To better understand the Atheist

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Light Travelling, Nov 23, 2006.

  1. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    To better understand the Atheist

    As this is a science forum (not a religious one) and 70 – 80% of forum members are atheist, it seems an appropriate place to discuss this. I would greatly like to understand the atheist mindset, would any of you atheist's mind answering a few questions.

    I hear many people talking about atheism i.e. what they don’t believe in. I am intereted to find out what they do believe in.

    Thank you.


    What philosophy do you follow if any? (ie famous philosophers you find agreement with, maybe a political or social idea that inspires you? etc....)

    Can you define your concept of god that you don’t believe in?

    What is your basic ontological principle? (what is the basis of reality for you?)

    Is there a standard of Morality? (Does one exist? How do you define it it, are you obliged to stick to it?)

    Is there such a thing as Free will?
    (Define it? Does it exist? Or are we ruled soley by hormone, gene, meme impulses and material cause and effect? How does it arise?)

    Do you believe that all reality is empirically detectable? (if yes, explain why?)

    Do you have an books or teachings that you believe are infallible? ( and why? do you adhere to it verbatum?Do you question everything down to base principles or do you accept some things on faith i.e. take someone elses word for it? )

    Do you believe in that the Big Bang theory provides all the answers to the question of existence and leaves nothing un-answered? (if yes do you think it makes philosophy redundant?)

    What do you think of theism / non-thesitic religion (eg Taoism) / agnosticism?

    Do you distinguish between different types of theism? (or do you have a tendancy to paint all theists with the same brush? Do you distinguish different religions or just religion per se?)

    lets discuss please.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Something that gets me through the day is working on a skill that will one day make me a genius. Obviously I don't put the effort in that I should, but oh well.. Everyone should have something they aspire to be a master of, even if it's something trivial.

    God is a concious sentient planner and creator which is the root cause of everything.

    I don't know. Our existence is truely wierd and something we can only puzzle over. We're perhaps not in the best position to judge, given our biological bias.

    There may be a standard of morality which we should aspire to, but we are obviously nowhere near it. I think we're on the right path, but things are getting too crowded for a consensus on morality.

    There is no such thing as free will. We are slaves to our genes and have very little say in anything. All of our habits and personality traits are governed purely by material pressures. Life in this universe is nothing but a constraint - far from free.

     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2006
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    While I like a wide variety of philosophies, I don't 'follow' any one in particular.

    A sentient life form that explicitly created reality and humans. The life form has the ability to interact with and change reality.

    I don't understand the question.

    There is no objective standard. That doesn't however mean that we can't create a kick-ass subjective one. Its a 3 step process. Understand what humans want and need. Promote behaviors that lead to the achievement of those wants and needs. Condemn behavior that blocks the achievment of those wants and needs. If done right, I would speculate people will and will want to be responsible and hold each other accountable.



    The phrase 'free will' is not coherent in this question nor do I have a means to make it coherent. You will have to define it.

    In general, I try not to 'believe'. At present I don't know whether or not all reality is empirically detectable. Just for example, if we are literally a part of our universe, how could we detect what's 'outside' of it (assuming of course that the concept of 'outside' in relation to our universe exists).

    Sort of. Anything that reality says is true is infallible.

    Again, in general, I try not to 'believe'. The 'Big Bang' theory does not provide all the answers to the question of existence.

    Regarding the first two, religion is a great way to meet a wide variety of human psychological needs. The 'magic is real' thinking that religions promote is pure delusion that has historically led to very irrational and destructive behavior. Agnosticism IMO is a logically flawed weak-Atheism. A weak Atheist doesn't accept the claim 'God exists' as true because there is no supportive evidence. In response to this, an Agnostic would assert 'that's because it's impossible for such evidence to exist'. That is a contradiction of logic (and more importantly reality) as if something exists then an instance of it can be produced.

    It depends on the context. If the discussion is about magical thinking then I clump them all in the same boat of delusion. If the discussion is about meeting human psychological needs, then I see lots of differences.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. geeser Atheism:is non-prophet making Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,305
    atheism is the natural way of things, it has no philosophy for me, it just is.
    none of us are born with religion, or a god.
    there is no need to rationally investigate the truths and principles of being, when it is the natural way of things
    what would be the point, it's infantile to try and define that which does not exist, however I could give you an imaginary definition.
    I refer you to my first reply.
    we have a natural inbuilt sense of what is right, unless we have it indoctrinated out of us by religion, as atheists we know that this is our one and only chance of life, and therefore, are far more morally respectful of the rights of others to live.
    humans have free will to a degree,about fifty fifty, sometimes we are ruled by the above mentioned, impulses, hormones genes etc....
    at the present moment we have no other way, until such time as there might be another way, it would be infantile to deny the possiblity there might be another way, but that does not make it reasonable to believe in fairy stories, does it.
    no, books needed, as I said earlier, atheism is the natural way of things, it is better to test it for yourself is it not, than takes someone else word for it, that is the scientific way.
    the bigbang is untestable, but it is still more reasonable than a god did it scenario.
    it is unreasonable to believe in god/gods, as there is no known evidence for any.( that not to say there is'nt any just that it's unreasonable.)this includes taoism.(which is polytheistic)
    I am atheistic to all.
     
  8. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    What philosophy do you follow if any? (ie famous philosophers you find agreement with, maybe a political or social idea that inspires you? etc....)

    I do not follow any particular philosophy or any specific philosophers. My entire worldview is centered upon rational thought combined with the lessons learnt from life experiences. However, I do often find it pleasing when I discover that something I have determined through my own thinking has already been determined by recognized philosophers.

    I tend to face every new challenge in life, good or bad, as an opportunity to learn and grow. My social stance is libertarian and where I see the individual of paramount importance.

    Can you define your concept of god that you don’t believe in?

    There is no specific definition that I find particularly objectionable, but rather it is the irrational baseless assertions that the objects of such concepts are real.

    What is your basic ontological principle? (what is the basis of reality for you?)

    Anything detectable. Everything else is speculation although I don’t rule out anything.

    Is there a standard of Morality? (Does one exist? How do you define it it, are you obliged to stick to it?)

    Personal survival. And that largely depends on a peaceful, happy, well ordered, rational, and structured civilized world, so it is in my best interests to encourage such things.

    Is there such a thing as Free will? (Define it? Does it exist? Or are we ruled soley by hormone, gene, meme impulses and material cause and effect? How does it arise?)

    I perceive that I have free will. Whether it actually exists or not doesn’t seem to matter to me.

    Do you believe that all reality is empirically detectable? (if yes, explain why?)

    I’m open to any proof that shows there is any other type of detection.

    Do you have an books or teachings that you believe are infallible? ( and why? do you adhere to it verbatum?Do you question everything down to base principles or do you accept some things on faith i.e. take someone elses word for it? )

    I follow no written guidelines. I use reasoned thought for all activities and I follow nothing on blind faith.

    Do you believe in that the Big Bang theory provides all the answers to the question of existence and leaves nothing un-answered? (if yes do you think it makes philosophy redundant?)

    I have doubts that the BB ever occurred. If it did then I do not see that that necessarily means it was a beginning or comes close to answering everything since there are many other speculations; e.g. bubble theory (infinite number of concurrent big bangs), cyclic theory (bang, crunch, bang, crunch,), and other multi-verse concepts.

    What do you think of theism / non-thesitic religion (eg Taoism) / agnosticism?

    Curiosities that defy reason.

    Do you distinguish between different types of theism? (or do you have a tendancy to paint all theists with the same brush? Do you distinguish different religions or just religion per se?)

    All religions and superstitions are effectively identical in that they are all based on irrational thinking.
     
  9. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    im not an atheist....

    and why do they call um... a-theists...

    they are not theists....


    they should be called... anti-theists... or neg-theists... or B-theists.

    or at the very least.... non-theists.

    a-theists... must of been made up by those anti-theists.

    putting an A.. at the front.. makes it like a good grade in school.

    they arent f-theists... or D-theists... or c-theists.... no.

    not even B-theists...

    they are A-theists....

    ha...

    -MT
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't follow a philosophy consciously, but maybe I have been influenced by various points of view. I Like Epicurianism and Taoism, the Dischordians, and the Buddhists. I find Democracy and the US constitution to be inspiring.
    A personal God that generally acts like a very advanced human king. An eternal personality separate from existence itself. A principle that inspires worship. A supernatural policeman.
    That in essence, nothing can be known. Reality is a phantom created by perception. Spontaneity and naturalness are the highest virtues. Individuality is superior to identification with culture.
    There is a consensus of what is acceptable in society, which everyone knows. This is a sufficient guide in most circumstances, but one should remain open to all options. One should treat everyone fairly unless they mistreat you.
    Apparently. This doesn't concern me much, since I don't feel I need to be in control.
    No, at least, not yet. There are many mysteries, such as what goes on in a black hole.
    No. I question everything.
    No. If true it makes the origin of the known universe a spectacular event, but what came after is more interesting and important. It leaves alot unanswered because it was never intended to answer everything. It is not the alternative to creation that theists make it out to be, since it only sets up the conditions for everything to cool, solidify, grow and evolve. The important thing about the United States isn't how the continent drifted apart from Pangea, but the life forms and people that inhabited it.
    I think theism is a limited and arrogant point of view, based more in mythology than truth. Non theistic religions like Taoism are more nature centered, non-dogmatic and inspirational.
    I like Pantheism more than Monotheism, in particular the Aztec, Inca and Mayan Gods, since they were more interesting. I think this is due to the shamanic practice of using entheogenic sacraments. :m:
     
  11. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Mosh you moron, a-is a prefix of a negative, such as amoral, means not moral, "atheist" means not theist!
     
  12. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    a perfect example....... of an anti-theist.

    -MT
     
  13. Boss Foxx I piss excellence. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    104
    I'm not much of a philosophy buff, as the most sophisticated mantra I follow is , "Don't fuck with me, I don't fuck with you."

    Any concept of god that has been proposed, I've pretty much dismissed it. There's no one specific concept that I hold as untrue, as I seem them all as untrue.

    Reality is very simply all that exists. I hope that's clear enough.

    In a sense, I suppose there is. I guess it boils down to the golden rule and just grows more elaborate from there. Are we obliged to stick to it? Well, if the only law of the land were our own morals then we only be obliged to follow them so far as our willingness to face the consequence of our actions.

    Interesting question. We have free will, I believe, in the sense that we are all inherently capable of making our own decisions. If you want to boil that down to nothing more than various synapses in the brain that are reactionary to our environments, fine. At the end of the day, if you're following the pack then that's still your choice to make.

    Yes. It might not be detectable by mankind at present, but that doesn't negate the potential of it being detectable. Science is constantly progressing to allow mankind to detect things which we were incapable of before.

    I've never read a book that I would consider absolutely infallible simply because they are all written by man. There are isolated things that I will accept on faith, like the sun coming up in the morning or Lost resumes in February, but it's not exactly blind faith.

    The Big Bang Theory is just that... a theory. It's got some good stuff to go on and build on, but to say that a theory is a certainty is foolish. So long as it's actively being investigated to be disproven/proven though, it holds validity to an extent.

    I think that it is a waste of time, personally. If others wish to be theists, fine... so long as I'm not being bombarded with it as if it's fact and true.

    If someone believes is a god/gods, then the details of that belief are pretty inconsequential to me. Just horses of a different color basically.
     
  14. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    In philosophy there are only two schools, either mostly Platonism or Aristotelian the rest are spin offs from either one of the two. I follow mostly Aristotelian!

    Like Geeser said, why even bother? anyhow; god is an unidentifiable, unexplainable, non-existent entity made up to control the mindlessness of primitive people.

    Existence exists "Rand"

    Survival of the species. (Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choices. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.) *Rand.
    Obviously the human species has no moral code, no standard to morality, every faction is at their throats fighting or forcing their ideologies on one another!

    Is there such a thing as "choice"? Free will is freedom to choose, what you choose will determine the outcome of that choice.

    Trick question, "believe" it doesn't matter weather I "believe" all reality to be objective or not. It either is or it's not. If it exists, it's empirically, objectively provable.

    No! we are infallible creatures, there's no such philosophy that has not fallacies, we can however rationally, objectively, logically pick what is best for us.

    "believe" has nothing to do weather the BBT ever took place or not, what is important is were the evidence leads, so far there's a scientific controversy whether the BBT took place or not, I'm in the opinion that the BBT never happened as shown by evidence from various people in the astrophysics community. So all the answers to existence are not discovered yet, however I find it that we don't need answers to existence at all to live happy productive lives, existence just exists, it is what it is, no questions need be asked, to something that will never be answered!

    They are all one form or another a variant of mysticism, I think nothing of them!

    Yes! some are more violent than others, all of them are irrational, but primitive ideologies are the roots of our humanity. We need to move on if we are to survive as a species!
     
  15. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Light Travelling:

    I am an Atheistic Pantheist. That is to say, I believe in an impersonal God which is called such purely in relation to its properties being in accords with most of the defintions of the standard standard of God. In all other respects, it is existence.

    The philosophers who have chiefly contributed to my world view:

    Western: Plato/Socrates, Diotima, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Renee` Descartes, Benedict/Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz (mostly in opposition to his theodicy), Voltaire (mostly his anti-theodicy positions), David Hume, Hegel (indirectly), Marx (in opposition to), Nietzsche (minor contribution), and Searle (minor).

    Oriental: Confucius, Lao Tzu, Yamamato Tsunetomo.

    Islamic: Avicenna.

    Indian: Shakyamuni (prince Siddhartha Gautama).

    I do not believe in a personal, omnibenevolent, God based on religion.

    Logical necessity.

    Yes. An objective one. I have only partially fleshed out my beliefs, though.

    No. We are determined, but determinism means little practically.

    Given infinite time and infinite effort, yes. Barring such, no. That is to say, as space and time are both infinite, it takes an infinite amount of time and effort to empiricailly detect everything.

    No.

    No. The Big Bang proves time before it, time after it, and space outside of it. None of these are accounted for.

    I find Taoism and Buddhism to be reasoanble beliefs.

    I find agnosticism to be absurd. To not have a positive or negative viewpoint on the idea of God is remarkably unphilosophic.

    Yes. I recognize the varieties of theism, religious belief, religious doctrine, et cetera.
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    What philosophy do you follow if any?
    Learn from experience.

    Can you define your concept of god that you don’t believe in?
    Any for which there is no evidence.

    What is your basic ontological principle?
    Not sure I understand you. Reality is - it can be nothing else. It is the basis for itself.

    Is there a standard of Morality?Not that I'm aware of. I see it very much as a societal thing - and the need for people to live together. Whatever the majority deem "moral / immoral" eventually becomes "(im)morally acceptable".

    Is there such a thing as Free will?Define "free-will".
    I think there is an "illusion" of free-will that suffices on all but the philosophical level.

    Do you believe that all reality is empirically detectable?
    At an absolute level - yes.
    However, we certainly don't have the means at the moment - nor might we ever have the means to detect things.

    Do you have an books or teachings that you believe are infallible?
    No.
    I would not take a book as infallible on its word alone. Books merely offer the view of the writer.

    Do you believe in that the Big Bang theory provides all the answers to the question of existence and leaves nothing un-answered?
    Don't be ridiculous.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    If it did we wouldn't call it a theory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No - BB is just a theory that fits much of the observations, but it certainly doesn't answer everything in any way. And it can never answer whether there definitely is or is not any other "universes" that we could NEVER detect.

    What do you think of theism / non-thesitic religion (eg Taoism) / agnosticism?
    Each to their own.
    I just hope each person questions their beliefs thoroughly and objectively.

    Do you distinguish between different types of theism?Each belief is different in the detail - but most do seem to begin with an absence of evidence.
     
  17. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    I make it up as I go along, basically. I'm more interested in analyzing and understanding myself as I am than following any set of guidelines.
    It's the concepts presented by others I don't buy into. I didn't go to the trouble of thinking up a concept I disbelieved or a personal definition of 'god' just so I could disagree with it. What would be the point of that?
    I don't have a clear-cut way of deciding whether something is 'real' or not. Usually I just go with whatever is detectable (by myself or others), but this is making certain assumptions that I can't prove. Matrix-like brain-in-a-vat scenarios are always in the back of my mind.
    I don't just disbelieve "standard" or "absolute" ethics; I think the idea makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even a god can't determine a standard like this that everyone *must* (whatever that means) abide by. How would a god decide such a standard? Is it 'obvious' what the standard should be (in which case the problem is still the same), or would a god invent an arbitrary code of ethics (which isn't exactly what I'd call "absolute")?.
    Basically I see three possibilities:

    1) Human behaviour is deterministic.
    2) Human behaviour is not deterministic, but does follow statistical trends.
    3) Human behaviour is completely random.

    Our behaviour is predictable enough to be studied, and most people can predict how someone they know well will act in certain situations, so that rules out 3), and quantum mechanics seems to contradict 1). "Free will", or the idea that my behaviour is neither random nor deterministic, is another one of those thoughts I have in my mind that always strike me as senseless whenever I try to analyze or define them.
    At best, I define reality by what is detectable, if I bother with the term at all.
    No. I suppose peer-reviewed mathematical texts come the closest to this, but I wouldn't classify any work as infallible - before or after reading it (because I'm not infallible myself). There are sources I trust as being more reliable or more honest than others though.
    Well, there's always the burning "why was there a big bang?" question. I've heard a possible answer come from string- and M-theorists, but that just introduces other questions. Personally I don't see how nothing can be left unanswered - it's just at what point you decide to stop asking questions.
    I see most of these as a set of untestable claims and an accompanying way of life. I don't think very highly of untestable claims (whether it's "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist" without evidence), and the "way of life" of most religions I'm familiar with don't appeal to me personally.
    Depends on context. I usually find myself talking about religion in general rather than discussing a specific religion. I tend to feel a little uncomfortable around theists themselves sometimes, like I might offend one if we discussed a topic they were sensitive about. In practice this doesn't affect my relationships with the theists I know (including a lot of my family). Religion is also something I see as inherently irrational, which I might hold against a theist (not something I can really control) - but I don't expect everyone to be perfect.

    These minor generalities aside, I do my best to judge theists the same way I judge non-theists: on a case-by-case basis. Just like with the atheists I know, there are theists I hold a lot of respect for, and those I think we're all better off without.
     

Share This Page