a tool, such as a tape-measure, and form an unbiased opinion.  Anyone using a similar tape-measure will get the same results.

So it's a principle of faith, I suppose, that our human senses and an objective tool of some sort:   yardstick, microscope, telescope, cyclotron, will give us an unbiased measurement of the universe.   Within the limits of the tool, of course.   That should be obvious, but isn't, and must be stated to be complete.

Yet, I maintain that I am faithless all too frequently (atheist).

What gives, then?

To me, the principle difference is the repeatability, regardless of language, culture, origin, mental acuity, etc.   

To be acceptable, a principle must be common/repeatable to everyone*.    And the religious premises simply to not fit that requirement.  At all.

So I see no real conundrum here.

Besides:  everyone is an atheist in some respect-- there are always some gods of some sort that any given person does not believe in.   





__________________

* obviously within the limits of a person's set of senses: some humans do not possess the full slate, due to some injury or accident of birth.

[Opsa]

I appreciate your opinion very much, Bob. I wonder if what we're both mostly against is really just fundamentalism.

I read a very interesting article today in The Washington Post called "Is Doubt Good?" I think it touches on some of what we've been discussing.

In the end, I suppose it is another "Question Authority" thing.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

mmmm!  Nicely written-- thanks for the link, Opsa.

And you are correct:  I am pretty much against fundamentalism, regardless of which form it takes.

Our dear departed sibling DD once reminded me of that:  it's the extremists that we should worry about, not your average Joe or Jane next door, who's only trying to live life as best they know how.  (If you wonder about the conversation, search here for "I do not belong here" (or a thread with a similar title to that).

As for question authority?  I like to quote John Clease if MPFC:  "Question everything.  Nothing should be so sacred that we cannot make fun of it now and again."

And I agree-- nothing is wrong with reviewing sacred stories (translation: stories we hold very dear) from time to time-- it helps remind us how we got here, if nothing else.

But by the same token?  We should also feel free to make fun of those same stories-- for by making fun of them, it lets us re-examine them from a new or different perspective.

And that, is never a bad thing.

[Aggie]

*rumble*

[pieces o nine]

* also rumbles *

[Griffin NoName]

:Topic Drift:

Jerusalem Syndrome might be worth considering.

:End Topic Drift:

[Bluenose]

As a Card Carrying Atheist^TM of long standing, I define atheism as simple not believing in any supernatural being until and unless there is some actual evidence for he/she/it.  Should such evidence ever be produced, of course, then belief will not be required, only acceptance of the evidence, thus belief if a non-starter however you look at it.  If you want my opinion, then I very seriously doubt any such evidence will ever be uncovered, but I accept that there is a very small (vanishingly small but not zero) chance that it may.  However, I count on it much less than the chance that I might win the lottery, after all sometimes I even buy a ticket in the lottery!  

PS:  Anyway the point I intended to make above but topic drifted myself with, was that I do not consider atheism to be rejection of god, how can you reject something that does not exist?  The atheist does not reject god he/she simply does not consider god at all.  As I have been known to say to fundies in other places:  show me the evidence.

[Swatopluk]

There is a lot one can reject or accept independent of hard evidence of actual existence. A notorious case would be 'human rights'. Objectively, dictatorships like China that simply deny that they exist have the better arguments. Give me any hard facts that 'rights' exists independent of a made-up consent one can force no one to share. It's quite a useful illusion (likely a better one than 'G*d' most of the time) though. Again we are talking about frame of reference. The rejection cannot exist without the idea that is rejected being there in the first place (the idea, not necessarily something real). It would make no sense to define somebody as a-gfhemcfjdlgfnl unless there is a common idea of gfhemcfjdlgfnl. You ask for evidence? Gotcha! You bought into the frame. Are you for or against Popov? Who the hell is Popov? Gotcha! I do not doubt you own atheist credentials but I deny that you were born one (you were not born as a believer either), you grew into one during the process of learning that other people have this strange idea not based on evidence. The same is not true about material facts like your biological sex because that has an idenpendent existence and does not require any perception on your part.

There are of course more fuzzy things like your nationality or your name. They are not strictly material but the world does a lot to make them as real as possible while you are free to feel completely different about them. You can rejct the name assigned to you and you can feel to be a member of a nation of your choice while that nation denies it to you and/or another claims you and refuses to release you and also insists oy you having a certain name. Both was true for German Jews in the 3rd Reich, stripped of citizenship and assigned a nation and name and later a mere number although the majority had no interest in either. A lot of German Jews were rabid German nationalists and totally rejected the idea of zionism.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Human rights exist simply because we humans have decided that they do.

Human rights is a meme, a concept completely abstract, like money.   These exist because we say they do, and act accordingly.

Sure, the same arguments could be used for "god" but there is a very important difference:  without humans, there would be no need of human rights (or money as humans use the meme).   But the god-botherers claim their god(s) exist independent of any and all human activity.  By making that claim, they have set themselves up for verification of the claim-- if it's true, then this "god" or "gods" can be tested for independent of human activity.

To date, no gods have ever passed this requirement.

And yes-- I was born an atheist--everyone was (default:  no beliefs=atheist).   You can spin this however you like, but I reject your straw-man "atheism" definition as "n/a".

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I define atheism as simple not believing in any supernatural being until and unless there is some actual evidence for he/she/it.

The moment you bring evidence it stops being supernatural and becomes natural, the same way dark matter and dark energy are not considered supernatural, as although we don't know what they are we can infer their existence from consistent observations.