Why Atheism Is A Religion

Isn't it a difference, though, that God could possibly know whether unicorns or an invisible head don't exist, whereas God couldn't possibly know that God doesn't exist? It seems to me that, in principle, these are two different scenarios we're discussing. The only thing we can further postulate is that there exists an invisible world we can never have any inkling of. I think it's supposed to make a point that God is ridiculous when you compare it to unicorns. But then you have to give these unicorns the quality of being invisible, undetectable, or it becomes possible to know whether they exist or not. My question being, does God seem as ridiculous a possibility when compared to the possible existence of a world we can never have any inkling of, except to conceptualize? No, not really. A lot of scientists already believe in worlds they can't feasibly experience. I don't see why it isn't reasonable to believe that certain things which can't possibly be falsified exist. Granted, believing in these things may have no impact except for how you choose to live your life, but who is to say these things can't have a positive impact on anyone? Not everyone has to take it to that next level where they try to convince others that they are right.

It becomes a question of what is progress. If something has a positive impact on me, should I not believe in it because it can't be proven? Does believing in that which cannot be proven always have a negative aspect that outweighs the positive? Is believing in only that which can be proven necessarily a positive thing, or is that too just a matter of opinion?

I don't want religion to spread across the face of the globe, but I think we have to remember to leave a little leeway for the imagination. It's going to go to these places no matter what we do. I would consider a world in which we weren't permitted, whether by law or by peer influence, to imagine even the most preposterous ideas a very negative place. And it can't be helped that imagining such ideas lends them a bit of reality. I mean, look how functionally we behave as if the tooth fairy and Santa exist. We actually leave teeth under pillows. We actually leave cookies out for Santa. But in moderation, who does this hurt, really? Are we going to be that anal about living in "the real world"?

 

See, treating Santa Claus like a real person will bring joy to the world. At least joy for me.

 

....What? If God doesn't exist, then God couldn't know that God doesn't exist, because he's not there to know anything at all. If you didn't exist, you also wouldn't be able to know that you didn't exist; but you also wouldn't be able to know what day of the week it is.

Are you making an ontological argument here? God is defined as knowing everything, and the statement "God does not exist" is not know by God to be true, therefore it's not true, therefore God exists? Is this what you're getting at?

I don't see why, can you explain? God as I am discussing him is an entity, a kind of Super Person, just like a unicorn is an entity, or a teapot. It's no different asking whether or not God exists than asking whether or not my brother Carl exists.

You can postulate anything you like, but at the end of the day you are beholden to your postulates for providing you with an accurate view of your world. If we define the set of all things unknown to us as "the invisible world", then of course there's an invisible world. But if you're saying that God doesn't seem to make sense in this world, therefore there MUST be a DIFFERENT, invisible world, all you're doing is invoking yet ANOTHER unfounded idea to support the first one.

"Three-Headed-Bob doesn't seem to live in this old house like my friends told me, therefore he must live in another, different house! An invisible one!"

This is very, very important here, and our entire conversation hinges on this point: I am working on the assumption that it is possible to know whether or not there is a god, in principle.

If it is, in principle, impossible to ever know whether or not there is a god, then you must understand that for all intents and purposes this has the same effect of there being no god whatsoever. If there is absolutely no way to measure god, observe god, experience god, or view the influence of god anywhere in the universe then . . . why speak of this thing called god?

"I have an awesome bottle of beer, and i'd give it to you, but you see it's not made of atoms, or energy, it doesn't interact with matter or energy or spacetime, and is outside the bounds of general relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no way to ever interact or observe this bottle of beer. Which sucks, because man, you should try this stuff!"

What does it mean "to feasibly experience"? Can you feasibly experience relativistic time dilation? How about quantum entanglement? How about the French Revolution? How about the day after you die? There is a literally uncountable list of things which you can never feasibly experience; this does not mean that you can arbitrarily ADD something to the list because you want to believe it is true.

It's impossible for me to experience the French Revolution, but I'm pretty sure it happened, based on the mountains of evidence available to us.

It's impossible for me to experience a flying pillow monster, but i'm pretty sure it's not there anyways, because it's just something I made up.

The existence of phenomena which are forever outside the bounds of our knowledge does -not- mean that everything is game for existing.

So these are actually two separate points, which are very often conflated on these forums by the religious, I notice.

First is the question of whether or not a belief in god can have a positive impact on someone (it absolutely can, has, and will always. Belief in god is responsible for some of the most beautiful acts of mankind ever committed and some of the most magnificent expressions of culture ever created). Second is the question of whether it is morally virtuous to engage others in conversation in an attempt to persuade them of your ideas and beliefs (it absolutely is, this is the foundation of intelligence, progress, democracy, society, and the spread of ideas).

I think it's strange that you can know a truth about the universe which changes everything, and yet consider it immoral to try and spread what you consider to be that truth.

I am not one of those atheists who thinks religious people should not proselytize. Just the opposite; I think if you are actually believing the propositions you are spouting, you should really have your actions and life align with that, and every single believer should be doing their best in the marketplace of ideas to arrive at success for their meme.

If you REALLY think that Jesus Christ is the son of god and will return to earth soon to take all believers up to heaven . . . what kind of base wickedness could convince you to keep that to yourself? What kind of profound flaw in character would cause you to stay silent about that in debates? What kind of perversion of compassion would cause you to value not annoying people over safeguarding their eternal consciousness?

It really baffles me. This is why I'm a vocal atheist; I think ideas MATTER, because ideas generate behaviors, and are models of our universe, and I think Truth is something that we should value. I have no qualms about "taking it to the next level and convincing" others . . . how is that any different from telling your friend about the new restaurant in town and insisting they try it?

This comes down to whether or not it is a matter of progress to be deluding yourself, just in case you are in fact wrong.

It also comes down to serious introspection about just what exactly you think you may be benefiting from by believing in an unsupported proposition.

I would argue that any benefit you think you derive from believing in something on faith is actually a benefit you could derive by simply dropping that belief, not using faith, and simply applying the same mental and physical heuristics to yourself anyways.

Pick any benefit you think you are getting from believing in god and I think I can show you a way to reap that benefit in your life without believing in god.

I agree 100%; but what does this have to do with BELIEVING preposterous ideas? You've heard of fiction? We write and read and lose ourselves in fiction all the time, but there's a WORLD of difference between enjoying the literary works of J K Rowling and believe that Hogwarts is real and Voldemort is coming to end our world!

We can have a world completely devoid of anything resembling religion and faith, and STILL have a bustling system of imagination and fantasy!

This is a bit like saying "But if we get rid of religion, won't we miss out on all those pretty churches?" Why not build churches for their prettiness, instead of in homage to an entity for which there is no evidence?

Yes, but Santa never comes. And tooth fairy never comes. And there comes a time in every child's life when mommy and daddy sit down with him or her and they tell him or her that really, all along, it was mommy and daddy. There is no santa or tooth fairy. We do this to prepare the child for the real world, where ideas and beliefs matter, because they form our representation and understanding of the universe and reality, and when you believe things on bad evidence, reality has a way of punishing you for that.

I wouldn't describe it as being "anal about living in the 'real world'" . . . I'm a bit nervous that you think that an ideal state of mental affairs for humanity is one in which we believe propositions on bad evidence because then we act in ways we enjoy . . . like, do you REALLY hope our leaders and neighbours believe that Santa is real when they're 45, are married, have kids, and fly planes for us?

I think you need to consider what the role of Truth is for you in your heart.

You said you don't believe in god and you do believe in god, an atheistheist, and asked how that should be described. I'd describe it as "confused".

 

USES Church .

I who am aware the faerie exist would not think of doing that . One visited me
last week . Seemed just a hello in winter , a star shining bright in my kitchen .
It's loveliness .

 

No, that's not what I'm getting at. Though I'm thinking right now that a good ontological argument might be that since absolutely nothing prevents God from existing, God must exist. 'Cause if God doesn't exist, there must be something preventing God from existing. Unless we are to say that the universe is such that it would make perfect sense that a God does exist, but God is only prevented from existing by the fact that God doesn't exist.

But what I'm saying is that it will always be possible that God exists. There is no conceivable state of the universe that would make it such that it couldn't be possible it was designed that way. So God is like other truths whereas it isn't even conceivable to know that it's not true. Whereas one, through God, could conceivably know whether a unicorn is true or not.

Oh. I don't see God that way. The only way I can conceive of God existing is if God is also the sum total of everything. I wouldn't call myself a pantheist though, because God may or may not exist as far as I am concerned. I think the concept of God is going to be more persistent than the concept you are dealing with. You're not really striking at the root of the problem, if you perceive it to be a problem.

I disagree that, if we can't know whether or not there is a God, it makes the world function as though there isn't a God. Because God conceivably could have designed the world such as it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists from within it. On the contrary, I think because we have the ability to conceptualize God, we don't necessarily function any differently than if God exists. In other words, it will never be possible to prove God doesn't exist. There isn't even a way to say it's more or less likely that God exists. So if the conceptualization of God is a problem for you, I think it's going to be a persistent one. I don't think there will come a time when people are indifferent to where they originated from.

Then why is it deemed okay to arbitrarily add the existence of invisible worlds? It isn't any more likely that there are invisible worlds we can never experience than it is God exists. The existence of invisible worlds is a fun, exciting idea. But the existence of God is not?

 

It wouldn't be immoral, but you had better well be damned sure you know it to be the truth, right? Is there a difference between firsthand knowledge and inferred knowledge?

I think changing a person's entire outlook on life is a little different from brightening their day by suggesting a new restaurant. But it is possible that only the changeable can be changed, and that a person is only changeable if they will become happier if they change, even if this happiness is fleeting. I'm not really asking anybody to see things my way. No one ever does, and frankly I think we're going to be all right. "Reason", whatever that is, will never win out. But love and compassion will.

The only benefit I can think of would be if God actually does exist. Then you'd sort of be living in accordance with the truth for a while if you happened to also believe God exists. Though no, I don't think this realism would be fulfilling. Only human relationships are truly fulfilling.

But is there a difference between fully immersing yourself and indulging in the world of Harry Potter, in a light hearted way, and creating a positive religion centered around Harry Potter? Is there any difference between entertaining the idea of God in a light hearted, positive manner and creating a positive religion centered around God? What if one of your precepts was that God doesn't really give a shit what we do at any given moment?

This is kind of what I'm getting at. If there is a God, I don't think it's positive to build a church that is exclusive in any way. I think a church should be built for its loveliness alone. It's loveliness couldn't possibly surpass God's, but it might be equal to it.

I know I'm living in a fairy tale world where there is just going to be this one forty-five year old guy who still believes in Santa, and everybody is cool with that, because he's just expressing the earnestness of a child in his beliefs.

Well "confused" is my message to spread. I think we're all eternally condemned to be confused. And I'll be the first to admit that I am just confused rather than certain about anything. Whether it be certainty there is a God, certainty there is no God, or certainty that we can't tell if there is or isn't a God. I am an atheistheist (better name pending.) I am just confused.

 

our conversation must start at this point, everything else is white noise at this point. I need to understand what you mean by the word "god", so we aren't talking past each other.

For you, is God the sum of everything? You say God is "also" the sum total of everything, can you elaborate?

 

Yes I believe in order to avoid contradictions God must be everything. God created everything, so God must have created everything out of itself in some fashion. It had nothing else to work with. Unless we postulate that God existed alongside a stockpile of matter, and God just organized everything, but then God isn't technically the creator of everything. Some people say God speaks a word and something is created, but I still equate this with creating something out of itself. The world would still be God's ideas made real, and being perfect, I don't see how he could create his ideas imperfectly, so that anything God creates must be such a perfect replica of its ideas that there is no way to distinguish between its ideas and reality..

And I mean "ideas" kind of loosely. You could interchange it with the word "principles", I suppose. But it's still the creator or creative force from which everything is derived and is thus indistinguishable from everything in principal.

I think this allows for God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent without any contradictions. God would know everything that can be known, even if knowledge is limited to human beings. God would be all-powerful, possessing all the power that actually exists, without falling prey to the "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" conundrum, God would be omnipresent, obviously, in that everything is everywhere at all times.

God is self-aware and personal, at least as personal as we are to ourselves.

 

It's not relevant whether the Buddha existed or not, Writer, so why must it be relevant whether the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, or Jesus existed? What's real about these figures is the mythological archetype that is evoked and invoked into the spirit of man. This is no different than The Buddha himself, or is the Buddha special, or an exception? Kind of like Jesus for Christians?

And I would argue that there is true evidence for the mythological energy behind these figures.

 

A few pages ago, in this very thread, you defined God as love. Now you are defining God as everything. I just want to take a step back from our discussion and ask you some meta questions:

are you making this up as you go? are you redefining god further and further away from scrutiny until finally we are left with "well god is just everything obviously, but i'm not a pantheist (because even that is too much commitment )"?

You also say here that god is self-aware. Does that mean love is self-aware? that everything is self-aware? my bottle of coke on my desk is self aware?

You define god, in this post, as the materials of the universe, and also that which constructed the materials of the universe, the creative force.

Are you simply calling the set of all possible things and non-things God? Is that what "God" equates to for you?

So just to recap,

1) God is Love

2) God is Everything

3) God is self-aware

I think 1) is a bit of a trite hallmark phrase, 2) is a non-commital pantheistic statement in which you define god essentially out of existence as a seperate entity from simply everything that is already here without any talk of "god", and 3) I'd love to know how you know that the sum totality of all phenomena in the universe are self-aware.

Is God a mathematical set? The Set of All Things? Is he Pure Idea? But at the same time all matter as well?

And most importantly: How do you know any of this?

 

the essence of light as from the beginning
and is still arriving , becoming

 

Non-Locality is a good argument for the Universe being Self-Aware, and there is data to show it.

 

The main issue comes down to whether Consciousness is the ground of existence or if Matter is. Solve this and all these questions are answered. For the record, there are Quantum Physicists with Ph.D's who have arguments that I find convincing that Consciousness is the ultimate substance of reality, not to mention various Sages throughout the centuries prior to Science and in the modern time.

 

Socrates had a prosecuter redefining piety further and further away from scrutiny ... until ,
in exhasperation the man admitted the purpose in prosecuting impiety is to secure the stability
of the State .

I hope no one has anxiety about piety defining god . Devotion (piety) defines the man . How would
an ethical and fearless athiest live devotedly ? He might wish to secure the stability of the State ,
oddly , in cahoots with a fearful Church .

Socrates , without elaboration , defined pious devotion to philosophy and helping others .
.
.

How may athieism be important to philosophy and helping others ?
.
.

 

I'm not really making it up as I go. I prefer to think of God as love, but logically I think God must be everything. I really have two different concepts of God in mind. One is just a transcendent, loving being, or state of existence, that we come from and return to. The other is just the only God I can conceive of that seems to meet the criteria people insist God must meet. I'm not a pantheist. Like I say, I'm just outright confused. That is my primary state. Like you say you were born an atheist, I say I was born confused. To ask me if I believe in God or not immediately confuses me. It doesn't immediately put me in a place of knowing one way or the other, and from there I reason why I know this. I'm aware that the self-contradictory nature of this may be amusing to some, but that's honestly how I feel.

I like to think of love as being self-aware. As in, wouldn't it be neat if there were a transcendent, self-aware, loving being. Maybe this isn't technically God, but it's what I wish was out there somehow. And like I was saying before, I think it would be sufficiently important that I could compare it to God if it did exist. I could insist it was God on the grounds that it is more important than other people's ideas of what the most important thing, God, is.

It could be that everything does possess self-awareness, though. Everything is influenced by something it is not, yet everything maintains that it is itself and not what it is influenced by. Everything recognizes a difference between itself and "the other". At least, everything functions as if it is itself. This suggests to me some self-awareness. Yeah I think your Coke is. (That's not an incomplete sentence. I think your coke exists is what I'm saying.) I think it possesses being. Why shouldn't it know what it is like to exist? Why should the chemicals in our brains be the only "feeling" chemicals?

I'm not sure that God would create the universe or if the universe is an eternally existing concept that exists within the mind of God. Because I don't see why God would create something that is identical to something that exists within its "mind".

I don't know what you mean by non-things. I am saying that everything is of the mind of God. So now I guess I'm backtracking, because then I don't know if God creates anything so much as God sustains everything. Because everything is as eternal as God. In this case, though, I would argue that a God that has always sustained everything is as creative as a God that made things at a certain point in time. So I think it would still qualify as God, by definition.

1) I think this is the least trite of all my statements. It's the only one I really give a damn about, emotionally. As in, I would be a little let down if it turned out not to be true. 2) I don't understand what you're saying, could you rephrase? 3) I conclude that the sum total of everything is self-aware because we are self-aware. I don't see a difference between us looking at the universe and the universe looking at itself.

God could be a mathematical set, or the set of all things, or pure idea, and matter as well. The point is that the conceptualization of God can go beyond anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

I'm arguing on behalf of the concept of God from the standpoint of a theist. But I don't know any of this. Like I say, I'm an atheistheist. I hope it doesn't seem like a waste of time to you to argue these ideas with someone who isn't committed to any of these concepts as a matter of pure reason. Neither do I dismiss any of these concepts as unknowable. I strictly do not know what I'm talking about. I don't want to be dismissed because of this, however. I'm not trying to make a joke out of myself. It's just that I don't know what I'm talking about. I can reason things out, but I can't confuse this reasoning with me knowing something. I can't tell if I know that God does exist or if I know that God doesn't exist, but consider it possible that I do instinctively know one way or the other.

 

We are strong in our own existence feeling . o' no ! Last night the psychic
on the radio admitted ' Me , a wise guy ? Naw , it's just you talking to yourself ' .

The understanding is all yours .
.
.

 

Yes, his trial and execution were themselves a crime against humanity.

What does it mean to live devotedly? Devoted to what?

On the face of it that stinks of something unethical, so I'm not sure how an ethical anything is doing that.

Well it's extremely important to philosophy because it acts as the only counterweight to that bulk of philosophy we call theology, and it originated also as a critique of the state back when the state and the church were much more overtly and openly in cahoots. as far as helping others, it depends what you mean by helping others, but it can at the least present a worldview not burdened by dogma and so offer greater mental freedom to those who explore its vistas. It can free people shackled by systems of supernatural belief that causes them to act horribly.

What's that saying, bad men can do bad things, and good men can do good things, but it takes religion to make a good men do bad things. It ironically takes devotion to an ideal in order to create truly evil acts. Another great question to ask, "Name one immoral act that could only be done by an atheist, and not a religious person".

 

I think more than just Religion can make good men do bad things.

What's an immoral act that can only be done by an Atheist? Trying to get rid of Religion. Why? Because it's messing with other people's free will.

 

1. remove all tax exempt status