Atheisms and the supernatural

[Unveiled Artist]

IMHO, such people, who believe in any kind of God whatsoever, should not be labeled as atheists. There is no need for atheists to be victims of any kind.

Why wouldn't they?

Does the term atheist only worthy of a person to label herself if she was not a victim of believers ills?

All atheists are victims to abrahamic believers in one way or another. They shouldn't be a victim but I'm not sure why they should not call themselves atheists just because they are.

 

[PureX]

Let's look specifically at one way you have eliminated the impossible from your Philosophical Universe. In your Philosophical Universe, there is no such thing as a true-or-false statement.

Truthfulness, for we humans, is a relative assessment. Meaning that one limited information set is being deemed true or false relative to other limited information sets. We do not have access to the full information set (omniscience) so we cannot assess truthfulness as an absolute condition. But certainly, one information set can be logically and reasonably deemed "untrue" relative to the information set we are using as our criteria for truthfulness at that moment. And we do so all the time.

Once any statement is made (or even thought), that statement automatically becomes true.

No, it automatically becomes "real" (extant). The idea exists in the mind (and now, so does it's literal/verbal iteration). It's truthfulness depends on the information set we are using as our criteria for establishing the idea's relative truthfulness. That is; that this idea is "true according to what"?

Relative truthfulness is a condition that results from the limitations of human cognition. "Untruth" doesn't exist, physically. Just as "non-existence" does not exist, physically. These are metaphysical (cognitive) phenomena. They exist, but not as physical phenomena (like beauty, justice, love, fate, and so on).

The statement, "There is a Metaphysical Realm that transcends the Physical World." can only be true, and never false, by the definitions you have provided in your Philosophical Universe. I cannot refute it within the parameters of your artificial Philosophical Universe, for simply to think it, it becomes so.

You can't refute it because it's self-evident. You are a conscious, self/other-aware, cognizant being. And if these were not transcendent of the physicality from which we spring, we could not possibly perceive them as such, or be debating the question, now.

Remember the example of the bicycle. All the physical components (materials, physical laws, and natural advantages) have existed since the dawn of time. And yet the bicycle could never, and would never have become extant without the transcendent emergence of cognition. ... And neither could this discussion.

Since human beings can believe the impossible, there has to be a methodology by which we can differentiate between that which we know (within the bounds of our limited ability to perceive and analyze) and that which we imagine.

The problem is that these are not different phenomena. Our knowledge is basically imaginary. It is an organized idea-set that we create in our minds to inter-relate our past and present experiences so as to better anticipate our future experiences. Without memory, and imagination, we couldn't generate logical probability. And without that, our "knowledge" would be nothing more than moment-to-moment intuition. Even monkeys have memory to guide them. The crucial element that they lack, and that we have, is imagination. Imagination is what makes cognition so transcendent.

We need a way to impartially evaluate what we think, in a manner outside of ourselves, as we can't trust that what we personally think, feel, imagine, intuit, and divine is not corrupted in some way.

It clearly is corrupted in many ways. That's the nature of the human condition. And I think we need to accept this, first, and honestly, before we go looking for some magic criteria that will give us delusions beyond our natures. What works for us, works for us. Individually, and/or collectively, physically and/or metaphysically. And if it works, we should probably stick with it. But we need not fool ourselves into pretending that we now know the 'truth of it' just because it's 'working' for us. Functionality does not equal Truth.

That which we imagine may eventually be shown to to be true, but it cannot be held to be true until our (all of humanities) body of knowledge supports it and takes it out of the realm of the imagined.

Logically, and honestly, it can never be deemed true. It can only be deemed 'relatively true' (true relative to the criteria for truth we are currently choosing to determine truthfulness). And that can/will change the moment we change the criteria. That criteria may be collective functionality, or it man be personal psychological health. Or it may be any of the endless other desires and motives and needs we humans use as our criteria for what "works as true" for us.

You referred to uncomfortable truths in your post #368. That your Philosophical Universe is in the realm of the imagined is just such an uncomfortable truth.

Only because we humans have such a strong propensity to pretend that we know far, far more than we do, or even can know. We do not like finding ourselves face-to-face with our profound unknowing, or the profound vulnerability that comes along with it.

 

[PureX]

On this second point, for you, the statement holds true for "interactive functionality" but cannot be used to evaluate "truth". This begs the questions:
1. What is "interactive functionality"?

Some ideas about truth/reality/existence function well individually, and subjectively. While other ideas about truth/reality/existence function better for us as a human collective. The important point I am trying to make is that when an idea "functions well" for us, either individually, collectively, or both, that does not necessarily make that idea of truth/reality/existence "The Truth" (meaning an absolutely correct conceptualization of 'what is'). It can still be untrue relative to the absolute ideal, and yet still be positively functional from our limited human experience-perspective.

2. What is "truth"?

"The Truth" is what is. Unfortunately, we humans do not have the capacity to experience or understand what is as a singular whole (which is what The Truth, is). So we can only experience and know relative truthfulness. Which is not, and should not be confused with The Truth.

3. How are "interactive functionality" and "truth" related?

That which functions as being truthful for us, we consider and label as being "true". That which does not function for us as being true, we consider and label as being "false". Because these labels are part of language, and intended for the purpose of communication, their effectiveness becomes an interactivity issue. And interactivity becomes a part of the criteria by which we judge them "true" or "false". Again, not to be confused with The Truth as an absolute ideal.

Is "interactive functionality" a subset of "truth", completely unrelated, or something else?

It's a limited, relative aspect of The Truth as we are able to experience it.

4. What is "the" criteria by which we are to evaluate "truth"?

The best we can do is determine the relative truthfulness of a given "truth proposition" via whatever criteria we think it should be held to. The fact is that we humans don't get to know The Truth. We simply aren't capable of that. Instead, the best we can do is surmise the relative truthfulness of a given Truth proposition, and then act on it to see if it functions as being true, for us.

 

[PureX]

I would ask how they are weak though.

1. Those who reject religious depictions of God.

Depictions of God, religious or otherwise, are not God. So whatever logic one is using to reject the validity of these depictions does not logically apply to their rejection of the existence of God. And yet, inevitably, this is the illogical rationale they are following, and espousing, as the basis for their atheism.

2. Those who are basically indifferent to the idea and so have given it little consideration.

Indifference to a proposal with such profound positive possibilities, and negative consequences, is illogical. And all the more so if one is then offering this indifference as their 'rationale' for being an atheist.

3. Those who believe that existence is defined by physicality.

Humanity, itself, is a glaring example of how untrue this is. The mere fact that we can imagine that which does not physically exist, and then bring it into physical existence, proves that existence is not being determined by, or limited to, it's physicality.

I know theists are varied. Some believe in god but not a being. Some believe in a being but not like Casper. Some people believe he's a being/spirit that actually "does" things. While others say he is abstract and metaphorical (though not that word) and can only be experienced in the heart. Some people say he "is" love and grace. Others say he gives it. Some call god an incarnation of himself (god being human and god at the same time). Others see him and his son quite differently. Some say you can only "experience" him. Others don't even call him him because they believe god is a mystery and can't be described in words.

So, it's really not the atheists fault with the varied opinions he or she may hold. Especially those indoctrinated with one or two concepts of god above that many other theists just don't share.

So, atheists are the victim in this case not theists.

Any atheist that is allowing himself to be defined as 'an atheist', by theists, is of no consequence in my opinion; because he hasn't bothered to consider the god ideal deeply enough to determine his own conceptual understanding of it, and why this doesn't work for him. And this being the case, bothering others with his unconsidered blather about his "unbelief" is just an absurd annoyance.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Remember. Weak arguments don't invalidate the truth or fact it's trying to support.

1. Those who reject religious depictions of God.

Depictions of God, religious or otherwise, are not God. So whatever logic one is using to reject the validity of these depictions, does not logically apply to their rejection of the existence of God. And yet, inevitably, this is the illogical rationale they are following, and espousing, as the basis for their atheism.

I never heard an atheist said that. They usually say they reject god because they feel believers see him as a imaginary being like unicorns etc. Other christians tend to make the argument of god depicted as an image while their counterpart argues against it. Sounds like christian denomination argument not from people who disbelief in god's existence.

2. Those who are basically indifferent to the idea and so have given it little consideration.

Indifference to a proposal with such profound positive possibilities, and negative consequences, is illogical. And all the more so if one is then offering this indifference as their 'rationale' for being an atheist.

Indifference isn't an argument so I'm not sure how you can counter it.

I'm indifferent to people's belief in god. It's not an argument, just my opinion of being neutral in the situation. Believers may take offense but it's not an argument in itself.

3. Those who believe that existence is defined by physicality.

Humanity, itself, is a glaring example of how untrue this is. The mere fact that we can imagine that which does not physically exist, and then bring it into physical existence, proves that existence is not being determined by, or limited to, it's physicality.

Now that, I see a lot of atheists take up.

Yes. But believers use language in a manner that assumes god's physical existence. Their language is the problem. If they really want people who don't believe in god to understand them, they should use more abstract language such as emotions, experiences (and give examples), and things like that. Saying "god is a mystery" and then on the other hand "god exists" is highly confusing. Either you know what god is or you don't.

But if I understood what you said, I know from talking and experience god isn't a physicality. I also do know it's not the atheists fault. He can only go off what theists say. He has no opinion about a god he cannot detect on his own just opinions about what others tell him god is.

Any atheist that is allowing himself to be defined as 'an atheist', by theists, is of no consequence in my opinion; because he hasn't bothered to consider the god ideal deeply enough to determine his own conceptual understanding of it, and why this doesn't work for him. And this being the case, bothering others with his completely unconsidered blather about his "unbelief" is just an absurd annoyance.

This is wrong. Highly wrong. Just because someone does not believe god exist does not mean he hasn't bothered to consider god at all. Half of atheists did and they came to the conclusion he did not exist after VERY deep, deep consultation with themselves that god probably had. It's an internal and personal experience to conclusion "you know, god doesn't exist" and let live. Only believers have issues with atheists conclusions. Atheists don't.

But no. You're heavily generalizing. Atheists just don't believe god exists. Believers are making it more than it actually is.

 

[PureX]

Just because someone does not believe god exist does not mean he hasn't bothered to consider god at all. Half of atheists did and they came to the conclusion he did not exist after VERY deep, deep consultation with themselves that god probably had. It's an internal and personal experience to conclusion "you know, god doesn't exist" and let live.

I can only go by what they tell me, And from what they tell me, it's apparent that most atheists have never developed their own best conception of God. Most haven't developed their own conception of God, period. Their whole experience of the God concept was derived from someone else's, and handed to them (usually through some religion), and taken on board, in whole.

Then, when they rejected this God concept that they'd been handed by someone else, because it had no substantial connection to themselves, or to their own world view, they presumed they'd rejected all God-concepts, and the God-ideal, itself. When in fact they'd never really developed one of their own, that would fit within their world view, and could have a real effect on them.

Only believers have issues with atheists conclusions. Atheists don't.

Blinding self-righteousness does that. To theists and atheists, alike.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can only go by what they tell me, And from what they tell me, it's apparent that most atheists have never developed their own best conception of God. Most haven't developed their own conception of God, period. Their whole experience of the God concept was derived from someone else's, and handed to them (usually through some religion), and taken on board, in whole.

Then, when they rejected this God concept that they'd been handed by someone else, because it had no substantial connection to themselves, or to their own world view, they presumed they'd rejected all God-concepts, and the God-ideal, itself. When in fact they'd never really developed one of their own, that would fit within their world view, and could have a real effect on them.
Blinding self-righteousness does that. To theists and atheists, alike.

Can you build an opinion from someone not believing in god without using other atheists claims as definition to what atheists are "supposed" to believe as a unit?

Your opinion sounds like it has nothing to do with the logic of someone not believing god exists just people's opinions about why they believe he doesn't. Is there a way to understand this without generalizing people based on your conversation with atheists?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can only go by what they tell me, And from what they tell me, it's apparent that most atheists have never developed their own best conception of God. Most haven't developed their own conception of God, period. Their whole experience of the God concept was derived from someone else's, and handed to them (usually through some religion), and taken on board, in whole.

Some not most. Only the ones you spoke with, no?

Then, when they rejected this God concept that they'd been handed by someone else, because it had no substantial connection to themselves, or to their own world view, they presumed they'd rejected all God-concepts, and the God-ideal, itself. When in fact they'd never really developed one of their own, that would fit within their world view, and could have a real effect on them.

A lot of atheists get it from their childhood. Some get it from reading the bible. Some get it from prayer (actual prayer). Some yearn for god and within themselves realized he doesn't exist (they can no longer lie to themselves). Many different reasons.

Can you be a bit more open about it?

Blinding self-righteousness does that. To theists and atheists, alike.

This isn't an insult, but what about you? Do you consider yourself blind?

 

[PureX]

Can you build an opinion from someone not believing in god without using other atheists claims as definition to what atheists are "supposed" to believe as a unit?

I don't care what anyone "doesn't believe". And I don't see why they would even bother mentioning it. Yet for some reason many atheists seem to be obsessed with it. Which makes no sense, at all.

To be an atheist, by my understanding, one will have developed their best (most logical, functional, honest and earnest) god-concept, and then ultimately determined that it was not a viable possibility. Then, when asked, could reasonably and logically explain their god-concept, and why they ultimately deemed it non-viable. And other people's religious depictions, admonishments, 'belief' or 'unbelief' would have nothing to do with it.

 

[PureX]

Some not most. Only the ones you spoke with, no?

Most that I've interacted with, here.

A lot of atheists get it from their childhood. Some get it from reading the bible. Some get it from prayer (actual prayer). Some yearn for god and within themselves realized he doesn't exist (they can no longer lie to themselves). Many different reasons.

But nearly all involving and resulting from religious depictions and definitions of "God". Taken on wholly, and then rejected, wholly.

But to me, the rejection of religiosity is not atheism.

This isn't an insult, but what about you? Do you consider yourself blind?

We're all blind, but some are more blind than others. Some of us are willfully blind, while others are at least trying to see through the haze and confusion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't care what anyone "doesn't believe". And I don't see why they would even bother mentioning it. Yet for some reason many atheists seem to be obsessed with it. Which makes no sense, at all.

For sake of conversation rather than personal interest.

I don't know why they are, but I'm talking with you more about how their "arguments" are weak not what they feel about the issue and how obsessed they are with christian's belief in god.

To be an atheist, by my understanding, one will have developed their best (most logical, functional, honest and earnest) god-concept, and then ultimately determined that it was not a viable possibility. Then, when asked, could reasonably and logically explain their god-concept, and why they ultimately deemed it non-viable. And other people's religious depictions, admonishments, 'belief' or 'unbelief' would have nothing to do with it.

You're making it too complicated. Take me, for example. My first introduction to religion from my mother is witchcraft not christianity. My teen years I departed from it. I never knew what god was only heard his name from outside relatives when we went to funerals. Mother took us to church so she can have a "perfect" family-boy and girl, single family house, white picket fence, and christian. So, I learned about the christian "religion."

I never knew of god, what it meant, the definition, nothing like that. Pure atheist. Now I know what people mean by the "concept" of god. I know what people mean when they say "they" had the experience of god. But I do not know What god is-so I don't believe he exists....

Now many atheists have other stories where they were indoctrinated while others knew of god but fell away for many justified reasons....

But you're generalizing. I (and people like me) cannot form an opinion, reject, have bad concepts of god as you mentioned because to us-god never existed before, now, and in the future from our point of view. We cannot reject something that is non-existant.

That's all atheism really gets at. No belief in god's existence. You're making it complicated based on the atheists you speak with not atheism itself and how people in general would view god in light of disbelief in god not because of their opinion of what god is to them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Most that I've interacted with, here.

Kinda figured. I only knew of two atheists (who said they were) in person. One guy said in his country religion wasn't predominate and no one really cared what others believed. The other had bad experiences growing up due to the age/generation of christianity which was much more strict that she left. Not sure if she's an atheists but the guy I spoke with wouldn't meet the opinions you see on this site.

But nearly all involving and resulting from religious depictions and definitions of "God". Taken on wholly, and then rejected, wholly.

But to me, the rejection of religiosity is not atheism.

But I did say believers have so many definitions of god who can blame them?

I agree there, it isn't. I don't know if I say I'm fortunate to not have that issue but if I were in their view I would rather live the truth in my heart than someone else's lie.

We're all blind, but some are more blind than others. Some of us are willfully blind, while others are at least trying to see through the haze and confusion.

Are you more blind than others?

How do you know the difference beyond the assumptions about your religious peers?

 

[PureX]

I never knew of god, what it meant, the definition, nothing like that. Pure atheist. Now I know what people mean by the "concept" of god. I know what people mean when they say "they" had the experience of god. But I do not know What god is-so I don't believe he exists....

Why do you assume that God's existence depends on your knowing what/that God is? I fail to see any logical relation between your knowing, and God existing. Seems to me that your not knowing would logically define you as agnostic. Not atheist.

Now many atheists have other stories where they were indoctrinated while others knew of god but fell away for many justified reasons....

But stories don't justify atheism any more than they justify theism. They may explain one's "belief", but belief is not logical justification. And atheists seem to always be demanding logical justification from theists, and from anyone: claiming it's their most cherished and primary criteria for truth.

I (and people like me) cannot form an opinion, reject, have bad concepts of god as you mentioned because to us-god never existed before, now, and in the future from our point of view. We cannot reject something that is non-existent.

But your assumptions are illogical (as a general group), and often "knee-jerk", while you (the general group) demand logic and criticize others (theists) for their lack of it. It always strikes me as very two-faced and disingenuous.

That's all atheism really gets at. No belief in god's existence.

That's not all they "get at" at all. They are constantly attacking and condemning theism for theist's lack of logic and subjective justifications, and then hide their own lack of logic and subjective justifications behind, "Oh, we just 'unbelieve'". But you (atheists in general) don't just 'unbelieve' at all. You very distinctly believe that gods don't exist. That's not "unbelief". You also very distinctly believe that if any God were to exist that you would somehow know of it. Which is quite irrational and logically unfounded.

You're making it complicated based on the atheists you speak with not atheism itself and how people in general would view god in light of disbelief in god not because of their opinion of what god is to them.

I can debate atheism, itself, as well. But I can never get to that point on here because every atheist I encounter is trying to hide behind this idiotic definition of atheism being "unbelief".

 

[PureX]

Are you more blind than others?

Not generally. I have experience the depth and breadth of self-deception, and lived to tell the tale because I've learned to always be aware of it. Most of my fellow humans have not been so tested. I am also a life-long profession fine artist, which is an endeavor that tends to keep one in touch with existential truth in a special way and depth. To seek and express what's not there as well as what is.

How do you know the difference beyond the assumptions about your religious peers?

My peers are not 'religious', as I am not religious. Religiosity is just as absurd and dishonest as atheism, from what I see.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why do you assume that God's existence depends on your knowing what/that God is? I fail to see any logical relation between your knowing, and God existing. Seems to me that your not knowing would logically define you as agnostic. Not atheist.

Because if someone does not believe god exists, there needs to be some explanation and criteria for him to know what god is so if he decides to figure out if god exists, he has something to go on.

There is no internal "definition" of god so unless you explain what god is, how would someone who doesn't believe god exists know anything about it to determine if it does or not.

This is not my opinion. Like I said, I was never raised to believe in god and know what god is so by default, I am an atheist...

with that aside, someone who does not believe god exists (an atheist) needs to know What god is in order to determine whether he exists (or is wrong) or not. It's not an internal definition and calling that a god exists (which?). It highly depends on how the person is raised, what they've been taught, their environment "what's normal" to them, and how they attribute their personal experiences based on these things mentioned.

I know you want me to be agnostic-makes it easier to justify disbelief in god-but some people just know and believe god does not exist. I know it's hard to understand it, but you going to have to take people for their world what they say they are and what they believe or don't believe. Respectful that way.

But stories don't justify atheism any more than they justify theism. They may explain one's "belief", but belief is not logical justification. And atheists seem to always be demanding logical justification from theists, and from anyone: claiming it's their most cherished and primary criteria for truth.

Atheists are not the victim here. Why would they not? Theist have no concrete commonly agreed on definition of god.

While some atheists may be pushy about it, that doesn't invalidate the reason they come to their conclusions and why they want to understand from theists why their/believers conclusions are right. Just saying they are wrong, misguided, or so have you doesn't really work to support you (a theists') argument on god's existence. It's offering an opinion not support for it (and take the other person's support into consideration as vis versa).

But your assumptions are illogical (as a general group), and often "knee-jerk", while you (the general group) demand logic and criticize others (theists) for their lack of it. It always strikes me as very two-faced and disingenuous.

You're making it more complicated than it is. Take away your assumptions of atheists and just look at the term atheism-no belief god exists.

If you did not believe god exists, how can you reject it?

What "exactly" are you rejecting?

PureX, you're not innocent in all this.

That's not all they "get at" at all. They are constantly attacking and condemning theism for theist's lack of logic and subjective justifications, and then hide their own lack of logic and subjective justifications behind, "Oh, we just 'unbelieve'". But you (atheists in general) don't just 'unbelieve' at all. You very distinctly believe that gods don't exist. That's not "unbelief". You also very distinctly believe that if any God were to exist that you would somehow know of it. Which is quite irrational and logically unfounded.

I'm talking about disbelief in god not atheists opinions.

Thank you. That position is not agnostic (above). Though the argument "unbelief, disbelief, belief" and all of that is really semantics. Anymore than I don't believe you're sitting beside me watching me type. It's not religious in nature.

I wouldn't say theists have lack of logic, though. I'd say you guys can't agree on one definition of god and then accuse some atheists for being curious and yes demanding to get that one definition out of you guys in order to make sense of what you guys say the belief you guys all have in common.

Believers logic is not objective criteria to be fact. If a theists understands beliefs aren't facts, people won't be as defensive. If you consider your beliefs facts and push them as such (or call them names for their ignorance), then the theists is no longer the victim. Of course I can't justify atheists behavior but it's really not because they don't believe in god-it's just them and their personality. Anymore a theists being mean about pushing god on others has less to do with their belief and more to do with their personality and how they approach "evangelizing" the world to be like them.

I can debate atheism, itself, as well. But I can never get to that point on here because every atheist I encounter is trying to hide behind this idiotic definition of atheism being "unbelief".

I don't go by all these different semantic terms. It's very simple and not religious at all. I had to look up unbelief "incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith."

People who do not believe in god sometimes have unbelief over the concept given to them about it. They are skeptical of theists concepts and definitions but cannot be skeptical of god's existence itself (not agnostic) because they believe he doesn't exist to make any opinion about god.

In other words, atheists are just arguing theists concept of god and how they relate to it not god itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not generally. I have experience the depth and breadth of self-deception, and lived to tell the tale because I've learned to always be aware of it. Most of my fellow humans have not been so tested. I am also a life-long profession fine artist, which is an endeavor that tends to keep one in touch with existential truth in a special way and depth. To seek and express what's not there as well as what is.

Many have been tested just as you have.

Why separate?

My peers are not 'religious', as I am not religious. Religiosity is just as absurd and dishonest as atheism, from what I see.

It's not the word itself, its the context. People who believe in the same god (etc) you do. Whether it's religious or just "spiritual and not religious" is irrelevant.

I see religion has how you practice your faith. Some people do it by prayer, some bible study classes, some more older traditions, some newer traditions.

Unless you don't "do" anything but just believe, I'm sure you have a practice you've had for years (tradition) but just didn't call it that-maybe more because of the arguments and not the definition itself.

As for atheism being absurd, that's, of course, your belief. The thing is, can you try to understand a life without god?

I live my whole life not believing in deities and creators. It's never been a thing in my brain and reality both internal and external. Has nothing to do with religion. Has nothing to do with RF. It is what it is. Maybe absurd because it's hard to understand. Ignorance of someone else's reality doesn't make it more or less untrue than if I believed that believing in god is just as absurd. I do not believe that.

Why do many theists believe that way?

 

[MikeF]

Truthfulness, for we humans, is a relative assessment. Meaning that one limited information set is being deemed true or false relative to other limited information sets. We do not have access to the full information set (omniscience) so we cannot assess truthfulness as an absolute condition. But certainly, one information set can be logically and reasonably deemed "untrue" relative to the information set we are using as our criteria for truthfulness at that moment. And we do so all the time.
No, it automatically becomes "real" (extant). The idea exists in the mind (and now, so does it's literal/verbal iteration). It's truthfulness depends on the information set we are using as our criteria for establishing the idea's relative truthfulness. That is; that this idea is "true according to what"?

Relative truthfulness is a condition that results from the limitations of human cognition. "Untruth" doesn't exist, physically. Just as "non-existence" does not exist, physically. These are metaphysical (cognitive) phenomena. They exist, but not as physical phenomena (like beauty, justice, love, fate, and so on).
You can't refute it because it's self-evident. You are a conscious, self/other-aware, cognizant being. And if these were not transcendent of the physicality from which we spring, we could not possibly perceive them as such, or be debating the question, now.

Remember the example of the bicycle. All the physical components (materials, physical laws, and natural advantages) have existed since the dawn of time. And yet the bicycle could never, and would never have become extant without the transcendent emergence of cognition. ... And neither could this discussion.
The problem is that these are not different phenomena. Our knowledge is basically imaginary. It is an organized idea-set that we create in our minds to inter-relate our past and present experiences so as to better anticipate our future experiences. Without memory, and imagination, we couldn't generate logical probability. And without that, our "knowledge" would be nothing more than moment-to-moment intuition. Even monkeys have memory to guide them. The crucial element that they lack, and that we have, is imagination. Imagination is what makes cognition so transcendent.
It clearly is corrupted in many ways. That's the nature of the human condition. And I think we need to accept this, first, and honestly, before we go looking for some magic criteria that will give us delusions beyond our natures. What works for us, works for us. Individually, and/or collectively, physically and/or metaphysically. And if it works, we should probably stick with it. But we need not fool ourselves into pretending that we now know the 'truth of it' just because it's 'working' for us. Functionality does not equal Truth.
Logically, and honestly, it can never be deemed true. It can only be deemed 'relatively true' (true relative to the criteria for truth we are currently choosing to determine truthfulness). And that can/will change the moment we change the criteria. That criteria may be collective functionality, or it man be personal psychological health. Or it may be any of the endless other desires and motives and needs we humans use as our criteria for what "works as true" for us.
Only because we humans have such a strong propensity to pretend that we know far, far more than we do, or even can know. We do not like finding ourselves face-to-face with our profound unknowing, or the profound vulnerability that comes along with it.

Based on your comments, I would argue that you are an Agnostic and not a Theist. I believe you use the "Theist" label in much the same way other Agnostics use the "Atheist" label when they are asked to categorize themselves by others. Agnostics use the "Atheist" label as an efficient way to disabuse a Theist that they, as Agnostics, entertain in any way, any of the past or current theistic propositions being bandied about by those identifying as "Theist". You often signal you Agnosticism in a different way. When communicating with others who have a specific religious belief, you often put the word god in quotes. You are subtly signaling to that person that whatever they think they believe about "God", in your opinion it is most likely untrue, or at the very least quite incomplete. Why do Agnostics lean or signal towards either Atheism or Theism? I would argue that for both, there is a recognition that if all of humanity starts paddling in the same direction, we humans will more quickly and efficiently begin to answer that which is unknown and avoid conflict and strife along the way. The direction in which to paddle is simply based on personal assumptions of how they imagine an ideal universe, whether that is an ideal "theistic universe" or an ideal "atheistic universe". It may also be that it is less about paddling towards an ideal, and more about paddling away from an undesirable possible reality. For the Agnostic, wherever they fall along the gradient that separates the binary choice of "supernatural entity"/"no supernatural entity", there should be a realization, whether consciously or subconsciously, that whatever the outcome, it will be what it is going to be, and however the universe actually works, we are going to have to live with it.

I respectfully suggest that in your case, you are paddling away from what you imagine an atheistic universe to be and mean. Take this comment you made in post #399:

"To deny this is to deny a fundamental aspect of humanity, and to reduce us to being just clever animals. An ideal that I find both insulting, and horrific in it's implications for our future."

I hope you agree that this comment demonstrates strong bias on your part for a "theistic" outcome. We are both in agreement that we human beings, including yourself and me, are imperfect, fallible observers/analyzers. Having a strong bias essentially traps one in confirmation bias. Facts that may lead or point in a different direction are either consciously or subconsciously ignored or disregarded because it conflicts with the biased, strongly held belief. Looking only at information that seems to support the biased belief creates a distorted picture of reality, further strengthening the bias and leaving one trapped in that distorted reality.

If the goal is to understand how things actually are, as opposed to how we wish them to be, we must strive to abandon bias in all its forms. Instead of looking for some ideal, we should abandon the notion of ideal as it relates to trying to understand how things actually are. We should look at all we know, however incomplete that is, and use that information to further expand what we know, without expectation of where that knowledge will lead. And in the case of Agnosticism, Theism, Atheism, when we choose a final destination out of hope and desire, we may find ourselves paddling in the wrong direction.

Consider this statement, "If there is/are no supernatural entity/entities, then Philosophy, Art, Religion, Beauty, Mathematics, Wisdom still exist and therefore are inherently derived from human beings themselves."

Your beliefs, about cognition, the "Metaphysical Realm", and the nature of "Reality" and "Existence", in short, your Philosophical Universe, are a product of your bias. We can go in to detail as to how your Philosophical Universe is a distorted perception of that which we currently know, but it would be helpful to have acknowledgement on your part of your bias and the influence it has on how you view the world.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Mankind did not create any gods. They created various images and ideas of and the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that is, that we generally refer to as 'God'. It's time to grow up, now, and recognize the difference.

I wanted to still this from the other thread for here.

If god is a great mystery source, there is no reason to talk about what it is and what it is not-it's a mystery. You can't tell us the definition and because it is a mystery, the only thing you can tell us is how things "point" to this mystery. But that is a fault because if you see, say, stars in the sky you may experience awe and wonder (which atheists understand) but to call it god (which they don't) is overshooting what the word mystery 'actually' means.

How I see it from strict definition, atheism says disbelief in deities-Jehovah, Zues, Yamaya, and so forth Not the mystery of life (things we don't know and are of awe of). A mystery is a mystery but once you call it god, it becomes complicated.

I'd say drop the term god and just use mystery of life (mystery of one's being or so have you) when you talk to atheists. We tend to understand that and need no proof since we're not that smart to know everything about the world but as soon as you call it god, the tables shift.

If this mystery is a deity, what is the proof?

If it's a mystery, there is none. It is what it is. No need to tell others they are ignorant of the evidence when, by definition, a mystery is something unknown and therefore no one knows and should claim that there is evidence of.

 

[PureX]

Because if someone does not believe god exists, there needs to be some explanation and criteria for him to know what god is so if he decides to figure out if god exists, he has something to go on.

There is no internal "definition" of god so unless you explain what god is, how would someone who doesn't believe god exists know anything about it to determine if it does or not.

This is not my opinion. Like I said, I was never raised to believe in god and know what god is so by default, I am an atheist...

The problem with this whole line of reasoning that there has to be some conception of "God" for you to "not believe in", to be an atheist. Otherwise, you're simply ignorant (unknowing) and indifferent (profoundly agnostic). So when you proclaim that you "don't believe in God", ask yourself what "God" is it that you're not believing in: i.e., that you don't believe exists. And the answer is going to be "whatever God anyone else does believes in". Which is just silly. Or, it's going to be some religion's conception of God that you were handed somewhere along the way, and never bothered to investigate or develop for yourself. And either way, your 'atheism' would be deemed irrational and/or unfounded.

... with that aside, someone who does not believe god exists (an atheist) needs to know What god is in order to determine whether he exists (or is wrong) or not. It's not an internal definition and calling that a god exists (which?). It highly depends on how the person is raised, what they've been taught, their environment "what's normal" to them, and how they attribute their personal experiences based on these things mentioned.

But rejecting the religious conceptions and depictions of God that you were handed by other people doesn't make you an atheist, because religious depictions of God are not God. So rejecting them is not atheism.

God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Nearly all religions will agree on this even though they may vary widely in how they choose to represent this most fundamental and profound mystery. And in how they choose to relate to it.

I know you want me to be agnostic-makes it easier to justify disbelief in god-but some people just know and believe god does not exist.

And some people just "know and believe" that God does exist. But the truth is that proclaiming to "know and believe" something is not reasoned justification. And no atheist would accept this from a theist as reasonable justification. So why should anyone, including the atheist, himself, accept it as justification for their atheism?

Theist have no concrete commonly agreed on definition of god.

I just gave you one, so no more using this as an excuse.

In other words, atheists are just arguing theists concept of god and how they relate to it not god itself.

Then they aren't really atheists, they're just anti-religious.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm actually being pretty nice and neutral about this conversation...

The problem with this whole line of reasoning that there has to be some conception of "God" for you to "not believe in", to be an atheist.

Otherwise, you're simply ignorant (unknowing) and indifferent (profoundly agnostic). So when you proclaim that you "don't believe in God", ask yourself what "God" is it that you're not believing in: i.e., that you don't believe exists. And the answer is going to be "whatever God anyone else does believes in". Which is just silly. Or, it's going to be some religion's conception of God that you were handed somewhere along the way, and never bothered to investigate or develop for yourself. And either way, your 'atheism' would be deemed irrational and/or unfounded.

Yes. That's the term for it, ignorant. When something doesn't exist (even if people say it millions of times), it doesn't change anything unless that "something" comes into my and others reality for us to agree. We can't take believers word for it but we can discuss the concept of it as many theologists do regardless whether they believe god exists or not.

I think agnostics are more "I can't prove either way" and many are indifferent to it. It's only a big deal to believers not others.

It isn't ridiculous if you think objectively. Of course atheists believe there is some sort of mystery to live. We don't know everything.

We don't call it god. That's the difference.

Everything else sounds like your biases towards atheists and atheism. The non-existence of god makes sense just as its existence. It just depends on the criteria in which you use to determine what it is that exists and the definition of it. Theists have Soooo many different definitions, I wouldn't know where to start.

To me, god (not the god you're thinking of) is a deity-Jehovah, Zues, Yamaya, et cetera. God is a Greek term, if I'm not mistaken, and deities usually talk and have more humanly powers and so forth. When it reads in the dictionary disbelief in gods it doesn't mean "mystery, source of all knowing, and mystery of one's being." It's distinct to deities. Unless you believe in Zues' existence, I assume you're an atheist too?

But rejecting the religious conceptions and depictions of God that you were handed by other people doesn't make you an atheist, because religious depictions of God are not God. So rejecting them is not atheism.

I don't know about other atheist's. I wasn't handed down depictions of god and never heard of god in any context of the word growing up. So, this doesn't apply to me.

As I grew older I heard of god due to a catholic friend of mine. The concept in which she described it sound weird and foreign. She explained it more through an actual person of jesus (since I wouldn't know how Jews, Muslims, and Bahai see god at all) and went from there. When I found out about the "jesus'" faith, I left it. People think I left god, but remember I had no concept of "it" at all. The depiction was christ. If I choose a depiction, I think that's the only one I rejected was christ. Whether he is god or not is up for grabs. It doesn't affect me either way.

Many people who don't believe god exists have different concepts of god because of theists. Who can blame them.

God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Nearly all religions will agree on this even though they may vary widely in how they choose to represent this most fundamental and profound mystery. And in how they choose to relate to it.

But for some reason you all disagree with 1. what it is (person, incarnation, mystic force, deity, spirit, whatever). You disagree with what it does (has scripture? has tradition? experienced in meditation. Read in a book. A manifestation. Pantheism)

It's a world wind of information-now wonder some atheists are confused about religion. Theists....

And some people just "know and believe" that God does exist. But the truth is that proclaiming to "know and believe" something is not reasoned justification. And no atheist would accept this from a theist as reasonable justification. So why should anyone, including the atheist, himself, accept it as justification for their atheism?

I don't understand how one can say they "know and believe" something exists. I'm not sure what that means spiritually and internally.

If theists had one definition of god (what it does, how, its nature, how to talk to it, is it a human, is it a spirit, is it a plant, a force, athromopolized mystery, whatever), we can go from there. Until then you're branding atheists as ignorant when they don't have any god to go on to even form an opinion about god just what theists say "about" it. You included.

I just gave you one, so no more using this as an excuse.

It's the truth. Unless your definition is the right one?

Then they aren't really atheists, they're just anti-religious.

Some are, some aren't. Maybe you're mixing the two up and all your confusion is towards anti-theists and not people who don't believe god exists.

I am certainly not anti-theists at all.... so a lot of your arguments about atheists (rather than atheism) don't apply to me. But if you want to talk about the idea god not existing, I'm all for it.