Question for the Atheist

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hi EA,

I understand. I consider myself a "soft" Atheist. I'm open to the idea there's a deity-like being because, well, after all the Universe is a large place so it would make sense there's something that's all-encompassing that could be identified as a god-like being.

I just don't believe in deity like a theist would. I suppose a theist would have to define himself/herself in order to understand our contrarian position.

- VRDRC

[Guest]

Nicely done Mr. DrW. You remind me of a friend I have/had on another MSG board.

I wonder what classification a person would be assigned who didn't believe in Deity yet still did subscribe to some form of universal consciousness?

A wishful thinker?

I don't know. "Universal consciousness", might not be anything more than awareness, or an "awakeness" of a sort that most humans have not experienced.

It may be that our limited perceptual faculties and the very hard-wiring of our brain may restrict us from perceiving this non-linear wholeness.

I see atheism as a rejection of God, no matter whether it is religiously derived, or as an individual experience. This rejection is based on the assumption that "God" is some entity "out there" or external to ourselves, and as a some sort of "out there" being, what proof is there?

I lean towards Tana39's thinking...and of many others. "Universal Consciousness", "Supermind", "God"...all just clumsy labels to describe that essence of ourselves that is part of, and that is the whole of all that exists.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey EA (Thanks for offering your thoughts)

2) Religious believers have a vested interest in defining atheism in terms of strong atheism (often with absolute certainty!) because they feel that is a weaker position to attack.

We do? (Broad brush?)

And then there are some (at least one named Ceeboo) "religious believers" that go on message boards and ask the atheist, directly, what their own definition might look like.

I've seen many a Christian use this definition to marginalize and stigmatize atheists as extreme and irrational.

That might be because Atheism is extreme and irrational (Just kidding) :)

On a more serious note, this "marginalizing/stigmatizing" seems to be a very common practice used by all camps, yes? (In some cases, by design in my opinion)

Agnostic then gets defined as a sort of wishy-washy uncertainty. This removes the basic position that belief in gods is not reasonable off the table of discussion. And so the strongest position an atheist can take is never even thought about. Either you know no god exists with hardcore certainty or you're just unsure and possibly confused. Simple, really.

Although I appreciate your reply, I would agree to disagree with your suggestion that this is all "simple".

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Fionn]

For me, I break it down this way:

I am an atheist (or an atheistic non-believer, if you prefer). What I mean by this is the following: pick a god, any god, from any pantheon, from any point in human history. I hold no belief in those gods (including Yahweh). At least, I hold no belief in the way these deities are described by humans throughout history.

I am also agnostic. In other words, when it comes to the "big picture" of whether there exists something in the cosmos that could behave in a god-like fashion, well, I just don't know. And, if there is such a supernatural entity, then I cannot ever know or understand it. It is supernatural. Metaphysical. By definition, such an entity would exist outside of my ability to comprehend.

In terms of a claim I might positively assert, it would be this: "god" is simply the name we give to our yearning to understand. It is not some external reality, but rather something innate in the human and, seemingly, a (near?) universal aspect of the human experience.

[_EAllusion]

Ceeboo -

Simply because there is a vested interest for people to do something doesn't mean every person does it. I was just saying that it's to the advantage of the person arguing against atheism to define atheism in a strawman way. That's all. Not every religious believer does this, though it is disturbingly common in religious writing.

My "simple" comment was a sarcastic mocking of how defining atheism as a potent position off the map works.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't know. "Universal consciousness", might not be anything more than awareness, or an "awakeness" of a sort that most humans have not experienced.

It may be that our limited perceptual faculties and the very hard-wiring of our brain may restrict us from perceiving this non-linear wholeness.

I see atheism as a rejection of God, no matter whether it is religiously derived, or as an individual experience. This rejection is based on the assumption that "God" is some entity "out there" or external to ourselves, and as a some sort of "out there" being, what proof is there?

I lean towards Tana39's thinking...and of many others. "Universal Consciousness", "Supermind", "God"...all just clumsy labels to describe that essence of ourselves that is part of, and that is the whole of all that exists.

I understand and agree to a certain extent. However, I think we lack the ability to gauge anything like what you're proposing... And that said, unless It makes Itself known to us in any sort of measurable manner I'm not sure It matters to Us in an eternal sense. Frankly, we could just be a bunch of lemurs and It views us as a simple consequence of Universal reality.

A personal god that is trying to elevate us? Meh. Nothing to see... Move along?

- VRDRC

[_Tarski]

not theist.

[_MrStakhanovite]

not theist.

[_honorentheos]

Stak and Tarski -

Since Ceeboo's OP is based on the question of why the three friends at the party could not seem to agree on what it means to be an atheist I think he is looking for something with more explanatory power.

I would suggest the simple answer is accurate enough just as defining theism is to believe in a God or Gods. Yet that answer tells us very little and once one tries to get into the detail of what it means the similarities between various theistic ideas becomes much more discreet.

Unless Stak has finally sat down as the lion with the lambs at the same table as the neo-atheists, wrapped in brotherly love and common good will?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Since Ceeboo's OP is based on the question of why the three friends at the party could not seem to agree on what it means to be an atheist I think he is looking for something with more explanatory power.

When you try to extrapolate a worldview from a single, simple, metaphysical belief, you get that. Had those three atheists made a positive explanation for their worldview, you would have had three different worldviews where the simple understanding of atheism would have been just a tiny facet of all three, instead of three people trying to cram a laundry list of ideas under the heading of atheism.