Atheisms and the supernatural

[PureX]

There is a lot to unpack here, which is good, but I have quickly realized that we require a few more defined labels.

The label Existence is defined as “all that IS”. We need a way to refer to “that which IS NOT”. Perhaps Nonexistence and Nonexistent?

Why? It's the category of 'nothing'. There would be nothing in it to refer to. It only exists in our minds as an abstract conceptual opposite of 'everything'. It's the result of how the human brain 'cognates'; i.e., via comparing and contrasting information sets. Our brain is a binary mechanism that requires two information sets to compare and contrast. And when confronted with the information set we call "everything", that allows for nothing outside itself to be compared and contrasted with, our brains invent/perceive that lack (nothing) as a 'something' - as "nothingness": a void perceived as content. This is a logically incoherent ideal, yet for us, it feels like a 'thing'. Our brains just don't know what else to do with a singular totality like, "all that is".

As I think about the definitions for Metaphysical Realm and Physical World in our discussion, it appears that there may be instances where something may exist in the Metaphysical Realm and does not necessarily exist in the Physical World. Should there be an separate term or label for something that does not exist in the Physical World, that is not part of the Physical World, yet may have existence outside the Physical World?

I think you've got this the wrong way round. Both the physical and metaphysical realms of existence, 'exist'. The metaphysical realm, however, generates existential possibilities that the physical realm cannot. Beauty, for example, does not exist in the physical realm. It requires the transcendence of consciousness, self/other-awareness, and cognition (imagination and reason) for it to occur. So there are existential possibilities that occur in one realm and not the other, but it's all still under the umbrella of "existence". It's all still, "what is".

One synonym for “not real” or “nonexistent” is “imaginary”, however, the textbook definition “existing only in imagination: lacking factual reality” directly conflicts with the definition of Reality you have described. This in turn brought to mind the concept of what is fact versus what is fiction; what is True and what is False.

The transcendent metaphysical realm of cognition creates existential possibilities beyond those possible in the physical realm. For example, the realm of physicality, itself, could never have produced a bicycle. Ever. That possibility simply does not exist within the physical realm because it required the transcendence of consciousness, self/other awareness, and cognition become an existential possibility. And in this case, it was a possibility that we humans were able to fulfill, because the physical realm complied, and we understood the physical realm well enough to make it so. This is not so, however, with many of the possibilities generated by the metaphysical phenomena of cognition. We can, for example, cognate the existential possibility of a 'unicorn', and have done so quite clearly. And yet we have not been able (or perhaps even willing), so far, to make it so. And perhaps the physical realm will not allow for this particular possibility to be fulfilled.

My point, here, is that "true" and "untrue" tend to be terms related to how a metaphysically generated possibility aligns with physical functionality. Can it be 'made so'? If so, then we consider it to be a "true" possibility. If not, then we consider it to be an "untrue", or impossibility. Unfortunately, we thoroughly confuse ourselves and each other by using terms like "real" and "true" when what we mean is, "it comports with the realm of physicality as we understand it".

Under the definition that we are using for Reality, once I try to think of something that does not exist, it pops into existence (in the Metaphysical Realm at least), and therefore IS.

Yup.

However, if the Metaphysical Realm originates from and is a cognitive reflection of the Physical World, does that thing that I have imagined as something that is not real and does not exist, that does now exist by virtue of my having imagined it, does this thing now too have a component in the Physical World?

It ALL "exists". What I think you are really asking is, do the metaphysical possibilities that our cognitive selves generate functionally comport with the physical realm that we (also) inhabit, as we understand it? After all, a possibility that we can cognate, but cannot physically implement if we so desire, is of little practical use to us.

And this leaves me with my final thought: Is it possible for any idea, thought, concept, belief, described object or entity, to fall under the category of “that which IS NOT”? If so, how do we evaluate and decide whether something falls under “IS”” or “IS NOT”?

There is only, "what is". The idea of "is not" is an illogical cognitive anomaly happening in the human brain.

 

[Nakosis]

I know the strict definition (above). Personally, does the "reason" you disbelieve in gods part of that definition-for yourself?

The question is less about the definition of atheism, and more about why people (their opinions) connect disbelief in gods with disbelieve in the supernatural and also their reasons tend to square of lack of evidence "with" that definition. It's not strict disbelief in gods. To many, it's more complex than that. What about you?

Perhaps because atheism often comes from a place of questioning the existence of the supernatural. At least a natural step towards atheism.

 

[paarsurrey]

Perhaps because atheism often comes from a place of questioning the existence of the supernatural. At least a natural step towards atheism.

Atheism people, as I observe, remain as its adherent to questioning others. If one questions on the same parameters they don't give a reasonable answer, I observe. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean they won't bump into the supernatural. There are a plethora of stories out there of people that have no beliefs in God, Satan or the angels and demons who get demonically harassed by evil spirits. I would say millions of stories out there. A short perusal of the internet will lead you to untold stories from people who have no belief getting their world upended on a dime. There are also pleasant stories of atheists who actually have the privilege and joy of God entering their lives when they are sincere and looking for him. It's not that he isn't there. The person just has to look and want to be found by him.

Yes, there are all kinds of stories........

 

[Nakosis]

Atheism people, as I observe, remain as its adherent to questioning others. If one questions on the same parameters they don't give a reasonable answer, I observe. Right, please?

Regards

I have no knowledge of a God, what reasonable answer could I give?

 

[MikeF]

Why? It's the category of 'nothing'. There would be nothing in it to refer to. It only exists in our minds as an abstract conceptual opposite of 'everything'. It's the result of how the human brain 'cognates'; i.e., via comparing and contrasting information sets. Our brain is a binary mechanism that requires two information sets to compare and contrast. And when confronted with the information set we call "everything", that allows for nothing outside itself to be compared and contrasted with, our brains invent/perceive that lack (nothing) as a 'something' - as "nothingness": a void perceived as content. This is a logically incoherent ideal, yet for us, it feels like a 'thing'. Our brains just don't know what else to do with a singular totality like, "all that is".
I think you've got this the wrong way round. Both the physical and metaphysical realms of existence, 'exist'. The metaphysical realm, however, generates existential possibilities that the physical realm cannot. Beauty, for example, does not exist in the physical realm. It requires the transcendence of consciousness, self/other-awareness, and cognition (imagination and reason) for it to occur. So there are existential possibilities that occur in one realm and not the other, but it's all still under the umbrella of "existence". It's all still, "what is".
The transcendent metaphysical realm of cognition creates existential possibilities beyond those possible in the physical realm. For example, the realm of physicality, itself, could never have produced a bicycle. Ever. That possibility simply does not exist within the physical realm because it required the transcendence of consciousness, self/other awareness, and cognition become an existential possibility. And in this case, it was a possibility that we humans were able to fulfill, because the physical realm complied, and we understood the physical realm well enough to make it so. This is not so, however, with many of the possibilities generated by the metaphysical phenomena of cognition. We can, for example, cognate the existential possibility of a 'unicorn', and have done so quite clearly. And yet we have not been able (or perhaps even willing), so far, to make it so. And perhaps the physical realm will not allow for this particular possibility to be fulfilled.

My point, here, is that "true" and "untrue" tend to be terms related to how a metaphysically generated possibility aligns with physical functionality. Can it be 'made so'? If so, then we consider it to be a "true" possibility. If not, then we consider it to be an "untrue", or impossibility. Unfortunately, we thoroughly confuse ourselves and each other by using terms like "real" and "true" when what we mean is, "it comports with the realm of physicality as we understand it".
Yup.
It ALL "exists". What I think you are really asking is, do the metaphysical possibilities that our cognitive selves generate functionally comport with the physical realm that we (also) inhabit, as we understand it? After all, a possibility that we can cognate, but cannot physically implement if we so desire, is of little practical use to us.
There is only, "what is". The idea of "is not" is an illogical cognitive anomaly happening in the human brain.

I am going to preface my comments by saying that they are given with the utmost collegiality and friendship. I hope they are received with an open heart and open mind; that you give them careful consideration and not reject them out of hand.

Instead of addressing things point-by-point, I will address my overall concern. My main critique is that you have eliminated impossibility, or “that which is impossible”, from the philosophical universe you have created. You have redefined longstanding and traditional definitions of philosophical terms so as to eliminate the concept of the impossible. This is akin to rigging a game so that you always win.

For reasons personal to you, you want the philosophical universe you have created to be correct and unassailable. However, redefining the meaning of many words in a way that is wholly unique to you should stand out as a red flag that something is amiss. If the goal is to truly understand existence, how the universe works, etc., we have to include all data points in our analysis. We must build our hypothesis such that it addresses all the available information, and revise and adjust that hypothesis as we continue to gather new information.

We, as a species, may never completely know how the universe works, but in the attempt to understand, we have to start with what we know and not with what we wish to be.

 

[MikeF]

Atheism people, as I observe, remain as its adherent to questioning others. If one questions on the same parameters they don't give a reasonable answer, I observe. Right, please?

Regards

Why is that observation limited to Atheist? Do we not all question others who hold a different belief from our own? I'm not referring only to religion, but belief about anything. How else are we to learn and grow if we do not compare our thoughts and beliefs with those of others? We have all been mistaken about one thing or another, and we have all had the opportunity to show others where they are mistaken.
And as for the issue of reasonable answers, isn't that the same critique the Atheists have?
Perhaps it would be best for all parties to focus on what we know and less on what we believe.
Right, please?

 

[PureX]

My main critique is that you have eliminated impossibility, or “that which is impossible”, from the philosophical universe you have created. You have redefined longstanding and traditional definitions of philosophical terms so as to eliminate the concept of the impossible. This is akin to rigging a game so that you always win.

To 'win' what?

You have clearly misunderstood me. We humans do not know what is and is not possible, because we do not know the full nature or limits of existence. We don't even know the full nature and limit of the physical realm of existence. The only limits we know are those that are currently apparent to us because of our own natural limitations. Yet we also know from past experience that these apparent limitations often turn out not to be as we had presumed. So I am not saying that nothing is impossible. I am simply acknowledging that we do not know what is and is not possible, beyond what appears to be impossible from our very limited experience and understanding of existence.

Also, I have not created a "philosophical universe". I am simply using philosophical principals to clarify our all-to-human relationship to it, from within it.

... redefining the meaning of many words in a way that is wholly unique to you should stand out as a red flag that something is amiss.

Yes, and what is amiss is that we humans all too often misuse and abuse language because we are lazy, habitual, and often quite confused, ourselves, about what we're trying to communicate to others. And sadly, also because we wish to increase the confusion of others to stop them from seeing our own. I am not inventing new definitions for the words I use. I am simply being as precise and honest about what they imply as I can be, and sadly that sometimes doesn't comport with common usage.

If the goal is to truly understand existence, how the universe works, etc., we have to include all data points in our analysis. We must build our hypothesis such that it addresses all the available information, and revise and adjust that hypothesis as we continue to gather new information.

1. It is not possible to "include all data points", as we are not omniscient.
2. Philosophy is how we humans explore and analyze how we think, and understand, and evaluate our place in the great mystery of existence. It therefor cannot just assume the righteousness of it's own process, as you seem to be suggesting. We are deciding what is "data", and we are deciding how to inter-relate it, and we are deciding what is significant from the result of that inter-relation, and we are determining what constitutes 'significance', to us. And philosophical practice is our analysis of this cognitive phenomenon, from the 'inside, out'.

We, as a species, may never completely know how the universe works, but in the attempt to understand, we have to start with what we know and not with what we wish to be.

This isn't just about understanding how the universe works. That's the job of science. This is about understanding WHY IT EXISTS, and WHAT ELSE EXISTS, and what our place within it all, is.

Also, we humans tend to put WAY too much trust in what we think we know. And assume that it must comprise most of what there is to be known. When in fact, it's very likely that what we think we know is only a very, very small fraction of all that there is to know. And that it is, in fact, so small a fraction of the whole of what there is to be known that we are almost completely self-deceived about the truth of existence, and our place within it. I know this is not a comfortable thought, but it is the more logical presumption.

 

[Skywalker]

I read that atheism is always connected to the belief that there is no supernatural rather than just disbelief in deities (Zues, Jehovah, et cetera-not-force and cosmos et cetera). It is also said because these two are not based on objective evidence, there is no reason to believe it (thereby the basis of being an atheist comes from, supposedly).

My questions are:

Does atheism need to be connected with disbelief in all the supernatural (an addition to the definition perhaps?)

Also, does atheism need to refer to disbelief based only of lack of evidence and no other reason but just not believing deities exist?

I know the definition of atheism-the strict definition that is-though I read a common consensus on RF that it goes beyond that. Hence the questions.

I believe that all atheists believe in the supernatural because everyone has the same desire to make God a part of their life and know God more and more but some people suppress it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe that all atheists believe in the supernatural because everyone has the same desire to make God a part of their life and know God more and more but some people suppress it.

Interesting. I'd say a lot of people have a pull towards a calling from from inside themselves. If you mean god as the creator, no I would disagree. The creator concept isn't shared by many religions. So, maybe it's a general sense of finding oneself and not so much a specific god?

 

[paarsurrey]

I have no knowledge of a God, what reasonable answer could I give?

Get to know about G-d, it is not out of one's understanding, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Skywalker]

Interesting. I'd say a lot of people have a pull towards a calling from from inside themselves. If you mean god as the creator, no I would disagree. The creator concept isn't shared by many religions. So, maybe it's a general sense of finding oneself and not so much a specific god?

How can there be no Creator? Everything has an order and a purpose

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How can there be no Creator? Everything has an order and a purpose

Nature in itself doesn't have order and purpose, though. Humans make order and purpose of their external and internal environment in order for the brain et cetera to predict what it will do next. Take cancer, for example. If life had order, we'd have no cancer. Neurons would fire perfectly rather than misfire once in a blue moon for some and constantly in others in seizure patterns. Life is spontaneous in nature.

But I don't understand even if life has order, how does that mean there is a creator? How did one thought lead to the other assumption?

 

[Skywalker]

Nature in itself doesn't have order and purpose, though. Humans make order and purpose of their external and internal environment in order for the brain et cetera to predict what it will do next. Take cancer, for example. If life had order, we'd have no cancer. Neurons would fire perfectly rather than misfire once in a blue moon for some and constantly in others in seizure patterns. Life is spontaneous in nature.

But I don't understand even if life has order, how does that mean there is a creator? How did one thought lead to the other assumption?

How could something so orderly and designed with purpose exist because of nature? Naturalism doesnt explain universal moral givens. Its universal that lying and stealing are not healthy behaviors. In nature things have to be fully formed to exist, they cant exist with intermediate organs.

 

[PureX]

I believe that all atheists believe in the supernatural because everyone has the same desire to make God a part of their life and know God more and more but some people suppress it.

I think most of them reject the religious depictions of "God" as being both foolish and destructive. To the point that they reject any use of that term in relation to their thoughts and feelings about existential origin and purpose, or the many mysteries of life as a human being. Religiosity creates the majority of the atheists we encounter.

 

[Skywalker]

I think most of them reject the religious depictions of "God" as being both foolish and destructive. To the point that they reject any use of that term in relation to their thoughts and feelings about existential origin and purpose, or the many mysteries of life as a human being. Religiosity creates the majority of the atheists we encounter.

I dont think the idea of Jesus being a Creator and a Savior is foolish and destruction or goes against what makes sense about existential origin and purpose. People confuse Jesus with religion. The pastors and reverends and priests are not Jesus.

 

[ecco]

I believe that all atheists believe in the supernatural because everyone has the same desire to make God a part of their life and know God more and more but some people suppress it.

Well, here we go again. Another god-believer who thinks everyone believes the way he does. Is it an ego thing?

I've got news for you. You are wrong. I realized that god and the ark were in the same category as the characters in my comic books. That was when I was ten.

Nothing in the many years since then has ever led me to question that decision. Quite the opposite, the more I learned about gods and religions, the more I know that decision was valid.

If you want to believe in make-believe, that is your choice. But don't try to drag the rest of us down to that level.

 

[PureX]

I don't think the idea of Jesus being a Creator and a Savior is foolish and destruction or goes against what makes sense about existential origin and purpose. People confuse Jesus with religion. The pastors and reverends and priests are not Jesus.

But what you think has nothing to do with why atheists are atheists, or what they think about God, or Jesus. Look at it from their perspective. They are hearing people claim that a human was also God, performed miracles, and even arose from the dead. And if that's not crazy enough, they are being told he's some sort of creator and savior of all that is, and he's coming back sort it all out.

Who in their right mind would believe this stuff stated as fact? And then when they say they don't believe it, they are told they're going to burn in hell for all eternity because "God" hates unbelievers that much. Is it any wonder they reject "God" in any form you choose to present it, after that? I would, too, if I had to swallow that stuff as literal fact. And yet that's how religions insist on presenting it. And that's why religions are the main cause of atheism.

 

[ecco]

I think most of them reject the religious depictions of "God" as being both foolish and destructive.

My atheism at age ten originated with the foolish depictions of Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark. However, as I got older and more knowledgeable, I came to realize the foolishness of the entire spectrum of gods and religions. It is perfectly clear to rational minds that man made god(s) in his own image and not the other way around.

To the point that they reject any use of that term in relation to their thoughts and feelings about existential origin and purpose, or the many mysteries of life as a human being.

The "mysterious" (eg origin of everything) falls into the honest category of I/We don't know, yet. Secure, rational people are OK with I don't know.

The ones in our ancient history who "knowingly" said GodDidIt were just giving in to their own fears or following their own agenda.

Religiosity creates the majority of the atheists we encounter.

Nonsense. Knowledge creates the majority of atheists. However, if you have statistics to give evidence to your assertion, I'd sure like to see it.

 

[ecco]

Look at it from their perspective.

What you mean is "Look at it from what Purex thinks he knows about an atheist's perspective.

If someone really wants an atheist's perspective, they should ask an atheist, not whatever-it-is-you-are.

They are hearing people claim that a human was also God, performed miracles, and even arose from the dead. And if that's not crazy enough, they are being told he's some sort of creator and savior of all that is, and he's coming back sort it all out.

Who in their right mind would believe this stuff stated as fact?

I would agree that it is those kinds of ridiculous fairy tales that first make a person question the validity of gods/religions. However, it is upon a deeper reflection of the origins of gods and religions and a deeper understanding of nature that really leads to atheism.