What exactly is atheism?

spidergoat,

I agree. But only with phenomena that can be explained via naturalistic means, otherwise there is no way of verification.

If you are refering to God, then there are methods and disiplines one can undertake, as in religious rules and regulations.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Damned if I know, but as pages of thread on this forum will attest, trying to persuade some of the theists around here that atheism (in general) is an absence of belief is a long, uphill slog.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not the claim atheism makes. That is the claim anyone can make and it has NOTHING to do with theism or atheism. It is simply a statement of logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please justify why you think the analogy with the car applies in this case.

To go with what I believe is the Vedic understanding - Entangled in material nature, my mind is unable to discern what is the soul and what is the working of material nature. I identify with my body, my thoughts, my feelings, my possessions. I can't tell where the line is between the body, thoughts, feelings, possessions, and the soul. To know which it is that I -the spirit soul- believe would require that I be able to discern between material nature and the spiritual.

This part of the discussion was begun when you said:

When I call myself this or that - what is it that does the calling? What am I actually calling that way? The body or the soul?
It is possible that simply due to my worldy conditioning, I automatically consider myself an atheist as I was told from early on by other people that I am an atheist. While at the same time, I also cannot really relate to being called this.
On the other hand, it could be that I really am a hardcore atheist God-hating soul, who is currently mellowed by the workings of material nature to appear to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
Or I could be someting else entirely.

Bottomline, I don't know, but it appears to be important to know what it is that I really I am.

I spoke to a brahmacari a while back, and asked him what it would take, what I would have to do or learn, or what requirements I would have to meet in order to come to their weekly public meetings. He said that I only needed a "sincere desire to come there". I went. But I am not sure I had such a sincere desire, because I don't know what a sincere desire is like to begin with. I went there a few times, and it occured to me that I would have to figure ou what it is that I really believe, what is it that I really am -a theist or an atheist or something else- if I am to continue going there.


Not to make this about me - but my point is that it seems important to know what one really is - whether one is a theist or an atheist or something else.

Do you think I am trying to defeat you?

 

Sure. And the something more that is required might be necessary for both the speaker as well as the audience.

 

Contrary to popular opinion, Science is not the explanation of things by natural means. It attempts to find the reasons for all things, natural or otherwise.

 

what is an example of a (mainstream) scientific claim that isn't based on naturalistic phenomena?

 

Q

what is the logic behind the statement?
(what are the premises)?

 

Absence, meaning the belief is not there, hence, you do not believe in God.
There can be no uphill struggle to understand that.

jan.

 

No non-naturalistic claims have become mainstream, but I suggest that is because there is nothing non-naturalistic. It is entirely possible this will be shown to be wrong. It hasn't yet. Perhaps something like quantum theory's "spooky action at a distance" qualifies, but non-naturalistic explanations have not yet been ruled out.

 

greenberg,

It's quite simple; one does not need to know everything there is to know about a car, in order to understand the essential reason for its existence.

One thing is for sure, when calling yourself, it's not the this or that.
If one minute you're dave, then you change your name to mick, then you call yourself sally the transexual, then i would say you are calling the body.

Another thing to notice is, the caller never changes.

If you love ice cream, and all your life you were being told you hate ice cream, what happens when you taste it.
The confusion is most probably due to the term "atheist".
If it were possible to be atheist to ice cream, it would only mean you don't believe, the essence, is what it actually is, to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most likely, you are, like me and most others in the western world, atheistic.

Maybe take a look at things simply, try not to look for the answers to those questions. The truth must already be there, and the point of knowledge is to understand the truth. There are some things we must accept on faith, and that goes for everybody, atheist and theist alike.

Theist = belief in God
Atheist= non belief in God
Maybe you're an in-betweeny. Have you ever thought about that?

I would be disappointed if you wasn't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan .

 

Tell that to the general run of theists on this forum.

 

Fraggle Rocker,

Have there been studies of such creatures, and supernatural universes?
No?
Then wtf are you talking about?

Good point.

The thing is, it's not extraordinary.

What would you accept as evidence of the one God described in every scripture?

Another theory?

Really?

I'll bear that in mind. Thanks for your input.

jan.

 

I cannot see how any theist could get this wrong, perhaps you can give a few examples.

jan.

 

You cannot see and never will !

 

What is this ? A theist arguing that atheists do not believe in god rather than believe god does not exist ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And you are omniscient, riiight.

 

This is backwards.
To know what is essential, one has to know the whole, for only in reference to the whole can one assess what is essential.
However (and this seems to be what you have in mind), one can take on faith or gamble/risk and this way get to know the essential.
Knowledge of the essential might thus be the same in both approaches, but the ways this knowledge has been arrived at, is different.

The difference between the two is practical: The first approach would take forever (as there is no way around getting to know everything, you'd have to get to know everything which would take forever). The second approach might work in the first attempt, or after many mistakes, or take forever.

There is no guarantee that the seeker will find; but his chances are better with the second approach than with the first one.

So, strictly formally seen, acting on faith or gambling/risking is better than trying to figure everything out for oneself from scratch.

So I sort of agree with you on the above-quoted point.

But he calls different names ... This is because the caller is entangled into material nature?

Oddly enough, I've had a similar experience recently. My whole life, I've had this idea that eating spicy food, especially eating food seasoned with black pepper is bad and riles up the senses. I felt bad whenever I ate anything spicy, especially when seasoned with black pepper. Then recently, I've learned to make a sauce of green peppers, tomatoes, ground red paprika, and soy bits, seasoned with salt and black pepper. Served with mashed potatoes or softly cooked and mild rice. My, is that yummy! And my passions didn't get riled up, even though I was eating such spicy food.
It was a really strange experience, very pleasurable, but strange.

"Belief" isn't very reliable, is it? We believe all sorts of things ... and then after some time, we believe some other things ...

What do you think - which things should be accepted on faith, and which should not? What would be the criteria for such acceptance?

Do you mean that a spirit-soul can possibly be an "in-betweeny"??

1. What scriptoral reference do you have for that suggestion?
2. It appears that an "in-betweeny" cannot be truly happy, ever. If a spirit- soul is an "in-betweeny" and the spirit-soul is part an parcel of God, and an "in-betweeny" can never be truly happy, then parts of God are never truly happy. -??

I want to be enlightened sooner than you!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

People who call themselves "atheists" are not exempt from holding mutually exlcusive stances.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In that case, if a person did not make a decision to be atheist, such an atheist is not rational about his atheism. His atheism is merely a matter of indoctrination/habit/conditioning.

Just like you are the child who has become an adult who "can't bear the thought that /atheism/ is not true because it has become part of his identity".
It goes both ways.
Unless, of course, you wish to assert omniscience.

Wow. What an ego. The way to think you are wonderful is by portraying others as stupid.

You conceive it as a closed system, this is why you can not conceive that there could be any evidence to the contrary, and even if there would be, you would interpet it in line with the notion of the closed system.

And yet you have the nerve to speak truisms such as:

and

Nobody can make you treat any claims with respect. But this will not make those claims go away, nor the people who make those claims. You have to live with them, somehow. And so far, you have shown that the only recourse you have is to your own declarations of grandeur and superiority. For someone seeking to be a decent scientist, this is one really shabby way to be.
You are setting an ugly example.


And don't try to accuse me of an ad hominem: Your whole line of argument against theism is based on an ad hominem. The science you bring in is just feathers to mask that what you really are in it for is a battle of wills.