Question For Atheists

[Erebus]

Sure, if the belief does not include whatever would make such an entity a god or deity by the expectations of that specific person.

I don't doubt that Haile Selassie existed, for instance. Nor Elvis Presley or Francis Edgar Williams.

Right.

This topic of what constitutes an atheist tends to crop up around non-supernatural or only partly supernatural god concepts. Pantheism is a classic example with Richard Dawkins famously declaring it to be "sexed up atheism." It still causes arguments as to whether or not it constitutes a form of theism or simply a poetic expression of atheism.

Personally, I'd argue that by ascribing the status of god to something a person believes in, that person is then a theist. In regards to pantheism, both an atheist and a theist could believe in the universe but only the theist calls it God.

Unless there is some twisty logic trick in there, I don't believe an atheist could make such a remark and be consistent with what it means to be an atheist.

It's theoretically possible but quite unlikely. Hell concepts don't necessarily require an accompanying god concept and so aren't inherently incompatible with atheism. There are also certainly people who feel it would be impossible for them to believe in god/s. That's the easy part.

The tricky bit would be in believing that atheism somehow causes the soul to be pulled into Hell while simultaneously finding it impossible to believe in god/s. It's not inconceivable that somebody would believe in such a way (particularly since humans are very good at cognitive dissonance) but I've certainly never met anyone like that.

 

[stvdv]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

In dualistic "thinking" God seems to exist as do Atheists seem to exist
In non-dualistic "knowing" ONLY God exists; it's called consciousness

So even "Atheists" do not exist anymore
Only God exists ... what a bummer for Atheists ... I suppose

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hi Bob, This thread was not about me and my beliefs. I am not an Atheist.

I started this thread because in a different thread, another RF'er was claiming that a person could both discourage Atheism and still be an Atheist. And it really is as I am stating it.

I don't need to go into more detail unless you want to.

But basically what i am gathering from this thread is:

Discouraging Atheism literally contradicts Atheism. That is the mainstream majority opinion.

A does not equal B. Simple logic.

However, there is some "twisty logic" as IceHorse described it, depending on the definition of what is a deity. And that is a valid opinion, but it is, so far, the minority opinion.

What I take away from this is: It is not at all silly or ill-informed or ignorant for someone like me, a Theist, or a Muslim to use the majority opinion, the strict definition of an Atheist.

If scripture of a religious leader says: "Non-belief in deities is the wrong path. The wrong path leads to hell." Then it makes logical sense to conclude that the speaker is not an Atheist.

Claiming it's illogical, or reflects a lack of understanding of non-theism is false.

I get where you are coming from.

As for the bit about an atheist discouraging others from becoming athiest?

Well.... being an atheist is simply a response to the claim "god is real".

So there is nothing in the fictional "atheist handbook" which prohibits someone who is an atheist, from discouraging someone else from becoming one.

I'd need to see their motives for saying such things.

For example-- I ran across a theist, who kept harping that since atheists do not believe in Big Brother (god) who will Punish Them Horrifically, that they are automatically rapists, murders, monsters and worse.

So, to such a theist? I would actively encourage he remain a Theist. For it seems that the only thing keeping him from doing Horrific Things? Was his very real fear of his Big Brother God--who seems to also be something of a monster as well. (coincidence? hardly...) Such theists do frighten sane folk, who correctly see that they are but a very small mental step from shooting up public places or worse. I would never encourage such a person to give up their religion-- it seems they are a Walking Time Bomb, and the catch holding the fuse back, is rusty, and barely holding in...

Does that make me guilty of cognitive dissonance? I think not-- it makes me sane.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

In dualistic "thinking" God seems to exist as do Atheists seem to exist
In non-dualistic "knowing" ONLY God exists; it's called consciousness

So even "Atheists" do not exist anymore
Only God exists ... what a bummer for Atheists ... I suppose

What a bummer for theists too! Under you "logic" (such as it is)?

Nothing exists but "god"-- neither theists nor atheists.

That's the logical conclusion of the conditions you outline above.

We are all nothing-burger-- no free will, no sense of self, just place-holders for some magical OverMind who is apparently playing some sort of Cosmic Tiddly Winks.

So it's all a laughable Joke, isn't it?

 

[dybmh]

I get where you are coming from.

As for the bit about an atheist discouraging others from becoming athiest?

Well.... being an atheist is simply a response to the claim "god is real".

So there is nothing in the fictional "atheist handbook" which prohibits someone who is an atheist, from discouraging someone else from becoming one.

I'd need to see their motives for saying such things.

For example-- I ran across a theist, who kept harping that since atheists do not believe in Big Brother (god) who will Punish Them Horrifically, that they are automatically rapists, murders, monsters and worse.

So, to such a theist? I would actively encourage he remain a Theist. For it seems that the only thing keeping him from doing Horrific Things? Was his very real fear of his Big Brother God--who seems to also be something of a monster as well. (coincidence? hardly...) Such theists do frighten sane folk, who correctly see that they are but a very small mental step from shooting up public places or worse. I would never encourage such a person to give up their religion-- it seems they are a Walking Time Bomb, and the catch holding the fuse back, is rusty, and barely holding in...

Does that mane me guilty of cognitive dissonance? I think not-- it makes me sane.

That's uber-useful. U^2 ( u squared ). Thank you.

 

[stvdv]

What a bummer for theists too! Under you "logic" (such as it is)?

Yes

 

[siti]

Are you saying, all the other Atheists who maintain the majority opinion lack understanding of their own non-belief?

That's the point. If an outsider uses the majority opinion, it is not a lack of understanding. If you are an Atheist and you want to tell the majority of other Atheists, "You're wrong, I'm right". Then you are in a position to do that.

But an outsider simply cannot and should not preach to insiders about what it means to be an Atheist.

Regarding the etymology... I'm sorry, that's like telling me Judaism is isolated to the Israelite tribe of Judah because of its name. Try telling that to Jewish people, and see what happens.

No, no, yes and no...

No I am not saying that anyone lacks understanding about their own belief/non-belief - I am saying that no individual's belief/non-belief can be properly defined by a label - and especially a label written by someone else.

No, I would not presume to tell anyone "you're wrong, I'm right" even if I believed that to be the case...I do think that some people who claim the label "atheist" simply disdain belief in deities and haven't really gone much deeper into thinking about it than that - and that's fine for them...I have no problem and I don't object or think that is a wrong thing to do...but that is not the case for ALL atheists - so if you read the words of one atheist that seems to contradict what you term "the majority opinion" you have no business saying that that person is not an atheist. That IS what you are doing.

Yes - I agree that an outsider should not preach to insiders about what it means to be an atheist (or anything else)...but again, you ARE doing that - you are, in effect, saying that if someone is an atheist they should not say certain things about belief in gods - aren't you? Or if they do say certain things about belief in god they cannot be an atheist.

And no, it is not like saying that Judaism is restricted to the tribe of Judah at all, but what you are saying (about etymology) is like trying to understand what the word Judaism means without any reference to the tribe of Judah. Of course you can do that, but your understanding will be glib and superficial. If you're happy with that, that's fine...but then why would anyone start a discussion with a question that they were already satisfied they had the answer to? To learn - to gain understanding, or to prove a point and win an argument. Again, its fine with me either way, as long as you are prepared either to gain understanding, or lose an argument - or both!

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Can someone believe in the existence of one or more gods and still be considered an Atheist?

In other words, If I believe that god(s) exists, I cannot be an Atheist by definition, right?

In the classical sense of the word, you can believe in a deity but be considered an atheist. It was the primary accusation the Romans had against the early Christians.

 

[dybmh]

as long as you are prepared either to gain understanding, or lose an argument - or both!

Yes to both.

saying that if someone is an atheist they should not say certain things about belief in gods - aren't you?

No. But that's not important right now. What's important is that you have gone above and beyond answering my questions. And I appreciate it.

you have no business saying that that person is not an atheist. That IS what you are doing.

No. The person we are speaking about, the person who said, "non-belief is a wrong path. the wrong path leads to hell." is Buddha Gautama. So, No. I'm not telling Buddha anything. I'm not telling any mortal living person anything about whether or not they are an Atheist. No one that I know of has ever uttered anything close to this and also tried to identify themselves as an Atheist at the same time.

 

[dybmh]

In the classical sense of the word, you can believe in a deity but be considered an atheist. It was the primary accusation the Romans had against the early Christians.

I didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I didn't know that. Thanks.

I am kind of wondering why no one brought it up.

 

[columbus]

Think about it. Can a bachelor be married?

Yes.
Because "bachelor" is a subjective word.

I remember an LA Law episode from the 80s. LA Law is a TV legal drama.
The plot revolved around a youngish father who's wife was run over by a truck from a big trucking company. He was suing for large damages, because without his wife to help with the children and her income he was seriously screwed.
Unfortunately for him, he'd been previously married. He and his former wife were young and stupid and a few months into their marriage decided to get divorced. He went from LA to Tijuana for a cheap, quickey, divorce and then they both moved on. Then he found the true love of his life, got married, and they started a family in California.
However, California doesn't recognize divorces granted by Mexico. So his second marriage wasn't valid by state law, because he was still legally married to his first wife. He got nothing from his lawsuit except a bunch of legal bills, including those of the trucking firm who killed the mother of his children and left him destitute.
He was, at the time he married the mother of his children, a married bachelor.
Tom

 

[siti]

The person we are speaking about, the person who said, "non-belief is a wrong path. the wrong path leads to hell." is Buddha Gautama. So, No. I'm not telling Buddha anything. I'm not telling any mortal living person anything about whether or not they are an Atheist. No one that I know of has ever uttered anything close to this and also tried to identify themselves as an Atheist at the same time.

Okey dokey - can you provide a reference for this quote - please - you have piqued my curiosity...I suspect the Buddha was not encouraging belief in deities but discouraging people from defining themselves by what they are not - kind of like saying it is not useful to define oneself as a non-golfer or non-stamp-collector...that's an argument thrown at atheists sometimes by believers - and it does have some merit although I think there is more to saying "I'm an atheist" than that...but that is digressing. Anyway, what is the source of this quote?

 

[dybmh]

Okey dokey - can you provide a reference for this quote - please - you have piqued my curiosity...I suspect the Buddha was not encouraging belief in deities but discouraging people from defining themselves by what they are not - kind of like saying it is not useful to define oneself as a non-golfer or non-stamp-collector...that's an argument thrown at atheists sometimes by believers - and it does have some merit although I think there is more to saying "I'm an atheist" than that...but that is digressing. Anyway, what is the source of this quote?

Of course. Understand. What you're saying about taking the Buddha's words metaphorically makes sense. It's logical. Also, taking the words literally makes sense too.

And the focus of my frustration was that this idea, that the Buddha was speaking metaphorically was never mentioned before you brought it up here.

Had it been brought up, the way you presented it here, I would not have felt the need to start this thread. I asked for clarification multiple times in that thread. And all I rec'd was, you "live in a fantasy world. all too common among muslims. [you] don't have a modicum of understanding of non-theism, likely because of [your] islaamic background".

The pompous arrogant statements above were not at all about the statement by Buddha. They were targeting an individual, their religious affiliation, as the reason for their lack of knowledge. And they never apologized, nor rolled back their assertions. It is possibly one of the most obnoxious set of statements I have ever read anywhere.

I'll locate the quotes.

 

[Valjean]

In dualistic "thinking" God seems to exist as do Atheists seem to exist
In non-dualistic "knowing" ONLY God exists; it's called consciousness

So even "Atheists" do not exist anymore
Only God exists ... what a bummer for Atheists ... I suppose

But Brahman/consciousness/Reality isn't God. "God" is a personage -- with features. Does belief in strings or the Higgs field make one a theist?

 

[stvdv]

But Brahman/consciousness/Reality isn't God. "God" is a personage -- with features. Does belief in strings or the Higgs field make one a theist?

As I wrote "God" is "Consciousness" to me. I do know that others make God a personage ... I never had that feeling