Theism v. Non-Theism

Please use the definition from an online dictionary so that we can all check it. Simon & Schuster's dictionary (is that the spanish to english one? The Klingon one looks interesting!) doesn't appear to be online.

The thing is that you can point out that your god or gods are metaphysical (in your opinion) and that is why you can't and apparently they can't prove themselves to another person. I say if something can't prove itself to someone, why should that person believe that the thing exists? I believe in my gods because they have proven themselves to me to my satisfaction. I don't ask anyone to trust in or believe my experience over their own.

I don't know that they all disbelieve the metaphysical, meaning the supernatural. The definition is that they disbelieve in gods. I really would like to know if some atheists watch Ghost Hunters and think that spirits or metaphysical energy exists or what they believe causes some of the noises, etc.

gillyflower wrote:I don't know that they all disbelieve the metaphysical, meaning the supernatural. The definition is that they disbelieve in gods. I really would like to know if some atheists watch Ghost Hunters and think that spirits or metaphysical energy exists or what they believe causes some of the noises, etc.

Sam Harris says he thinks it possible that some aspects of the metaphysical are valid. He's a philosopher known for his books, Letter To a Christian Nation and The End of Faith, both of which are excellent, IMO--the former a slim little book particularly good for handing to nutjobs convinced that the Founding Fathers intended this country to be Christian.

Those that I've known with whom I've discussed this generally thought such apparitions are a natural phenomenon as yet unmeasurable that ultimately may prove to be some type of energy accumulation. Generally, they hesitate to refer to anything as "supernatural." Instead, anything inexplicable as yet falls into the realm of "dunno just what."

That makes sense. I believe in gods and I'd rather say that, too, about the things I've seen on Ghost Hunters the few times I've watched.

Gillyflower:

Please use the definition from an online dictionary so that we can all check it.

Sure, that's reasonable. I used Simon & Schuster's New World Dictionary, instead of the online dictionary, because I don't like to open a new window when I'm at a forum.

Simon & Schuster's dictionary (is that the spanish to english one?

It wouldn't be surprising if Simon & Schuster also publish a Spanish/English, English/Spanish dictionary, but their New World dictionary is only in English. It defines English words in terms of other English words. I don't recommend the use of a Spanish/English dictionary for these purposes, for people with English as their first language.

The thing is that you can point out that your god or gods are metaphysical (in your opinion) and that is why you can't and apparently they can't prove themselves to another person.

As I said, no ontology or metaphysics is provable by one person to another.
Words don't even apply outside the context of this life and this world. As I said, words can only suggest, on that speculative subject.

We all try to speak the same language, and would like to know eachother's meanings, and that's why we have general-purpose dictionaries. They shouldn't be relied on for specialized or technical definitions. Of course anyone can name their group with any name they choose. And there's nothing wrong with people calling themselves Atheists, using a definition of their own that differs from dictionaries.

As I understand it, from what they say, Atheists are just people who don't make any claims about what is or isn't. That's commendable, and I have no criticism of that position. If that were all that Atheists said, I wouldn't have anything to say on an Atheism debate forum.

But someone earlier in this thread said that Atheist should just be defined as "intellectually honest". So non-Atheists are less honest? It's that kind of "more _____ than thou" attutude that many Atheists share with certain self-styled Christians.

It's all very well for Atheists to not believe in this or that without proof. Of course there's no such thing as proof in metaphysical areas anyway, and that goes for the "normative" metaphysics, Physicalism too. But Atheists tend to have a tacit, implicit belief that the default, when you don't believe in anything, is that reality is physical only. The skepticism seems to only be about nonphysical realilty.

We hear a lot about skepticism when there isn't evidence. But there's no evidence that this physical world exists or is real other than in its own context.

What does it say about me that I capitalize God? Well, it says that I write with correct standard usage.

Micheal,

A person may have opinions encompassing anything. However, the only thing that can be taken to mean by a specific statement is that statement itself.

An atheist may believe that their is no god, be a communist, homosexual, criminal, whatever, but the only thing that can be implied by the label "atheist" is that they do not subscribe to a theology.

Furthermore, you may not be wrong in describing an individual person, who happens to be an atheist, in terms that fit other definitions, but the definition is not found in the term "atheist".

all

All is right.

And you are right too, Micheal, if you are only talking about one god and it is Yahweh, the Christian god, rather than including all the other gods. Do you know I've run across Christians on these forums that don't know that their god has a name?

Am I the only one who doesn't find that atheists and people who can only believe in one god aren't so very different? One has trouble believing that any metaphysical god exists and the other only believes in the metaphysical to a limited degree. Both want proof to believe more than that.

Michael5810 wrote:
But someone earlier in this thread said that Atheist should just be defined as "intellectually honest". So non-Atheists are less honest? It's that kind of "more _____ than thou" attutude that many Atheists share with certain self-styled Christians.

No, you are quite mistaken that anyone on this thread said this. Sakhaiva asked if that would be a better term, echoing Harris's list of various terms that have been suggested as better than atheist for non-theists.

Harris neither stated nor implied that he thinks intellectual honesty would be a better label than atheism. That would be ridiculous; the man is nowhere near that stupid.

I suspect that what you're referring to is my response to her question as follows:

DotNotInOz wrote:

Sakhaiva wrote:Often people believe Atheism is a reaction to the troubles of Christianity; a form of 'rebellion.' But, to me, atheism is not simply a rebellion against one certain path; atheism is out to disprove all metaphysical beliefs.

Is it a good idea to replace the term 'Atheist' with the term 'Intellectual Honesty'?

No. And Harris is not suggesting that it would be. He argues for a world in which such a distinction is as unnecessary and superfluous as referring to a group of people as non-racists.

Non-religion is the default position as he sees it and does not require a label.

Allthegoodnamesweretaken:

True, and I'll say "some Atheists", rather than attribute certain beliefs or positions to all Atheists.

Gillyflower:

But a lot of people and groups use "God" as the name.

Of course, as I said, a group can use any name they like, and I accept the name "Atheist" for someone who doesn't believe yes or no about God's existence.

I commend the Atheists' skepticism. It has been said that all assumptions are subject to question.

...and, as I said, that these matters are unknowable, and that words aren't really applicable anyway, outside this life and this world.

I'm posting partly because of a grievance regarding things said by _some_ Atheists. I barely started that subject yesterday.

I'm at this thread to discuss Atheism, not to promote anything else, and I keep to a minimum any mention of other ontologies.

Pretty much everyone agrees that something is. Whether all things that are are equally existent and real, or whether there's a hierarchy of reality among real and existent things--either way there are things that most fundamentally are.

There are different suggetions about what fundamentally is. Some say that this physical universe is what fundamentally is. I've said that the unconditioned, attributeless, innermost you, referred to in the Upanishads as the Self, is what fundamentally is.

I claim that some Atheists are selectively skeptical. That their skepticism is only about nonphysical reality. In other words, their skepticism is biased in favor of not being skeptical about Physicalism, as they are about other ontologies. A prejudice that belies their claim of objectivity.

The fact is that there is no evidence to contradict a suggestion that there is a nonphysical entity that is more real than this world. ...a suggestion that a nonphysical entity is fundamentally real and existent and that this world is not. (I happen to suggest that, but I'm not here to promote my views).

My point here is that there is no evidence, physical or otherwise, for this physical world having funamental existence, as much existence or reality as a nonphysical entity.

So, if we're skeptical, then doesn't that mean that we're skeptical about Physicalism too? (Defined by philosophical dictionaries as the belief that the physical is all of reality).

Though no ontology can be proven, we can discuss them, and make ontological suggestions (as I've done in this post).
It is not more scientific or "intellectually honest" to be skeptical only about nonPhysicalist ontologies, or to grant Physicalism a higher status than nonPhysicalist ontologies. If one does that, then one has a _belief_.

As I said at the top of this posting, I might speak of things said by particular Atheists, but I don't ascribe those positions to all Atheists.

But that is where you are wrong, I think about you blaming them for being skeptical about supernatural things - and gods are supernatural beings. If they have never experienced one why wouldn't they be skeptical? There is no evidence to prove that there is any supernatural beings - and you saying that there is no evidence to disprove that there are not supernatural beings OMGs. Don't you think that NO EVIDENCE of supernatural beings is kind of evidence of no supernatural beings?

They do not have to be skeptical of their hands and feet. They see them, they know they exist - their physical bodies are real, there is proof that they do exist, why should they be skeptical about their hair and apples and all that is physical?

It is much more intellectually honest to admit that the physical does exist and is provable and that there is no provable evidence for supernatural beings. I believe in gods and I freely admit that there is no way to prove that they exist. I don't blame someone who has never seen or experienced what I have for not "believing" in the same supernatural things that I do. Why in the world should they? I think anyone who "believes" based upon someone else's UPG is crazy.

Why try to convince them that they are wrong? Just let them believe what they want to believe. It does not change what I believe if others to do not.

Michael5810 wrote:
Allthegoodnamesweretaken:

True, and I'll say "some Atheists", rather than attribute certain beliefs or positions to all Atheists.

Well, to be honest, you should be specific. If you mean that "materialists" for example, hold x attitude, you should say that materialists hold x attitude. Not some atheists hold x attitude when the attitude has nothing to do with atheism specifically.

For example, I am both Asatru, and anarchist. Asatru has nothing to do with anarchism. To blend the two views into a single statement is insulting not only to Asatru, and anarchism, but to other Asatru who are not anarchists, and other anarchists who are not Asatru.



all

But is a bedbug a monster? (Ask someone who has them, and I'm sure you'll get an emphatic, "Yes!!!") Most people have a concept of "monster" as something big, horrible-looking, and immensely powerful. Thanks in part to the Animal Planet show, "Monsters Inside Me," I have come to realize that the concept of "monster" can be quite more widely applied. Similarly, most atheists I have had the occcasion to debate with have a concept of "God" that is different from mine, since I have almost no concept of God at all, although I am absolutely convinced there is one. But if atheism is the belief that there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the universe that some might be willing to call "God," then it is really a rather arrogant perspective, isn't it?

I don't think so. I believe in gods and that the Christian god is just one of many gods that are worshipped around the world. Is it arrogant not to believe in any of them? Just one of them? Maybe a few of them and not the rest? Is it arrogant to not believe in the ghosts and spirits and demons that many people in this world believe in?

A person believes what they believe, sometimes without any proof except they read about it in a book. That might not be enough proof for the next person. We are all trying to make sense of this mystery that we call life and our universe. Just because someone else explains it differently than another does and disbelieves the existence of supernatural beings doesn't make them arrogant. I think real arrogance is trying to force everyone else to believe in supernatural beings even though there is no proof of them.

gillyflower wrote:I don't think so. I believe in gods and that the Christian god is just one of many gods that are worshipped around the world. Is it arrogant not to believe in any of them? Just one of them? Maybe a few of them and not the rest? Is it arrogant to not believe in the ghosts and spirits and demons that many people in this world believe in?

A person believes what they believe, sometimes without any proof except they read about it in a book. That might not be enough proof for the next person. We are all trying to make sense of this mystery that we call life and our universe. Just because someone else explains it differently than another does and disbelieves the existence of supernatural beings doesn't make them arrogant. I think real arrogance is trying to force everyone else to believe in supernatural beings even though there is no proof of them.

Yeah. What Gilly said...

Weeelll, actually, I think Harris's meaning of "intellectual honesty" relative to theists is that they know what they believe is neither true nor actual, and thus, they're being dishonest in promoting a falsehood.

So you're saying that Harris says that Theists know that what they believe is neither true not actual. One could wonder how Harris knows that. Presumably it implies that Harris, too, knows that what they believe is neither true not actual.

I don't care what Harris believes. And of course he has a right to say what he wants to say. And people are free to speculate on what he meant. But, by the same token, it's ok for me to comment on what someone says.

Some Atheists commonly say such things, and yes I sometimes comment.

Gillyflower:

But that is where you are wrong, I think about you blaming them for being skeptical

I've just said that I commend them for being skeptical. For their impartial skepticism. But now, the more I hear, their "skepticism" sounds more like _selective_ skepticism.

But I don't blame or criticise them for whatever they believe. I don't even criticise them for saying it. That is their right. However, I hope no one will be angry if I sometimes comment on what they say.

about supernatural things

Shall we translate "supernatural" as "nonphysical"? If not, then, if you use the term again, you might want to specify with what meaning you're using that term.

"Supernatural", is, of course, an emotionally loaded word, implying classification with vampires, werewolvles, and other fictitious movie-entities. That implication might suit the purposes of an Atheist. So I'd appreciate a definition in terms of less baggage-laden words. I'll assume that it means "nonphysical", until someone gives me a different definition that they mean when they use the term.

- and gods are supernatural beings.

Yes, if you mean "nonphysical".

There is no evidence to prove that there is any supernatural [nonphysical] beings

No ontology can be proved. Ontology is necessarily speculative. The ontology of Physicalism, even if it weren't ridiculous, would still be unprovable, as is any ontology.

Words don't even apply outside this life and this world, as i said.

No one claims that God is physical. Therefore you shouldn't expect to be able to detect God with an electronic instrument, or discover Him with a telescope. Evaluating statements about nonphysical beings in terms of their discoverability with physical instrumentation isn't scientific.

- and you saying that there is no evidence to disprove that there are not supernatural beings OMGs

Different people make different suggestions about what fundamentally is.

There isn't a shred of evidence, physical or otherwise, to the effect that this physical world is what fundamentally is. There isn't a shred of evidence that a nonphysical entity isn't what fundamentally is.

Maybe a nonphysical entity is what fundamentally, is, and this world doesn't possess fundamental existence. There is no evidence to the contrary.

There's no evidence that this physical world has existence status equal to that of a nonphysical entity.

This world is real, actual, and existent in its own context. That's all we can say about it. There is no evidence regarding its ontological status.

Don't you think that NO EVIDENCE of supernatural beings is kind of evidence of no supernatural beings?

No. You would have to demonstrate that the existence of nonphysical entities would necessarily be accompanied by found evidence. Without that proof, lack of evidence for is not evidence against.

Say that, on the night of a shooting, no one saw you, and no one can testifity to your whereabouts that night. It was nighttime, unlighted, and the shooter was in a car. No one knows what the shooter looks like. There is no evidence that you are not the shooter. Is that evidence that you are the shooter?

[quote[]They do not have to be skeptical of their hands and feet. They see them, they know they exist - their physical bodies are real, there is proof that they do exist, why should they be skeptical about their hair and apples and all that is physical?[/quote]

_In the context of this world_, hands, feet, physical bodies, and apples are real and existent. But there is no evidence regarding the ontological status of this physical world. There is no evidence to contradict the claim that there is a nonphsyical entity that is fundamentally real and existent, and that this world is not.

You kick a boulder. It hurts your toe. Does that prove that the boulder is real? No. It merely proves that the boulder is as real as your toe. You're part of this world, a character in the possibility-story that is this world. Of course it seems real to you.

I'm not claiming, in the above paragraph that this world is nothing more than a possibility story, but there is no evidence that it is more than that.

One can certainly have a _belielf_ in the fundamental existence of this world. It's a belief.

It is much more intellectually honest to admit that the physical does exist and is provable and that there is no provable evidence for supernatural beings.

Any promoter of a religion might say that it's much more intellectually honest to believe in his religion. Many religions, including Atheism, make such claims.

Atheism apparently has a belief, a faith-based belief. I discuss it here and there in this posting.

The physical world exists in its own context, in the perception of its inhabitants. That's all that can be said about its ontological status. See above.

I've just learned that people referring to themselves as Atheists don't believe as the dictionary says they do. Ok, fine. First it was implied that they're impartially skeptical, and I applauded that. Now I hear that they're selectively "skeptical". ...Some or most of them.

Some or most Atheists believe that this physical world is exempt from skepticism regarding its fundamental existenc, though they're skeptical of the existence of nonphysical entities. If so, then those Atheists are _believers_. That is a belief. Skepticism of all beliefs except for one's own beliefs doesn't make anyone "scientific" or "intellectually honest".

I don't care what Atheists believe or don't believe. I have no wish to change or complain about their beliefs. I don't complain about what they say, either (except when their manners aren't good). However, I hope people won't be too angry if I sometimes comment on the validity of what they say.

What I comment on is this:

Many or most Atheists claim that they're more-scientific-than-thou, or more-intellectually-honest-than-thou, because of their skepticism, which, upon examination, is really only the selective "skepticism" of a True Believer.

By the way, it's easy to demonstrate that there exists a nonphysical entity:

Namely, you. The subjective you. The subjective you is a point of view, a from-the-inside point of view. Referring to the subjective you, is it physical? What is its mass, in grams? What is its specific gravity?

No, the subjective you has no characteristics associated with physical things. There is no reason to say that it's physical. Some have tried to argue that it's physical because it has physical origin, from the brain. No, origin doesn't imply a shared property, such as physicality. The subjective you isn't even of the same _kind_ of thing as are physical things. It isn't even describable or definable from the same point of view.

So yes, there is a nonphsyical entity: You.

Atheism isn't a religion. You are wrong to claim that it is and I suspect that you know that and your resentment of atheists who disbelieve the supernatural being Yahweh and whatever other supernatural beings that you worship is driving that. As several of us have pointed out disbelief in mythical beings is not a belief. No one has ever been able to prove that supernatural beings exist. I don't expect that you are protesting people who disbelieve the existence of unicorns or Santa Claus, are you? Are you protesting against people who disbelieve in the Greek gods and they Greek myths?

Religion

a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary

I'm going to continue to use the term supernatural to describe the Christian god and any other beings that are mythic beings. Yahweh is a supernatural being, just like a ghost and a unicorn and my gods. No one has ever found any proof that they exist.

Tell me, are you skeptical about my gods? Do you believe in my gods? If you don't then according to you, you are selectively skeptical. I accept that you are not skeptical about your own gods. Are you skeptical about other people's gods?

Oh, I'm a physical being. I exist as a physical body, for all your talk of a subjective self. When my physical body dies, I will cease to exist. (Afterlives have not been proven.) If you would like to say that the gods don't exist and that they are a point of view inside a person, I've heard atheists say that.

"When my physical body dies, I will cease to exist." This is a relatively simple, though debatable, statement, provided that you view it according to the limitations of the human brain in normal waking consciousness, that is, seeing a three-dimensional universe that changes over time. But if Einstein is correct, then we live in a four-dimensional space-time continuum. From that standpoint, time as a linear construct that "passes" is only an illusion created by the fact that your normal waking consciousness is tied so closely to the activity of the brain, which, since it runs on thermodynamic energy, seems to observe time passing. When you cease to see time that way (and I can do it analogically while in normal waking consciousness, but literally when in deep meditation), the universe is a four-dimensional whole that is eternal. Eternity is not an infinitely long length of time, but is being outside of time. Seen that way, your physical body does have limits. We call the limit of your body in the vertical dimension the top of your head, with the other limit being the soles of your feet. Now because you don't exist past the top of your head, or below the soles of your feet, you don't think that means you don't exist, do you? Well, the limits of your physical body in the fourth dimension, time, are the moment of your birth and the moment of your death. So the moment of your death is merely the limit of your body in the fourth dimension, and the fact that your physical body does not appear in the year 3000 CE is of no more significance than noting that it does not appear on your roof, either. Your physical body will continue to exist in this moment here in 2010, which will be quite apparent to your consciousness, once it slips from the grip your brain has on it. I happen to know this because I can slip my consciousness from the grip of my brain while I am alive. I can't prove this to you, but neither can I prove that a yellow Chevy truck ran a red light at a certain intersection this morning. I base my beliefs on my experience, as do most sensible folks. I could probably teach you how to slip your consciousness out of the grip of your brain, if you can't already do it, but since it took me years of practice to develop the capacity myself, you might have to commit yourself for a long haul.

That is a lovely hypothesis. I have my own ideas about what will happen after I die. I don't have any proof of it either which is why I don't suggest that it will happen to other people. I don't know that it will. What I do know is that I trust my gods. They have taken good care of me in this life and I see no reason to believe that will stop with my death, if I have an awareness that continues. However, if this life is all I have, I am satisfied. It has been a very good life and wonderful world and I am grateful for the experiences I've had.

My religion also teaches visualizations and/or out of body experiences. It is something that I practice.

Not to offend, but would you mind making your posts a bit more readable for us with aging eyes? Please put in some paragraph breaks. It would make it much more readable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this thread dissolved into yet another thread about "Have tolerance for those who do not believe as you do?"

That last bit I wrote was not at all what I consider a hypothesis, but a perspective that is totally consistent with science and is a personal observation, and I think that most people miss the implications of it entirely. (Not intending to be insulting to an administrator, but I'm not sure you got it, either, Gillyflower, because "what happens when I die" is still embedded in that linear time perspective.)

But really that was a diversion off the thread, although I agree that it seemed to be devolving again. I was just noticing that activity on this forum seemed to be way down and I was curious what would happen if I poked this apparently dormant hive with a stick. I did learn that there are still quite a few bees hereabouts.

I'm not quite sure what else I learned,

although I suppose the point about my paragraphs is

well taken. Can I adjust font size

as well?

I have many things that I too believe and feel that I know which I also base upon my UPGs. They are quite consistent with science and my personal observations. They also disagree with your beliefs. Do you accept my beliefs as your truth? Or are you kind enough to say that I have an interesting hypothesis?

You can make the font bigger, if it is easier for you, RevJohn. You can also repost your post if you like, with breaks for paragraphs, and I expect more people will read it and perhaps comment upon it. It would make an interesting discussion, I think.

Gilllyflower:

Atheism isn't a religion. You are wrong to claim that it is and I suspect that you know that

As I was saying, many Atheists have a belief. They're believers. And it's world-view belief that unites them and by which they proudly define themselves, and which many of them tend to say a lot about. If all that doeesn't make it a religion, then what is a religion? It's a belief, therefore, that has many attributes of a religion, and that's why I referred to Atheism as a religion.

Atheists say that they're non-believers. Wrong. They're believers in their own beliefs, as I explained yesterday.

...and your resentment of atheists who disbelieve the supernatural being Yahweh and whatever other supernatural beings that you worship is driving that.

As I said before, I couldn't care less what Atheists believe or don't believe. I don't even care what they say. But, when some of them often say that they're more-scientific-than-thou because of their "skepticism", and that skepticism turns out to be selective skepticism of all beliefs but their own, then I merely point that out.

People keep saying that I resent Atheists because they don't believe. No, I don't care if or what they believe. I merely point out that they _do_ believe. They're believers.

It's a most peculiar religion, of people who deny being believers.

There are two religions whose believers can be a bit on the agressive side: Atheists and certain self-styled "Christians". I want to assure you that I express my disagreement with those "Christians" too (when they come to my door). I don't only pick on Atheists.

As several of us have pointed out disbelief in mythical beings is not a belief.

Belief in the fundamental existence of this physical world is a belief. Belief that that this physical world's fundamental existence is expempt from skepticism is a belief.

Belief that the physical is all of reality is a belief. Now, I've been told that Atheists don't believe that for sure. But they believe that that fundamental existence of this phsyical world is expempt from skepticism, but that the fundamental existence of anything else is subject to skepticism. That is a belief.

No one has ever been able to prove that supernatural beings exist.

I still don't know what you mean by "supernatural". I've never heard of a proof that werewolves, vampires, etc. exist. So what?

In any case, I've pointed out that no ontology is provable, including that which claims that this physical world is what fundamentally exists.

If "supernatural" means "nonphysical", then I've shown you that there exists a nonphysical entity: The subjective you.

I don't expect that you are protesting people who disbelieve the existence of unicorns or Santa Claus, are you?

I didn't say that every contested entity exists. I told you, quite specifically, what statements of Atheists I question the validity of.

Are you protesting against people who disbelieve in the Greek gods and they Greek myths?

See above.

I'm going to continue to use the term supernatural to describe the Christian god and any other beings that are mythic beings.

Fine, but are you going to define it? So far, I'm assuming that you mean "nonphysical", when you say "supernatural". If you intend a different, explicit, meaning, then tell what it is.

"Mythic" isn't expilcit enough. Does supernatural mean unreal? I suggest that this physical world is unreal. Does that make this world supernatural then?

Yahweh is a supernatural being, just like a ghost and a unicorn and my gods. No one has ever found any proof that they exist.

I keep pointing out that no ontology can be proven. There is no evidence suggesting that this phsyical world is fundamentally real or existent.

[quote]Tell me, are you skeptical about my gods?[quote]

You are skeptical of all gods. You compare them to Greek mythology and Santa Claus. You express skepticism about everything except the fundamental existenc of this physical world.

Do you believe in my gods? If you don't then according to you, you are selectively skeptical.

I can't prove any ontology. No one can. I'm not skeptical about gods that someone says they believe in.

I accept that you are not skeptical about your own gods. Are you skeptical about other people's gods?

No.

Oh, I'm a physical being. I exist as a physical body, for all your talk of a subjective self. When my physical body dies, I will cease to exist.

It's difficult to make a true statement about anything after this life.

The conditioned subjective you isn't eternal. But I merely said that the subjective you is nonphysical. I stand by that statement. What does the subjective you weigh? What is its density? You (the subjective you) have no attributes of a physical thing.

Because you have no resemblence to a phsyical thing, the burden is on anyone trying to assert that the subjective you is phsyical.

(Afterlives have not been proven.) If you would like to say that the gods don't exist and that they are a point of view inside a person, I've heard atheists say that.

The conditioned subjective you is a point of view inside a person.

As for gods, I don't deny your gods, and I'm not skeptical about them. But I'll tell you what I am skeptical about: The qualification of Atheists to discuss gods. Most Atheists have a long way to go before they could qualify for such discussion. That's why I try to keep the discussion to simpler matters, because the subject of God is beyond the scope and level of the discussion that I'd have with Atheists.

I don't care how many times you explain that atheists are believers. You are wrong. You can keep saying it and you only continue to be wrong. Repeating it doesn't make it less wrong.

I'm skipping the looooong middle part because you don't make a lot of sense. Why don't you start looking up words like mythic, mythical, supernatural? And the subjective you (whatever you mean by that) doesn't exist separate from the physical you. You can keep saying that too and it still isn't true. It also doesn't prove that all the supernatural beings that you apparently believe in exist.

Atheists don't have to have any qualifications to discuss gods. They have their opinions (notice that they don't all think the same things?) and that's all they or anyone else needs + a desire to discuss.

The supernatural being that you call God is beyond my scope too. I have no idea what god you are talking about. I don't believe in all the gods and myths about gods and supernatural beings. Sometimes a good myth is just a good story ripped off from another culture and retold with the names changed. The bible for example is full of myths like that which can be traced to other cultures.

Michael, I don't care if you believe in my gods or not. It does not affect my relationship with my gods whether you say you believe in them or not. It does not change what I think. Why is it so important to you that other people agree with you that your gods exist? Does it make it more real for you?

I agree with Gilly here.

Non-belief of deity is not a religion; it is a statement on theism. Monotheism is not a religion, it is a perspective on theism. Polytheism is not a religion, it is a perspective on theism. I could go on.

If atheists are religious because they do not believe in any deities, than monotheists are apolytheists because they only believe in one god. They are also a-atheists because they believe in a god.

You see why this is ridiculous?

You can fall back to a solipsistic perspective if you want, but there are reasonable means of establishing what is objective vs subjective. The existence of a material world, and peoples documented experiences of the world, is far stronger than the notion that everything is floating "out there in the ether."

Simple test, have someone throw a baseball at you and try to philosophize it away. Explain to the ball that it does not really exist; that it is just you interpreting the ether into the form of what you understand is a baseball. Then tell your nervous system that the pain you feel when the subjective baseball strikes you is not real. It is actuality the result of your mental conditioning to believe that, because you perceive yourself having a physical body, and that body perceives the experience of pain, that you "feel pain".

My guess is that neither the baseball, nor your nervous system is going to care (the inanimate seldom do); regardless of what you believe, the ball will strike you and your body will react to it.

Once more sensory experience shows itself to be far more "real", and relevant than philosophers musings.

I can't say whether I agree with your beliefs or not, since you didn't happen to mention what they are, specifically, but in recent years I have found it generally unprofitable to argue against anyone else's beliefs. I don't necessarily accept them; in fact, there are many of my own I am not too attached to. The further along my path I go, the more I find concepts and beliefs to be just unnecessary junk I'm packing along with me, and so I hang on to as few as possible.

That bit I laid out about time is the first of many understandings I have come to about the deeper implications of truly contemporary science that happen to coincide almost perfectly with mystical experiences through the ages as well as my own. And I happen to think that learning to think in four dimensions is one of the most amazingly transformative conceptual leaps one can make, since the implication is that we are, literally, eternal beings, and only the warped view of time our brains foster on us keeps that from being obvious. And this is without even any concept of anything metaphysical, although sometimes a trip through something metaphysical is needed before someone can see the literal truth of that.

Yes, I'd like to discuss them some time, or better yet, write that book I've been wanting to write for so many years, but right at the moment there are a lot of pressing concerns and things I need to be busy about, so I may be scarce in these parts for a while. (What a difference a day makes, when yesterday I was looking for some diversion, whereas today the world looks entirely different. Life has so many totally unexpected twists and turns....)

I'm not an atheist, but there's no way atheism can be construed as a religion.