Atheists, what do you believe in?

Echoing what some have said here ... I do my best not to believe in anything.

Unless there is viable evidence of something's existence that can be seen, heard, touched either directly via our senses or indirectly via our machinery and mechanical devices designed to augment our senses ... it doesn't exist.

I do my absolute best (and regularly fail, of course) to only accept what can be proven.

There are some categories of being, however growing smaller for me personally by the day, that do fall into the category of "unknown" in my mental framework, or perhaps "subject to change if better information presents itself" would be more accurate.

That said, the matter of our consciousness eludes me almost entirely.

I believe from having an extremely nerdy advanced particle physicist brother that inductive empericism is not really the only form of science. Science is actually the search for explainations. In advanced physics a lot of inductivism is just old fasion and stagnates creative problem solving. Even by Einsteins time this was the case. (Karl Popper)

I cant decide whether i am a deist, pantheist, atheist, pandeist, or spinozist so its all working towards understanding cosmolgy on different levels for me.

I think there was a programmer, who could very well be dead. I think there are levels of perception which allow for different levels of observation. I think there must be something to that beyond the obvious.

I am with Diagoras though. The stories of Gods and peoples insanity surrounding them are silly.

I dont believe that there is an entity of any king watching over us in the sky, that's ridiculous. If there's some rules or place to go i wonder what laid the path and who/what runs the place.

When i hear about dimensions i think about size. Things and place we cant see beyond cause we're too small to see the big picture.
Then i see somone saying "as above so below"...thats what i'm hoping for.

I've studied a lot of religions - origins/history. Atheism has always been a tricky one to study and figure it out - I've seen it dismissed in less than a few sentences with the "to be atheist is to know there is no god, and to know there is no god, one must be omnipotent, and therefore a god - in essence, atheism is a philosophical impossibility."

While a cleaver rebuttal designed to trip up people who are atheist, it doesn't hold much water - I've seen it deployed to choke up folks who say they are atheist just to annoy people of any believe, kind of like a teenager will say anything to piss off mom or dad.

While I don't adhere to this camp, there is a lot of truth to that. However, I've always found it difficult to pinpoint atheist ideology, even to roman culture, because atheism, historically, is a persons personal collection of pagan ideals from a million different tribes and sub cultures.

As a theologian, I have enjoyed this thread, to hear a educated account of various atheist beliefs - not here to say here is what I believe and henceforth, you're wrong - quiet the contrary, like Tecumseh, I trouble no one for their faith, and I demand they respect mine in return.

Good topic on atheism and afterlife ideas, keep it up guys

originally posted by: TheErlenmeyerFlask
"to be atheist is to know there is no god, and to know there is no god, one must be omnipotent, and therefore a god - in essence, atheism is a philosophical impossibility."

That is incorrect.

A "true" atheist would not say there is no god. A "true" atheist is also agnostic - - Agnostic Atheist. The real meaning of Agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven.

For an atheist to state "there is no God" - - would require proof. Which is not possible.

The correct term is: Lack of belief in a God.

Personal belief(s) beyond "Lack of belief in a God" - - - would be that individuals Atheist Philosophy.

There is only one thing that connects atheists. That is Lack of belief in a God.

originally posted by: luthier
Science is actually the search for explainations.

I always considered science to be the activity of finding things and naming them. Oh, we found a subatomic particle and it has these properties -- we'll call it "boson." Oh, here's a kind of little fish that nobody has seen yet, except maybe the natives. I'll call it "flooglefish," and give it a long, complicated name. Oh, here's a new planet. I'll call it "Pangu." Naming, categorizing, and determining relationships. That's science.

It doesn't really explain anything or answer any questions. It can tell you that "hadrons" have "spin," but not why.

originally posted by: Ghost147
As an atheist we are free to believe in anything (excluding gods) and free to reject anything as well.

Is there anything paranormal and/or outside the realm of science that you believe in? Is there anything in science that you rejected as an acceptable explanation for a phenomenon?

Not really. I need evidence to believe something and believing something that is defined outside the scientific method leads itself to flawed methodology and confirmation bias.

Personally, I believe that what could be described as Ghosts exist. I don't believe in angles or demons, but I do believe that there could be a sort of "dark energy" type thing.

I don't know what to believe here. I've heard stories that are very compelling as well as good sounding scientific explanations for ghosts. For ghosts I just leave it as "I don't know." But if presented with a live, actual haunting, I'll probably default to skepticism first.

The same thing goes for reincarnation, some cases seem very curious and I feel that it could be possible.

The thing about reincarnation is that many people with stories about it tend to describe the experience within the context of their religion. Just like when people have NDE's. You don't hear about many Christians being reincarnated for instance. This is a serious detractor from my belief in it.

Of course in both cases I have no proof and only subjective observation (confirmed by others whom experienced the same thing). Certainly not proof by any means, but enough to convince me that these two things could be possible in some way.

I don't think aliens are classified as Paranormal in the same context as the two above, but It would be mind blowing to find out that aliens actually don't exist

Aliens exist. I just don't believe they are visiting this planet. That is exceedingly unlikely given the size and age of the universe.

What about you?

Skepticism is the only thing I trust.

originally posted by: Misterlondon
I believe I can fly..

All you have to do is forget to land on the ground.

originally posted by: Annee
There is only one thing that connects atheists. That is Lack of belief in a God.

I've determined that I'm not a real atheist, since it requires me to not believe in something I don't understand in the first place. I don't know what people mean by "God," so it's kind of like asking me if I believe in (-------?------).

If "God" is everything, then I guess I don't believe in it, because I don't believe in everything.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Annee
There is only one thing that connects atheists. That is Lack of belief in a God.

I've determined that I'm not a real atheist, since it requires me to not believe in something I don't understand in the first place. I don't know what people mean by "God," so it's kind of like asking me if I believe in (-------?------).

If "God" is everything, then I guess I don't believe in it, because I don't believe in everything.

Lack of belief in a God is not requiring you to not believe in something.

Lack of belief and choosing not to believe - - are not the same (although a fine line).

If God could be proven, you would believe there is a God. Or, you could still choose to not believe - - which is different.

Defining God is something else. In these discussions I choose "Religious God" - - - which to me is man made and not a (possible) naturally occurring energy/consciousness/intelligence force.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Not really. A boson was predicted before it was physically discovered. We absolutely do find things by accident, often though someone has already predicted the accidental discovery, it just wasnt widely acepted.

I was just trying to diferenciate inductive vs falsification.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheErlenmeyerFlask
"to be atheist is to know there is no god, and to know there is no god, one must be omnipotent, and therefore a god - in essence, atheism is a philosophical impossibility."

That is incorrect.

A "true" atheist would not say there is no god. A "true" atheist is also agnostic - - Agnostic Atheist. The real meaning of Agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven.

For an atheist to state "there is no God" - - would require proof. Which is not possible.

The correct term is: Lack of belief in a God.

Personal belief(s) beyond "Lack of belief in a God" - - - would be that individuals Atheist Philosophy.

There is only one thing that connects atheists. That is Lack of belief in a God.

Again this is not true.

Every branch of academic philosophy differenciates hard and soft atheism. (Positive/negative)

en.m.wikipedia.org...



Atheists themselves do as well.


Go back to Diagoras.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: luthier
Science is actually the search for explainations.

I always considered science to be the activity of finding things and naming them. Oh, we found a subatomic particle and it has these properties -- we'll call it "boson." Oh, here's a kind of little fish that nobody has seen yet, except maybe the natives. I'll call it "flooglefish," and give it a long, complicated name. Oh, here's a new planet. I'll call it "Pangu." Naming, categorizing, and determining relationships. That's science.

It doesn't really explain anything or answer any questions. It can tell you that "hadrons" have "spin," but not why.

I think perhaps you are confusing scientific observations (empirical measurements) for SCIENCE.

Science includes more than just measurements.

Notably, it includes scientific theories. Scientific theories are frameworks that EXPLAIN recorded observations.

An example: Evolution via natural selection. The amount of scientific literature published to explain how and why things evolve (and under what conditions) is enormous.

Another example: Relativity, which actually explains the constancy of the speed of light in all intertial frames of reference (an empirical observation) with specific equations involving spacetime. This of course is a gross oversimplification, since relativity explains much more than that.

Heck, if you combine Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, and Big Bang Cosmology, along with steller and planetary formation theories, you have a pretty seamless narrative that explains the entire history of the universe.

a reply to: Ghost147

I know there's a God for myself. He's the one true God written bout in the Bible.

I believe he is merciful. And will allow your freedom of choice to also be true.

SnF

originally posted by: luthier
Not really. A boson was predicted before it was physically discovered. We absolutely do find things by accident, often though someone has already predicted the accidental discovery, it just wasnt widely acepted.

Either way, science is basically only finding and naming things and trying to determine their relationship to other things.

originally posted by: randyvs
I know there's a God for myself. He's the one true God written bout in the Bible.
I believe he is merciful. And will allow your freedom of choice to also be true.

If you really read the Bible, you'll see that God is not all that merciful. Jesus seems to have some sympathy for the human condition, but even Jesus is pretty hardcore and says that if you don't accept him as the only way into Heaven, then you're pretty much going to Hell.

Also, if God holds all the cards, him letting you pick one from the deck is not really "freedom of choice."

originally posted by: Greggers
Heck, if you combine Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, and Big Bang Cosmology, along with steller and planetary formation theories, you have a pretty seamless narrative that explains the entire history of the universe.

I disagree. It details the relationships between observed things, and based on those observations hypothesizes the existence of other as-yet-undiscovered and unnamed things. Of the five journalistic "Ws" needed to create a clear story, science is good at determining maybe two of them.

originally posted by: TheErlenmeyerFlask
"to be atheist is to know there is no god

Theism is a "belief", not a knowledge. So, the theist has a belief in a deity, while the atheist doesn't hold that belief. Gnosis is a "knowledge".

a reply to: Blue Shift

A point was brought up to me once about the bible that really had an impact on how I viewed the good and evil roles it portrayed.

It goes " If you read the biblical stories and exclude the claims that one thing is evil the other is good and just go by the merits of what each entity actually does then God is cruel and evil and the Devil looks like a saint."

A lot of people are afraid to even look at it objectively.

a reply to: Blue Shift

So science does not try and make explainations for things?