"God does not exist"? Debating explicit Atheism and its implications

[Laika]

It's entirely fair to define which god-concepts you're rejecting on your own terms. I'd be aware that pretty much anything and everything you can name is considered a deity by some theological position. It's why I feel it is very important to be specific about which understanding of god(s) one is taking issue with. IMHO, a better way of framing what you believe here would be that you reject any and all supernatural agency. Or, even better, to frame yourself in terms of what you believe rather than what you do not; define yourself in the positive rather than in the negative.

I think this might be a consequene of using dialectics. It is simulateously a rejection of theism by stating that it is an illusion (rather than simply false) in comparision with a more limited definition of consciousness as originating from the brain and therefore matter. It contains both positive and negative elements.

And yes, i think it would be fair to say I reject all supernatural agency, rather someone as specific as theism.

I'm a little confused. Weren't we talking about theisms, not religions?

If you aim to reject all theisms, that... well... it gets tricky. Doing this necessitates framing theisms by your understanding of it and ignoring or rejecting how other people understand it. As I said, there is nothing in this world or the otherworlds that someone doesn't consider worthy of worship, or a god. You'll have to ignore that, or you get really strange things going on like denying the existence of someone's genetic ancestors, denying the existence of the sun, or even denying the existence of the entire universe.

This kind of goes back to the thing I said earlier about how it is better to define yourself in the positive.

This is again to do with the illusionary nature of religion; just because someone worships the sun and I say that the sun is not god or does not have supernatural properties does not mean the sun does not exist;The sun itself objectively exist, rather it is that its status as divinity is an illusion. I'm not specifically saying the belief in god is not derived from an objective source, merely that the property of consciosness as the cause of pheneomena is being attribute to it is false or illusionary.

The issue with 'god' specifically, is that in a materialist view (the positive) it is a false agency (the negative). God is a product of the process of abstraction in seeking to attribute cause to consciousness rather than matter.

Fair enough... as long as you prepare yourself to deal with the fact that deities can be and will be defined in ways that are neither troubling for an atheist nor truly possible to disprove in a meaningful way. Instead, it is necessary to just (legitimaly) decree that you don't care for using them.

I'm having to weigh up two dimensions to this. The first is obviously the insistence that Atheism is a scientific fact and therefore objectively true. I'm wondering how far a scientific atheism is compatable with a pragmatic one.It is certianly true to say that no healthy appreciation of science can come without accepting uncertainty, so on this sense I think I'm in agreement with you.

The second issue is that as a Marxist I'm obliged to think in terms of social consciouness rather than individual consciousness. This may or may not lead to an 'ethical' obligation in which in order to advance socialism as an socio-economic system I am obliged to assert [this specific form of] athiesm as something that everyone should believe in. However, this is counter-acted by the fact Marxism is deterministic, so that means the transmission of the idea of atheism itself is limited. So in practice, yes I would agree with the latter statement also as in a deterministic sense, it is impossible to force someone to believe something which is contary to their interests.

 

[Laika]

You seem like you like to think...You also seem to framing the world in western ways.......making your choices things like Dualistic Theism, Implicit Atheism, Explicit Atheism, ..... Do you consider the answer could be 'none of the above' in that list? That's my current opinion.

I personally have found non-dualism (God and creation are not-two) the most intelligent position. But it took me some time to really understand it.

Materialism is monistic rather than dualistic and yeah, it takes a while as philosophical dualism is ingrained in our cultural understanding including science couresy of Rene Descarte I think.I confess I've had little or not contact with religions outside of the Abrahamic tradition (except for a very breif interest in Zen buddism).

There have been times when Marxism has explored a relationship with religion, such as the God Builders (who thought socialism was a religion) and Islamic Marxism. From what I 've read, this is an 'incorrect' reading of Marxist philosophy as it deviates from it's fundamental tenents of materialism and dialectics, since the intention is to eliminate consciousness as explanation for the cause of pheneomena so that man can achieve (as close as possible to) scientific mastery of the forces of nature (and society).

 

[George-ananda]

If God is a Consciousness that does not originate from matter, God cannot therefore be real

This is actually the exact opposite of non-dual thinking. God/Brahman/One is primary and the only real. The primary can't be understood in terms of anything else. The best definition is pure consciousness being-bliss-awareness. Matter is then seen as a thought-form of God in the cosmic play. Matter is not seen as primary and cannot create itself.

 

[Laika]

This is actually the exact opposite of non-dual thinking. God/Brahman/One is primary and the only real. The primary can't be understood in terms of anything else. The best definition is pure consciousness being-bliss-awareness. Matter is then seen as a thought-form of God in the cosmic play. Matter is not seen as primary and cannot create itself.

why would matter need to be created? your welcome to expand your answer as the question of what is primary is pretty central to the cliam I'm making, so it would be intresting to hear.

 

[George-ananda]

why would matter need to be created? your welcome to expand your answer as the question of what is primary is pretty central to the cliam I'm making, so it would be intresting to hear.

Because in non-dualistic thought matter is not primary; Consciousness is primary. Only the primary is not created; the rest is derivative from the primary. It might sound strange for western ears; but matter is not ultimately real in non-dual thought. It is part of Maya (illusion in Hinduism). The One creates the illusion of separateness and then it returns/merges back into the One. It is all a cosmic play/drama of the One.

 

[Laika]

Because in non-dualistic thought matter is not primary; Consciousness is primary. Only the primary is not created; the rest is derivative from the primary. It might sound strange for western ears; but matter is not ultimately real in non-dual thought. It is part of Maya (illusion in Hinduism). The One creates the illusion of separateness and then it returns/merges back into the One. It is all a cosmic play/drama of the One.

Marxism is the exact opposite of that. Matter is primary and consciousness evolves as the result of the motion and development of matter into animals and then the Brain. Our consciousness of reality is ultimately not a 'true' reflection of reality, as language, logic and thought are inadequate to describe those real objects and their properties.
Some of the way in which it uses dialectics appears to be similar to what I've heard of Zen Buddhism and the illusionary nature of knowledge (.e.g when does an open hand become a clenched fist?) This is why Orwell could legitimately say doublethink (a thinly veiled attack on dialecitcal materialism) means that 2+2=5 because of how dialectics is anti-realist when it comes to using concepts.

 

[dust1n]

An explicit atheist goes much further and would argue that the non-existence of god is a scientific fact as did the Communists in the Soviet Union. In other words, in explicit atheism the burden of proof falls on the Atheist to prove "god does not exist". I've been sympathetic to the Communist position, but have felt deeply uncertian about it and some of it's implications.

To some extent explicit atheism changes the very definition of proof- and its the latter than interests me since that has implications of free thought which I may or may not be familar or comfortable with. It also changes the definition of science as well. The ethical implications are also extreme as this is where problems of nihilism, relativism come in as god has historically been the source of objective ethics. I think we'll get to that eventually. Given the scope, I welcome contributions from both atheists, theists and agontiscs to see if this position really holds up to scruitiny.

I'm pretty much an explicit atheist, from an Absurdist angle. God is just one of those subjects that language is able to posit as an ideal. There is no way of gaining experience or anything meaningful about some ontological reality where God doesn't have to do anything to really make sense to us. And since there is nothing meaningful that can really be said about the existence or nonexistence of God, then I simply dismiss the matter as rubbish.

It pretty much enters the world of invisible fairies, or something telling me about an afterlife. I simply don't have a reason to concern myself with things that don't actually effect me or the world around me. But I don't really believe in "knowing" things with some sort of ontological certainty anyways. In one regards, knowing could be considered confidence in certainty to some heavy degree. Either way the existence of a god or any of the hundreds of thousands of manifestations of a god really make no difference as to the workings of all that can be observed and experienced, so I consider it safe to dismiss this issue as a topic not even really worth being concerned with.

 

[George-ananda]

Marxism is the exact opposite of that. Matter is primary and consciousness evolves as the result of the motion and development of matter into animals and then the Brain.

Yes, this I think is the central divide in so many of the RF debates:

Materialism: Matter is primary and consciousness is the product of matter

Non-Dualism: Consciousness is primary and matter is the product of consciousness


btw, I'm very interested in studying paranormal subjects and enjoy discussing it. What is your opinion on the paranormal?

 

[suncowiam]

Asking others to help define your ideals is asking for trouble. =)

Try it and see where it goes if you have an interest.

Or I can just tell you to be an Athiest because I feel it is the most intelligent choice one can make. Oh, invest in Apple now before the Apple car comes out, too!

I read your summary on thinking and how you are affected by it. I went through something similiar a long time ago. I would think through a situation many times. What I was trying to do was come out with a perfect scenario but reality just never worked that way. I ended up with all these unrealistic expectations for myself. This just simply set me up for failure, specifically subjective failure. I learned (execised my brain) to stop thinking so much and flowed more with my environment.

 

[Laika]

Yes, this I think is the central divide in so many of the RF debates:

Materialism: Matter is primary and consciousness is the product of matter

Non-Dualism: Consciousness is primary and matter is the product of consciousness


btw, I'm very interested in studying paranormal subjects and enjoy discussing it. What is your opinion on the paranormal?

I would define idealism the way you define non-dualism, but there is more than one form of idealism, so your definition is better.

The honest truth is I know very little about the paranormal. I tend to dismiss it, but the lack of openness is more a matter of intellectual dishonesty than anything else. Your very welcome to discuss it as I would like to know more; trying to find an explanation is part of the fun as I kind of like 'puzzles', even if they don't necessarly give me a straight forward answer. I'm happy to agree or disagree on these things as curioristy is healthy.

 

[Sees]

Yes, this I think is the central divide in so many of the RF debates:

Materialism: Matter is primary and consciousness is the product of matter

Non-Dualism: Consciousness is primary and matter is the product of consciousness


btw, I'm very interested in studying paranormal subjects and enjoy discussing it. What is your opinion on the paranormal?

I always think of that version of Non-Dualism as being more appropriately called Consciousness-ism and not actually non-dual. It's simply reversing the heads and tails. More proper Non-Dualism in my view would be Matter and Consciousness are both real, interconnected, neither primary or secondary.

 

[George-ananda]

I always think of that version of Non-Dualism as being more appropriately called Consciousness-ism and not actually non-dual. It's simply reversing the heads and tails. More proper Non-Dualism in my view would be Matter and Consciousness are both real, interconnected, neither primary or secondary.

OK...maybe I should just call it Advaita to avoid confusion. There are always 50 flavors of every term

 

[Laika]

Asking others to help define your ideals is asking for trouble. =)

Try it and see where it goes if you have an interest.

Or I can just tell you to be an Athiest because I feel it is the most intelligent choice one can make. Oh, invest in Apple now before the Apple car comes out, too!

I read your summary on thinking and how you are affected by it. I went through something similiar a long time ago. I would think through a situation many times. What I was trying to do was come out with a perfect scenario but reality just never worked that way. I ended up with all these unrealistic expectations for myself. This just simply set me up for failure, specifically subjective failure. I learned (execised my brain) to stop thinking so much and flowed more with my environment.

That is very fair. I have had depression and anxiety, and am nearing the road to full recovery. Part of doing this was to build up my self-confidence that Atheism was a position I could actually defend as it felt "taboo". religion has never been a subject of discussion in my house as my parents have conflicting views which is probably why I feel that way. So posting this was kind of a release for me. I'm having to learn to accept uncertianty as I go along. systematic patterns of thought can also be very destructive if they are driven by perfectionism. I'm still not quite ready to let go and accept my beliefs as my own; they still feel like an imposition from outside, or something alien which is prohibited, so there is a strange unease I'm trying to overcome which makes RF very useful as a place to experiment with ideas, be myself and be more open about things.

so, well spotted.

I'm pretty much an explicit atheist, from an Absurdist angle. God is just one of those subjects that language is able to posit as an ideal. There is no way of gaining experience or anything meaningful about some ontological reality where God doesn't have to do anything to really make sense to us. And since there is nothing meaningful that can really be said about the existence or nonexistence of God, then I simply dismiss the matter as rubbish.

It pretty much enters the world of invisible fairies, or something telling me about an afterlife. I simply don't have a reason to concern myself with things that don't actually effect me or the world around me. But I don't really believe in "knowing" things with some sort of ontological certainty anyways. In one regards, knowing could be considered confidence in certainty to some heavy degree. Either way the existence of a god or any of the hundreds of thousands of manifestations of a god really make no difference as to the workings of all that can be observed and experienced, so I consider it safe to dismiss this issue as a topic not even really worth being concerned with.

Yeah. If you've read what I wrote above, I think I'm trying to go beyond the sense that this is a 'safe' position to hold and want to feel more certain of my own beliefs, or rather my ability to hold beliefs which conflict with other people. That is probably why I placed emphasis on the certainty. I really want to be able to say I "know" it is true, so I haven't considered the absurdist angle as a result of these differences.

 

[George-ananda]

I would define idealism the way you define non-dualism, but there is more than one form of idealism, so your definition is better.

The honest truth is I know very little about the paranormal. I tend to dismiss it, but the lack of openness is more a matter of intellectual dishonesty than anything else. Your very welcome to discuss it as I would like to know more; trying to find an explanation is part of the fun as I kind of like 'puzzles', even if they don't necessarly give me a straight forward answer. I'm happy to agree or disagree on these things as curioristy is healthy.

The paranormal is actually what led me to spirituality. I have for decades studied the evidence and argumentation from both sides. For reasons ten times over, I believe classical materialism can not be correct. I then wanted to know what this 'more' than materialism could possible be. This lead to me eastern beliefs in which all this paranormal stuff is not paranormal but just part and parcel of a more expansive worldview.

 

[RedDragon94]

in explicit atheism the burden of proof falls on the Atheist to prove "god does not exist"

Why would you want to burden yourself with disproving God?

I understand that there's plenty of evidence for evolution. Just, how do you know that there isn't a mastermind to this process of evolution?

If God is a Consciousness that does not originate from matter, God cannot therefore be real and can only ever be the product of thought;

The Bible says that God originated as "the Word". This means that God is a spirit and we get to know spirits through hearing about them.

I think that spirits could possibly be physical in another realm. The things we do have an effect in that realm.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah. If you've read what I wrote above, I think I'm trying to go beyond the sense that this is a 'safe' position to hold and want to feel more certain of my own beliefs, or rather my ability to hold beliefs which conflict with other people.

Good luck.

 

[Laika]

Good luck.

Thanks.

Why would you want to burden yourself with disproving God?

basically, I want to be free. I've had mental problem as I'm bisexual and a major part of this has been culturally inherited assumption of sexuality and therefore man as sinful. Repressing someone's sexuality cripples a person psychologcally; so, in my mind, the "god" I know is a tyrant. This in spite of the fact I am consciously an atheist and have been most of my life, so I would necessarily have to go further than most to understand this and I've had to re-think my moral beliefs as well so they fit what I need to be happy. As god is a projection of man, that says a fair amount about how morality is used as a way to restrict and hinder people. You can't fight god, but you can change your circumstances. Hence why I favour materialism.

I understand that there's plenty of evidence for evolution. Just, how do you know that there isn't a mastermind to this process of evolution?

I don't, but specifically a materialist approach would rule out a 'creator' to as the cause of evolution since it would render the argument for the 'god of the gaps'; hence even if a theory such as evolution were incomplete there would be no reason to assume it necessitates a god.

The Bible says that God originated as "the Word". This means that God is a spirit and we get to know spirits through hearing about them.

I think that spirits could possibly be physical in another realm. The things we do have an effect in that realm.

I think that man can have profound experiences and this doesn't necessarily require a spiritual realm to exist; but it does require someone with considerable psychological insight and an ability to relax to tune into to our unconscious and to grasp the essence of what it means to be human.

The paranormal is actually what led me to spirituality. I have for decades studied the evidence and argumentation from both sides. For reasons ten times over, I believe classical materialism can not be correct. I then wanted to know what this 'more' than materialism could possible be. This lead to me eastern beliefs in which all this paranormal stuff is not paranormal but just part and parcel of a more expansive worldview.

According to Marxism, there are points where a 'mechanical' materialism lapses back in to idealism because it is not consistently monistic. it's mechanical in the sense that it consists of permant parts that interact on a purely external basis; that external movement therefore requires an original motive force or creator to make those parts and start it up. it's possible there might be a materialist explanation, and I would assume there would be. Do you have anything specific?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think you're getting at the argument of the necessity for creation. Dialectical Materialism doesn't accept the need for creation, since it argues the universe is in self-motion based on it's internal contradictions. Therefore it does not require an external force to 'create' it. For philosophical reasons I would suggest a steady-state universe (or something similar) fits in better with this philosophy. This 'solves' the philosophical problems of creation in which matter exists before consciousness, but raises scientific ones regarding the conflict between a logically consistent position and how far it corresponds to scientific evidence.

So yeah, I do agree that there has to be something that just "is", but I would say it is the universe as the source for matter, rather than god as the alienated consciousness of man.



Thanks. this is intended more as an intellectual exercise to see what my position is, how it holds up to scrutiny and where I can take it. As I can't figure out all aspects of the idea for myself, I kind of need others to hold me to account and spot where the holes might be.

Ah right, I recall now you are not that in love with the big bang theory. Personally I don't think it is wise to go against science, not when they are fairly sure at any rate.

.....One of the great things of being free and human is the ability to have an opinion, isn't it. Nice talking to you, as ever.

 

[George-ananda]

According to Marxism, there are points where a 'mechanical' materialism lapses back in to idealism because it is not consistently monistic. it's mechanical in the sense that it consists of permant parts that interact on a purely external basis; that external movement therefore requires an original motive force or creator to make those parts and start it up.

sounds deep

it's possible there might be a materialist explanation, and I would assume there would be.

I think here you are talking about the paranormal. As I said I think there is evidence ten times over that things happen that do not fit in the classic materialist worldview.

Do you have anything specific?

I think here you are talking about the paranormal. There are 101 sub-fields in paranormal studies; detailed childhood reincarnational memories; veridical NDEs, ghosts, spirit communication and 95 more things.

Most people have a passing interest in the paranormal but it is just a side curiosity and they don't study it seriously. I find they cling to whatever view is consistent with their overall worldview; whether atheist, Christian or whatever. To me, the study has been worldview changing.

 

[Laika]

sounds deep

I think here you are talking about the paranormal. As I said I think there is evidence ten times over that things happen that do not fit in the classic materialist worldview.


I think here you are talking about the paranormal. There are 101 sub-fields in paranormal studies; detailed childhood reincarnational memories; veridical NDEs, ghosts, spirit communication and 95 more things.

Most people have a passing interest in the paranormal but it is just a side curiosity and they don't study it seriously. I find they cling to whatever view is consistent with their overall worldview; whether atheist, Christian or whatever. To me, the study has been worldview changing.

Yeah, sorry. it was late. Dialectical Materialism is crazy but often very insightful.

We all start with our own ideas and try to fit the evidence into them, so what you say is true. being willing to be open to something that conflicts our ideas is a reall challange. What ideas or experiences changed your world view and how? (PM me if it's easier as I realise discussing the paranormal doesn't get a great reaction even on RF).