|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:29 pm
One of the things that endlessly bothers me about the term "atheist" is a technicality that makes it an essentially meaningless term. Atheism we can casually define as lack of belief or active disbelief in deities. However, this only begs another question:
What is a deity? What are its characteristics? What makes something a deity and what makes something NOT a deity?
Global ideologies (religions or philosophies) answer this question in very different ways, so by telling me you're atheist, you essentially are telling me... nothing! Unless of course I make some assumptions based on the more common ways of seeing the divine in whatever country you happen to be culturally immersed in.
So here's my challenge. How do YOU define the divine? What SPECIFIC kind of divine-concept or concepts do you lack belief in? Supernatural ones? Transcendent ones? What?
If you're confused as to why this is such an issue for me, consider how I view the divine. I'll mark something as divine it if it beautiful, sacred, special, or magical/awe inspiring in some way. I find this to be a characteristic of the entire universe, so you could call me a pantheist. I see the divine as synonymous with the universe. So when an atheist says to me "I don't believe in the divine" to someone like me, that is like saying "I don't believe there is anything beautiful, special, or sacred about the entire universe; in fact, I don't believe the universe even exists!" Obviously pretty absurd, and obviously not what you guys mean, huh?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:33 pm
1. A construct of the collective human imagination to make themselves feel important and/or less lonely in the vastness of the universe.
2. A way to explain away natural phenomenon that were (until the implementation of the scientific method) unexplainable.
3. One of many means of refereeing to Abraham's imaginary friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:49 pm
To me god/s mean (I'd say it in singular but I mean it in plural also) a conscious being that has created this world / universe or parts of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 pm
I don't believe in any deities I have been presented with so far. It would be silly for me to start listing all the things I don't believe in.
You should define your god, and I'll tell you if I believe in it. If, for example, you define god as the universe, then sure. But that's just meaningless semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:00 pm
For me, the kind of god I think of is all-powerful and omniscient. But I know that there are many other supernatural beings that fall under the term that I don't believe in either.
Also, there's no way for me to know every god that's been created by mankind so it's impossible for me to really know that they don't exist.
But the best way to define my belief is that I see no reason to assume that any of these exist, let alone that I should worship them.
Though I'm very very sure in my mind that the kind of all-knowing, all-powerful, and at the same time loving God like the Abrahamic one don't exist. It's one of the few that I'm certain about.
But yeah, I know a lot of atheists don't like the term and won't typically identify themselves as atheists because it really only means "lack of belief in a god", and when people hear that they tend to assume a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:02 pm
brainnsoup
Also, there's no way for me to know every god that's been created by mankind so it's impossible for me to really know that they don't exist.
But the best way to define my belief is that I see no reason to assume that any of these exist, let alone that I should worship them.
Though I'm very very sure in my mind that the kind of all-knowing, all-powerful, and at the same time loving God like the Abrahamic one don't exist. It's one of the few that I'm certain about.
The Abrahamic god is not loving or all knowing or all powerful. Certainly he is not loving, he kills and genocides many people and has laws that are not loving. For the all knowing and all powerful thing, there is a saying that goes something like this: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God." Everyone has really defined what a deity is to a certain extent. I believe a deity is any being that exists in the mind created in human image to try to explain something that is unexplainable at the time, provide some semblance of structure to a life, or to impose bigotry on a group of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:24 pm
WickedRentSpringAwakening brainnsoup
Also, there's no way for me to know every god that's been created by mankind so it's impossible for me to really know that they don't exist.
But the best way to define my belief is that I see no reason to assume that any of these exist, let alone that I should worship them.
Though I'm very very sure in my mind that the kind of all-knowing, all-powerful, and at the same time loving God like the Abrahamic one don't exist. It's one of the few that I'm certain about.
The Abrahamic god is not loving or all knowing or all powerful. Certainly he is not loving, he kills and genocides many people and has laws that are not loving. For the all knowing and all powerful thing, there is a saying that goes something like this: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God." Everyone has really defined what a deity is to a certain extent. I believe a deity is any being that exists in the mind created in human image to try to explain something that is unexplainable at the time, provide some semblance of structure to a life, or to impose bigotry on a group of people.
That quote is from Epicurus, and it captures many of my problems with the Abrahamic God.
I'm almost completely sure that a God who is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinitely loving could not create a world so imperfect and cruel.
But because it's only one definition of God and because humans have deified things that modern westerners would never even consider as a god, I can't possibly say that none of them exist.
Also, and this is off-topic, I'm just clarifying my beliefs, I believe that it's impossible to either prove or disprove God. And I don't pretend to be able to prove that there is no god.
But I think that my feelings on god are like my feelings on magic. I don't mean magic in Neo-Pagan beliefs, I mean like in Harry Potter...
And by that I mean, it's technically possible. I would never know if it existed. But it's highly improbable for me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:36 pm
brainnsoup WickedRentSpringAwakening brainnsoup
Also, there's no way for me to know every god that's been created by mankind so it's impossible for me to really know that they don't exist.
But the best way to define my belief is that I see no reason to assume that any of these exist, let alone that I should worship them.
Though I'm very very sure in my mind that the kind of all-knowing, all-powerful, and at the same time loving God like the Abrahamic one don't exist. It's one of the few that I'm certain about.
The Abrahamic god is not loving or all knowing or all powerful. Certainly he is not loving, he kills and genocides many people and has laws that are not loving. For the all knowing and all powerful thing, there is a saying that goes something like this: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God." Everyone has really defined what a deity is to a certain extent. I believe a deity is any being that exists in the mind created in human image to try to explain something that is unexplainable at the time, provide some semblance of structure to a life, or to impose bigotry on a group of people.
That quote is from Epicurus, and it captures many of my problems with the Abrahamic God.
I'm almost completely sure that a God who is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinitely loving could not create a world so imperfect and cruel.
But because it's only one definition of God and because humans have deified things that modern westerners would never even consider as a god, I can't possibly say that none of them exist.
Also, and this is off-topic, I'm just clarifying my beliefs, I believe that it's impossible to either prove or disprove God. And I don't pretend to be able to prove that there is no god.
But I think that my feelings on god are like my feelings on magic. I don't mean magic in Neo-Pagan beliefs, I mean like in Harry Potter...
And by that I mean, it's technically possible. I would never know if it existed. But it's highly improbable for me...When people ask me why I'm atheist and not agnostic I always answer with the old teapot. I'm atheist because I don't believe in anything spiritual or esoteric. I am agnostic only in the sense that I'm not sure if there are fairies or unicorns or orcs living on the planet. The teapot example is this: If I were to say that there is a teapot floating around in space that is so small that our telescopes can't see it, I would be thought crazy. But if that teapot had been written down in holy books and had been passed down from generation to generation as 100% true, I would be thought crazy NOT to believe in the teapot. The same can be said for the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster. Just because a belief is revered and loved and unchallenged for so long and passed down for thousands of years does not make that belief true. Basically, I believe the burden of proof lies not on those who question beliefs but on those who believe those beliefs. That is why, in the scientific method, you have to explain the process that you went through and how the conclusion you came to is correct. Science relies on doubt and questioning. If there was neither one, there would be no technological advancement because if you didn't care about finding answers, there would be no need to explore. I don't know for sure that the teapot doesn't exists, but I don't believe it does because of the probability of it's nonexistence. The probability of a being powerful enough to create life, much less a universe, is very very low. There would have to have been a significant amount of evolution on another planet with life for much much longer than the universe has been in existence for that to even be possible. If you are saying that a god is an esoteric being, that has a probability near nill. That's the short version of why I am an atheist anyway. There is so much more, but that's enough to understand I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:31 pm
DaikonNairu -Ren- 1. A construct of the collective human imagination to make themselves feel important and/or less lonely in the vastness of the universe. 2. A way to explain away natural phenomenon that were (until the implementation of the scientific method) unexplainable. 3. One of many means of refereeing to Abraham's imaginary friend. Wow, this is a much different perspective than I was expecting! Awesomeness! It's interesting that you're defining it more based on FUNCTION than what it actually might be. I can completely sympathize with lack of belief in the divine because it doesn't hold a functional purpose in a given individual's life. Gosh knows I've been there before. Artto I don't believe in any deities I have been presented with so far. It would be silly for me to start listing all the things I don't believe in. You should define your god, and I'll tell you if I believe in it. If, for example, you define god as the universe, then sure. But that's just meaningless semantics. In a way it can be a semantical argument, but to me, it's a way of clarifying a way of looking at the universe. Calling the universe divine is to regard it not just as some meaningless thing, but a rich, enchanted, awe-inspiring thing worthy of honor and reverence. I know an awful lot of other scientists who pretty much feel the same way about the universe - or whatever field they're studying - but don't label it divine. The label honestly isn't all that important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:46 pm
brainnsoup For me, the kind of god I think of is all-powerful and omniscient. But I know that there are many other supernatural beings that fall under the term that I don't believe in either. Also, there's no way for me to know every god that's been created by mankind so it's impossible for me to really know that they don't exist. This makes me consider a question. What does it mean, honestly, for something to "exist" or something to be "real?" It seems like a lot of people take this in a very literal manner. For something to exist to me, doesn't mean it must to be measurable by science or be nonfalsifiable. If it exists in your mind - as a thought, an idea, an emotion - that is still a form of existence. So from that standpoint, I don't necessarily believe certain deities LITERALLY exist, but given so many people do, they obviously exist in a NON-LITERAL (abstract, idea, thought-form, whatever) manner and have great power and sway over those who honor them. As for this stuff on the strange nature of the Abrahamic God, I'm convinced there is not one Abrahamic God. Or if there is, we should remember people's interpretation of the Abrahamic God =/= the true nature of the Abrahamic God. brainnsoup Also, and this is off-topic, I'm just clarifying my beliefs, I believe that it's impossible to either prove or disprove God. And I don't pretend to be able to prove that there is no god. Lots of people claim you can, and I agree with them, with some caveats. You can prove or disprove certain specific concepts of the divine provided you limit yourself to certain sorts of evidence standards. Many religious people feel they have experienced proof of their deity through mystical experience, and I respect that as a form of proof, though it isn't something they should expect ME to accept as proof since I did not have that experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:02 pm
WickedRentSpringAwakening The teapot example is this: If I were to say that there is a teapot floating around in space that is so small that our telescopes can't see it, I would be thought crazy. But if that teapot had been written down in holy books and had been passed down from generation to generation as 100% true, I would be thought crazy NOT to believe in the teapot. The same can be said for the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster. Just because a belief is revered and loved and unchallenged for so long and passed down for thousands of years does not make that belief true. Basically, I believe the burden of proof lies not on those who question beliefs but on those who believe those beliefs. What I find interesting about this, is that while some religious people have a very literalistic approach to their deities, not all of them do. Some believe this has to do with a person's stage of spiritual development; the more "primitive" believers will take things in the literalistic manner you point to above, but more "advanced" ones see a deeper truth and meaning that transcends literalism. For these so-called "advanced" people, asking about "burden of proof" is completely missing the point. While I'm not sure I like the insinuation that a particular way of going about spirituality is ore primitive or advanced than another, it's still good to consider this in light of FSM-debunking and the like. FSM doesn't really "get" the real deeper purposes behind believing in a deity for all religious believers. I know it sure the hell doesn't get at mine. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:06 pm
Starlock WickedRentSpringAwakening The teapot example is this: If I were to say that there is a teapot floating around in space that is so small that our telescopes can't see it, I would be thought crazy. But if that teapot had been written down in holy books and had been passed down from generation to generation as 100% true, I would be thought crazy NOT to believe in the teapot. The same can be said for the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster. Just because a belief is revered and loved and unchallenged for so long and passed down for thousands of years does not make that belief true. Basically, I believe the burden of proof lies not on those who question beliefs but on those who believe those beliefs. What I find interesting about this, is that while some religious people have a very literalistic approach to their deities, not all of them do. Some believe this has to do with a person's stage of spiritual development; the more "primitive" believers will take things in the literalistic manner you point to above, but more "advanced" ones see a deeper truth and meaning that transcends literalism. For these so-called "advanced" people, asking about "burden of proof" is completely missing the point. While I'm not sure I like the insinuation that a particular way of going about spirituality is ore primitive or advanced than another, it's still good to consider this in light of FSM-debunking and the like. FSM doesn't really "get" the real deeper purposes behind believing in a deity for all religious believers. I know it sure the hell doesn't get at mine. xd I have yet to see any religious person who does not literally believe in a god. Not only around me, but also in government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:19 am
WickedRentSpringAwakening I have yet to see any religious person who does not literally believe in a god. Not only around me, but also in government. Funny. I see them all the time. Especially as soon as you get out of Western religion and into Eastern religion, or into the more mystical sectors of Western religion. It's everywhere. One simply has to know where to look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:55 pm
Starlock WickedRentSpringAwakening I have yet to see any religious person who does not literally believe in a god. Not only around me, but also in government. Funny. I see them all the time. Especially as soon as you get out of Western religion and into Eastern religion, or into the more mystical sectors of Western religion. It's everywhere. One simply has to know where to look. And what Eastern religions are you referring to? The predominant religions of the East are all literal god. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism. The Flying Spaghetti Monster originated as a challenge to the push to teach "creation theory" in schools. It doesn't have anything to do with Eastern religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:09 pm
A deity is a generally humanoid anthropomorphic personification of a force of nature or existence itself.
It's a higher being that controls the laws of the universe basically. I don't think such beings exist, I think if there's any force in the greater cosmos it either isn't sentient (and really, most people insist deities are so unfathomable to our thinking, why would they care what we do anyway?) or has some greater level of sentience that isn't anything like self-awareness as we know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
