Atheists don't exist!

[Mr Skeptic]

For the poll:

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god, which could either mean simply not believing in god or believing there is no god. But to have any meaning, one must first define what this god is that they don't believe in. There are many many definitions/conceptions of what god is. See Conceptions of God for more detail:

 

* Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.

* a powerful, human-like, supernatural being

* Some comparatively new belief systems and books portray God as extraterrestrial life. Many of these theories hold that intelligent beings from another world have been visiting Earth for many thousands of years, and have influenced the development of our religions.

* A posthuman God is a hypothetical future entity descended from or created by humans, but possessing capabilities so radically exceeding those of present humans as to appear godlike. One common variation of this idea is the belief or aspiration that humans will create a God entity emerging from an artificial intelligence. Another variant is that humanity itself will evolve into a posthuman God.

* the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category;

* the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself;

* the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc.

* Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being and everything beyond in this Universe. The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools.

* any of the other definitions/conceptions of god I might have missed

 

It would seem to me that in order to be an atheist one would have to not believe in all the conceptions of god, else an atheist would be no more atheist than a Christian, since Christians believe in one god but deny the existence of all others, but do not get called an atheist for that. But given how broad the definitions of god are, it seems to me that perhaps atheists don't exist.

 

-----

 

On a separate but related note, it seems to me that "atheist" is an unacceptable label, since to properly go by that name the atheist would have to be granted the right to define god, but isn't given that right nor is necessarily even interested in it. I think that it would perhaps be better to call ourselves by what we actually believe, for example many of us that might be called "atheists" would better fit the label of "materialist". As such, the materialists have issues not with "god" whatever that is, but with all sorts of supernatural things, and so I think we should reject the label of "atheist", go by a label such as "materialist" or "naturalist" describing our actual beliefs, and call our opposition by the opposite, like the theists call us atheist we should call them "immaterialists", "amaterialists", "supernaturalists", or "anaturalists". This is better because we have issue not just with "god" whatever that means, but with all sorts of strange and unnatural beliefs like magic, and in any case these terms are more well-defined than is the concept of god.

[mississippichem]

I like the term naturalist and I use it to describe myself sometimes. Anything is possible in my paradigm as long as it doesn't involve any higher power or supernatural events. Materialist is nice as well because we believe that "what you see is what you get" when it comes to the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: for the record, I voted for option #2. not believing in any of the listed deities or powers.

Edited January 9, 2011 by mississippichem

[insane_alien]

i don't believe in any of those conceptions of god.

 

i honestly can't place any of my beliefs as pointing towards any definition of god i have heard.

 

i don't believe there is a supreme being, i don't believe god exists in the rocks and the rivers, i don't believe that there is an ultimate form, i don't believe in any of it.

 

i'm sure there are others like me.

[John Cuthber]

It seems that, with the given definition of atheist, there are at least 3 atheists.

The assertion that forms the title of the thread is disproved.

[Mr Skeptic]

It seems that, with the given definition of atheist, there are at least 3 atheists.

The assertion that forms the title of the thread is disproved.

 

Yes, that was quite a surprise for me. So who here doesn't believe the universe exists?

[ydoaPs]

Yes, that was quite a surprise for me. So who here doesn't believe the universe exists?

That's what I was thinking.

[insane_alien]

i believe the universe exists but i do not believe that the universe is a god.

[imatfaal]

I believe in the universe - but not the Universe.

 

Even though there is much we don't know and may never know about the universe; I believe that nothing in the universe transcends scientific enquiry, nothing requires mystical knowledge or spiritual enlightenment to comprehend, and nothing that depends upon an individual's feelings towards the universe. To define the universe, as I see it, as a god renders one, either, or both of the terms as nonsense.

[John Cuthber]

The universe isn't something for which "belief" is a valid concept.

"Monday" is a valid notion and so is the idea of "being in bed" but "Monday is in bed" doesn't make sense

 

Belief is real, the universe is too, but "I believe in the universe" doesn't really make sense; what else could you do?

[AzurePhoenix]

I reject the concept of anything "supernaturally" based as undefined and therefore meaningless without sufficient explanation of its fundamental nature as it relates to explainable reality, but hold an ignostic position that anything someone regards as worthy of worship or reverence or what have you and behaves as such towards, is a god, whether it's the Pharaoh Khufu, Emperor Hirohito, a stalker's favorite celebrity, whatever, but only within the context of the worshiper's personal perspective. So even assuming the possibility of the eventual existence of a posthuman superpower, or even a nigh-omnipotent creator-entity on the scale of Yahweh, neither would be a god except to the people who regard them as such.

Edited January 10, 2011 by AzurePhoenix

[Mr Skeptic]

i believe the universe exists but i do not believe that the universe is a god.

 

So you believe in something that some people call a god. Wouldn't that make you a theist, at least in the eyes of those people?

 

I reject the concept of anything "supernaturally" based as undefined and therefore meaningless without sufficient explanation of its fundamental nature as it relates to explainable reality, but hold an ignostic position that anything someone regards as worthy of worship or reverence or what have you and behaves as such towards, is a god, whether it's the Pharaoh Khufu, Emperor Hirohito, a stalker's favorite celebrity, whatever, but only within the context of the worshiper's personal perspective. So even assuming the possibility of the eventual existence of a posthuman superpower, or even a nigh-omnipotent creator-entity on the scale of Yahweh, neither would be a god except to the people who regard them as such.

 

Wouldn't that mean that god could be redefined such as to make any religion atheists?

[AzurePhoenix]

Hmm... perhaps restate that in expanded form? I'm taking various potential meanings from it, and if I answer now it'll be a bit insanely long and convoluted.

[insane_alien]

So you believe in something that some people call a god. Wouldn't that make you a theist, at least in the eyes of those people?

 

 

Wouldn't that mean that god could be redefined such as to make any religion atheists?

 

well, if any object can be redefined to make atheists into theists then yes.

 

I don't think it matters what other people think about what you believe. it matters what the person in question believes. if subject A does not believe in god and subject B beleives god is television and then A watches television, this does not hange the athiest nature of A regardless of the opinions of B.

 

similarly, the fact that A does not believe that god is television this does not change the B from being a theist to an athiest.

[A Tripolation]

well, if any object can be redefined to make atheists into theists then yes.

 

I don't think it matters what other people think about what you believe. it matters what the person in question believes. if subject A does not believe in god and subject B beleives god is television and then A watches television, this does not hange the athiest nature of A regardless of the opinions of B.

 

similarly, the fact that A does not believe that god is television this does not change the B from being a theist to an athiest.

 

Yes, I agree with this logic wholeheartedly. IA's belief that the universe exists, but is not a god, doesn't make him a believer to those who believe that the Universe is God.

Similarly, if he believed in the Christian God, but did not consider him to be a God or worthy of any devotional, myself and most other theists wouldn't consider him to be a christian or theist in any way.

[Mr Skeptic]

well, if any object can be redefined to make atheists into theists then yes.

 

I don't think it matters what other people think about what you believe. it matters what the person in question believes.

 

So who gets to define what "god" means for the purposes of theism/atheism, considering there's so many different definitions? Yes, you could go with each individual using their own personal definitions, but that leads to strange situations. For example, then person A could say to person B, I'm a theist and you're an atheist, and person B could reply, I'm a theist and you're an atheist, and they're both right? The only purpose in accepting a label is not what you think it means but what other people think it means. A useless label has no use at all.

 

And in any case, I suspect that you identify much more strongly with a concept of naturalism or materialism than a concept of atheism. Ie do you not lump gods, magic, ESP, etc into the same package, rather than specifically examine all the definitions of god to see whether you believe in one? Why use a label like "atheism" that only includes a subset of your beliefs and uses a very ill-defined word? But if you call yourself a "naturalist" then people know that you don't believe in any of the supernatural gods, but that you wouldn't have a problem believing in TVs or whatever if people decided to call those things gods.