Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Since gods are invisible and undetectable, I would have no idea what would constitute evidence to support their existence.

This is clearly not how many people view God. That scientists can run around with some sort of meter and find traces of God having trotted through a room is not something they probably think about much, but most texts that deal with God or gods have these beings detected by the human sensory apparatus often in consensual reality ways.

So the question might be could you personally experience anything that would convince you God existed?

 

[(Q)]

Why do you not believe in God?

Which one am I supposed to worship? There are hundreds from which to choose. Can you narrow it down to a top five short list?

I think it's just a way people view their existence; the origins of existence will always be a mystery.

The inquiring mind would not make that statement. Theirs is of the mindset to uncover those mysteries and learn from them.

Some believe in the big bang theory, others in a divine creation, others in intelligent intervention, and yet others in something else entirely.

You make the mistake of comparing visible and detectable evidence with invisible and non-detectable beings.

 

[(Q)]

So the question might be could you personally experience anything that would convince you God existed?

Like what?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Like what?

Be creative. Can you imagine experiencing something that would convince you there was a God. In other words you, personally, detect God's or gods' presence(s).

 

[scorpius]

So what would you consider evidence for/of God?

which god

www.godchecker.com

 

[(Q)]

Be creative. Can you imagine experiencing something that would convince you there was a God. In other words you, personally, detect God's or gods' presence(s).

I have no idea what constitutes "gods' presence." I can imagine a great deal. What specifically?

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you going anywhere with this SAM, or are you just collecting data?

Just prurient interest.

Since gods are invisible and undetectable, I would have no idea what would constitute evidence to support their existence.

You would need to define those characteristics and/or properties that are visible and/or detectable before an assessment can be made warranting evidence to the gods existence.

I'm asking you.

 

[Michael]

All a God has to do is make you a God and you will know.
Easy as eating pie for a God.

 

[S.A.M.]

So athiests want to be God?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I have no idea what constitutes "gods' presence." I can imagine a great deal. What specifically?

I guess you can't do it.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have seen this argument before, but I cannot accept it.

I have made the choice to come here?
How come I have no memory of it?

memory is fickle - and its weakness is something that happy material life has as a foundation

Why would I have made such a choice?

the desire to be separate from god cannot be fulfilled in his presence

If I have made such a choice, what does this say about the state I was created in, and about my Creator?

that you weren't created with omniscience

I think only an evil person would deliberately choose to come to samsara.

"foolish", or one apt to make mistakes, would be my preference of terms

And the responsibility for suffering is a delicate issue - Considering the law of karma, the fourfold formula that applies for each present moment (this is the Buddhist version):
1. When this is, that is.
2. From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
3. When this isn't, that isn't.
4. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
- cause and effect relationships can be very complex. Results can come about that we have never intended, but they can come about as results of many other things that we did intend and do, but which seem to have nothing to do with the result in question. E.g. if I end up with a tapeworm infestation, this does not mean I have ever intended to get a tapeworm infestation. I could have gotten the tapeworm simply by stroking a dog, and completely unaware that the dog was carrying tapeworms, or by tying my shoelaces that have picked up tapeworm eggs as I was walking down the street, or wherever.

This is why I am inclined to think that "falling away from God" perhaps never was a deliberate choice, but more a getting carried away by lack of wisdom.
But I don't see why a good God would create humans who lack wisdom.

basically there are two very different dynamics that the spiritual and material world operate on.
The material world functions on law or force (karma)
The spiritual world operates on love or personalism.

Making the decision to step out of one and enter the other holds very different consequences.

Why would a good God create beings who desire to be separate from God?

its part of having independence - that is what distinguishes us from the external energy (or dull matter) - if we didn't have the scope to misuse independence, there would be no possibility of love or even issues of good or bad. Basically the reason we are created with independence is because we are created with the ability to love and enter into relationships of reciptocation

But it is still up to the person to deal with the state of being ill.

sure - but regardless whether one deals with it successfully or not, the ultimate result is the same for everyone in all circumstances (along with everything in relation to the body - ie friendship, position, wealth etc etc)

Because it's all we seem to have. We identify with the body per default.

exactly
If spiritual life makes a positive contribution, we have a new paradigm to operate out of.

 

[lightgigantic]

same old boring worn out arguments Light, for any of your ideas to work, and you should know this by now, is if you first establish that a God and a Soul actually exist, you are yet to do this, anything else you post just becomes moot, without that confirmation.
but this is of topic.

same old boring response - demands for evidence while skipping practice and even theory ..... funny how science doesn't even operate like that
:shrug:

to answer the OP an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.

A-Theist.

The "A" prefix means without/non/ain't got no.
As in....
Asexual=without sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
Amoral=without morals.(not a belief theres no morals)
Apolitical=without politics.(not a belief theres no politics)
Atypical=without/not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
Asymmetric=without/not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
Atheist=without god.(no/lack belief in god)(not a belief there is no god)

thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.

omg
rehashed arguments?

/pots and kettles

 

[Michael]

So athiests want to be God?

SAM you are atheist for Xenu - want to be Xenu? No. But if you were Xenu then you would inherently know of Xenu's existence.

I thought that was the question posed in the OP?

M

 

[Michael]

Maybe I need to have the OP clarified. I thought it was something along the lines of: how would I ,an atheist for SAM's god, be convinced of said gods existence.

 

[lightgigantic]

ashura

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the easiest beginning is to examine how life exists in this world - the general principle is

BG 2.13: As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

IOW by moving from childhood to youth etc one can see first hand how life is a separate issue from the body

Obviously if you are going to have a completely separate concept of life from the body you require positive information on what that "something" is - so confirmation (knowing what I am) comes to the degree that one can confirm what god is .... since god is the life on which all other living(?) entities are dependent.
Thus the practical side of "confirmation" is getting free from the bodily concept of life/overcoming vice/dealing with the issues of the needs of the body vs the needs of the soul etc etc

”
In the above quote, I've replaced conscious, consciousness, etc. with your definition of it just so you can see how I'm reading your response. The edits are in bold.

1. IOW by moving from childhood to youth etc one can see first hand how life is a separate issue from the body I'm afraid that while it may be easy for you to see, I have a harder time. During growth, I see a body grow. There is a life associated with that body that as a baby was in one state, as youth was in another state and as an adult in another state. However, I've no reason to assume that the two growths are not directly linked, or separate, similar to how I don't assume that the growth of the hair on my head is separate from the growth of the hair on my face. I can imagine the two to be separate, for a thought experiment or something, but as far as I can observe, they seem to be directly linked. Thus, when the body expires, I can only assume so does the life... unless you can show otherwise?

its not such a complex notion
the changing of the body (which goes from something the size of a football to a fully fledged adult) is due to the presence of life - and this presence of life is characterized by the same sense of self - IOW your mother still knows of you as her son, even though you are no longer football sized, etc etc - the only thing that is constant with the changes from being football sized to the the present is the symptom of life - specifically the sense of self that goes with it. Regardless of where hair is growing on your body, you don't doubt that it is due to your life .... its not like your next door neighbor grows his hair on your body

2. Obviously if you are going to have a completely separate concept of life from the body you require positive information on what that "something" is I'm not sure what you're referring to with "something". Would you mind clarifying?

basically the "something" is god.
Developing a concept of life that isn't based on the bodily designation rests 100% on positively affirming the nature of god (although there is the argument that one can arrive at some sort of default position by logically seeing how one is not the body .... but it doesn't make for a very jolly life)

3. so confirmation (knowing what I am) This confirmation you're providing (knowing what I am) is not the confirmation I asked for (confirming the notion that life doesn't end (either in its liberated or conditioned states- rather, it is eternal)?

If one is thinking that life ends because the body ends, one is thinking that one is the body. IOW one doesn't know who one is (am I the football sized thing? am I the adult? am I the child of my parents?) - you cannot indicate the body in any solid singular sense since it is always in a state of flux. This tends to collide with our notion of self, since it remains constant (while issues of the ego may change, "I don't like mickey mouse anymore", the ego, per see, doesn't)

4. since god is the life on which all other living(?) entities are dependent. As this is the conclusion we're trying to get to, we need to establish the previous points.

Basically you cannot separate issues of god from issues of life. Kind of like when the sun rises you can see not only the sun but everything else too. to try and indicate things separately, without the presence of the sun is not possible.

5. Thus the practical side of "confirmation" is getting free from the bodily concept of life/overcoming vice/dealing with the issues of the needs of the body vs the needs of the soul etc etc Well, yeah. I can see the practical side of confirmation of your notion. But you still haven't confirmed that notion yet.

In material life we have a sense of "I" in connection to the body - which is kind of like existing in an ocean of need without any shores - This struggle for material identity is characterized by vice. If we are still dealing with issues of vice, we have not dealt with the problem (Popular new age ways of dealing with the vice is to pretend it doesn't exist .... needless to say, they are not very effective at getting free from the bodily concept of life)

Before we can move forward, you must first establish somehow that life, my life, can exist after death.

that is introduced by the fact you cannot indicate your life in any singular sense by referring to the body, despite your sense of self remaining essentially singular. It tends to indicate that the body is maintained by your sense of self, as opposed to your sense of self arising from some sort of physical complexity.

 

[greenberg]

Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

Same thing

How are those two things the same?

 

[Michael]

Norsefire,

Atheism is lacking a belief in God. Not an actual disbelief in God. Ergo I'm an agnostic atheist for the same God that has been incorporated in the following beliefs and in this order: Jew/Xian/Muslim/Baha'i/Mormon religion.

 

[audible]

Hmm so like a general revelation to all?

yes.

What would this revelation have to be for you to consider it representative?

as I stated,

A voice beyond nature?

theres no need for any fancy theatrics, just a normal voice will suffice.

An epiphany?

if by that you just mean it's appearance or manifestation, then yes, everybody would have to know it was god.

If you heard a voice and no one else heard it, what would that mean?

that I was dreaming, imagining it, or just crazy.
Having said that I could consider myself a saint or a prophet, and try to make some money out of it, if I considered lying to be a good thing.

 

[audible]

Its just interesting to me that most atheists have a vision of a magical God who is bound by empiricism.

how else can us humans understand a god otherwise, it cant use things to express itself that we cant comprehend, now can it. So it has to use things we can, it is bound by the very things we know, not the things it knows, in effect it would have to dumb it down, wouldn't it.
If a Mathematician wishes to express himself to the layman he has to dumb it down.

 

[greenberg]

basically there are two very different dynamics that the spiritual and material world operate on.
The material world functions on law or force (karma)
The spiritual world operates on love or personalism.

Making the decision to step out of one and enter the other holds very different consequences.

And love or personalism is not subject to karma?

When people think, say and do things in love or personalism, those thoughts, words and actions are not subject to karma?

I would have thought that all thinking, speaking and acting is subject to karma - karma in the sense of the fourfold formula mentioned eariler, indicating that interactions between thoughts, words and actions are very complex.

Why would a good God create beings who desire to be separate from God?

its part of having independence - that is what distinguishes us from the external energy (or dull matter) - if we didn't have the scope to misuse independence, there would be no possibility of love or even issues of good or bad. Basically the reason we are created with independence is because we are created with the ability to love and enter into relationships of reciptocation

I can't argue against that directly.

However, I see no point in accepting that stance, I even think that accepting it can be harmful.

For one, because I recognize nothing about myself that I could term "soul".

For two, because presuming that I have or am such a thing as "soul" is bound for mistaking: as far as I can tell, everything that I consider "I", "me", "mine", "my self", "who I really am", are thoughts, words and actions - and they are subject to karma. Whatever is subject to karma, is not self. I see no use in presuming a self when it's obvious that I am going to make a mistake about it.

It's is not that I am saying "There is no self". I am saying that whatever I would currently think to be my "self", would most likely not be my self - and I have no way to tell either way.
To be able to recognize what the self is, one would have to be beyond karma, or at least know the full workings of karma - and I don't know that.

Moreover, having a view of self such as "I am a basically good person", "I am a basically bad person", "I am a basically neutral person", "I have a self", "I have an eternal and independent self", "I have no self", "I have a dependent self" - holding either of such views makes for deluded thinking in one way or another (because one has breached the competnece of what one actually knows for oneself), to laziness and inaction.

sure - but regardless whether one deals with it successfully or not, the ultimate result is the same for everyone in all circumstances (along with everything in relation to the body - ie friendship, position, wealth etc etc)

See above about karma.