Atheism

[blessmycottonsocks]

We cite the big bang as the origin of the universe but don't know what came before.

The big bang is what theists would call the moment of creation, so doesn't require anything to have existed before it.

 

[Sid]

People generally abhor uncertainty. Better to be certain and wrong than uncertain.

Yet uncertainty creates curiosity, which could also prove to be very rewarding?

 

[Delightful]

All depends how the term is used, it seems to me.
Atheism can be understood as just a lack of belief.

 

[Sid]

All depends how the term is used, it seems to me.
*Atheism can be understood as just a lack of belief.

Atheism can be understood as just a lack of. . . (any particular) belief?

 

[Delightful]

Sorry, I meant lack of belief in god(s). I hoped the context of the thread would carry that through, but I should have been more clear.

 

[Tunn11]

The big bang is what theists would call the moment of creation, so doesn't require anything to have existed before it.

Aren't they curious about what God was up to before the big bang?

 

[Sid]

Aren't they curious about what God was up to before the big bang?

Probably zooming about in one of many Universes in his UAP.

 

[Stormkhan]

Two ways of looking at it.
If you believe in God, God existed but the universe didn't. In a different dimension which God created too, and so on ad infinitum - which is pretty God-like. Perpetuity, innit?
If you don't believe in God, it's honest curiosity - where did the Big Bang occur? Where did the Big Bang come from? Before that, before that ... a never ending quest really.
Good science is always a search, the things you discover on the way are the products of that neverending search.

 

[Yithian]

All depends how the term is used, it seems to me.
Atheism can be understood as just a lack of belief.

This doesn't work at all for me.

Would one call a baby an atheist for lacking belief?

No.

How about a bonobo?

No, since no bonobos--to the best of our knowledge--hold religious beliefs.

So would the term 'atheist' be intelligible in a community that lacked all religious belief?

No, since atheism only makes sense in a sphere in which there is already theism to dissent from: one could not be said to lack something unless that thing already exists somewhere else. It is only possible, for instance, to be amoral in a world in which moral thought and behaviour exists; similarly, things cannot be described as atypical unless still more things are said to be typical.

I cannot intelligibly complain that my hotel lacked a sizzleflump if sizzleflumps do not actually exist.

 

[Stormkhan]

Really the clue is in the name: without theism, atheism doesn't exist.
It's not the absence of a belief in God - it's an active disbelief.

 

[Delightful]

So we can tighten up the definition then, Yithian, to say:
Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s) by a being capable of understanding the concept of god(s).

 

[Sid]

This doesn't work at all for me.
'I cannot intelligibly complain that my hotel lacked a sizzleflump if sizzleflumps do not actually exist.'

Sizzleflump. . . could be described as - a flump (a fall down/lowering), in the standards in the way sausages are sizzled in the frying pan!

 

[uair01]

Aren't they curious about what God was up to before the big bang?

The Kabbalah has answers for that

 

[Sollywos]

People generally abhor uncertainty. Better to be certain and wrong than uncertain.

Well maybe, but speaking for myself I'm very uncomfortable with certainty whether it's in religion, politics or any of the areas of forteana. Once people are certain they are right they've slammed the door on other possibilities.

A lot of people can get a great deal from their religion without getting weighed down by absolute certainties. Some churches can provide a supportive glue to the wider communities that they serve. I'm not too happy with heirarchies and it's the fundamentalists that really bother me with their need to control others.

It would be foolish to discount the idea of an overall divine creative being but in what framework are we supposed to imagine/conceive it? Personally speaking I reject the idea of the god in the Bible claiming the credit for it. Yes I know the notion came from humans initially but you know what I mean.

A lot of people do believe in something greater than themselves and what that something is will largly depend on cultural influences I assume.

As for my own beliefs. It seems to me there is a web of connection operating just below the surface of our undertanding sometimes we are more attuned to it than others and if you get a particular good one you can attribute it to whatever version of god you believe in or just an acknowlegment of 'oh that's just the way the universe works'.

 

[uair01]

Not every atheist, but certainly those who follow QAnon:

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.
G.K. Chesterton

 

[ramonmercado]

Not every atheist, but certainly those who follow QAnon:

I think you'll find that most QAnon followers are evangelical christians.

 

[Fluttermoth]

No, since atheism only makes sense in a sphere in which there is already theism to dissent from: one could not be said to lack something unless that thing already exists somewhere else. It is only possible, for instance, to be amoral in a world in which moral thought and behaviour exists; similarly, things cannot be described as atypical unless still more things are said to be typical.

I see your point, but for me it's more that theism makes a positive claim; "There is a god, which exists". Atheism is merely the rejection of that claim, it doesn't make any positive claims of its own. Yes, that does mean that atheism probably doesn't exist without theism, but they're not two sides of a coin.

It's a little bit like a 'Not Guilty' verdict is not the same as believing the person is innocent, if that metaphor helps at all.

 

[AnonyJ]

I am always a little surprised when scientists particularly in the fields of particle physics, cosmology, etc. say that the more they delve into it the closer they get to belief in a divine being (or words to that effect) yet if someone who doesn't (or won't) understand evolution talks about intelligent design they get very huffy. (Just for the record I'm not a creationist!) ....

I'm not surprised

Although my field of science was more on the botany/biology side, the more I find out about the complexity, massiveness and beauty of what we call The Universe the more I am in simpatico with the creation/creator of all that is.

I have a faith, I guess I would be called a Christian but I am not the 'conventional' type. I see no conflict between any science and God.

 

[Mungoman]

If I follow the idea of patterns within existence, then what came before the Big Bang was a contraction - much like a heartbeat.

Which imposes the idea that at some time in the none foreseeable future, there will come another contraction. My thoughts are determined by the idea behind entropy.

Ad Infinitum? Dunno.

 

[Yithian]

I see your point, but for me it's more that theism makes a positive claim; "There is a god, which exists". Atheism is merely the rejection of that claim, it doesn't make any positive claims of its own. Yes, that does mean that atheism probably doesn't exist without theism, but they're not two sides of a coin.

It's a little bit like a 'Not Guilty' verdict is not the same as believing the person is innocent, if that metaphor helps at all.

I think the nature of the claim changes the matter.

Take the proposition 'there is a chicken in the garden'.

I might assign this proposition the value 'true' and you might assign it 'false'; others might judge it 'undetermined'.

When it come to assigning truth values proposition 'there is a god*', however, the act of doing so transcends mere matters of presence or absence.

If there is, in fact, a god properly deserving of that name/title, it would be a fact of towering importance—for the acceptance of such an existence brings radical and necessary repercussions concerning the nature of the universe, man's place in it, and the speaker's current and future actions.

The existence of chickens tends not to be so momentous.

Consequently, when one rejects the claim that there is a god, one is not merely inscribing a discreet red cross beside a sentence, one is rejecting an entire worldview and supplanting it with another (for, as philosophy has long emphasised, the non-existence of God is also of profound consequence for the nature of existence and man).

It is impossible to reject the proposition without tacitly asserting a deep-reaching belief about the nature of existence.

Gods are not chickens.

*One sufficiently powerful to either create or actually be everything.

 

[Delightful]

I can only speak for myself, but I went from Christian theist to agnostic/ atheist nihilist and I guess it was replacing one worldview with another, but with greater emphasis on what I no longer accept rather than on what I do. I used to believe X, but now I don't believe X etc.

 

[Stormkhan]

I see no conflict between any science and God.

If you believe in the Creator, you could say that God gave mankind the drive to explore, to examine, to question. If God made man, then God also gave man the ability to 'do science'.
Some people claim that the discovery and contact with intelligence not from Earth would question the very nature of God - why so?
If God created the Earth and mankind, then why wouldn't he create other planets, other peoples.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

If you believe in the Creator, you could say that God gave mankind the drive to explore, to examine, to question. If God made man, then God also gave man the ability to 'do science'.
Some people claim that the discovery and contact with intelligence not from Earth would question the very nature of God - why so?
If God created the Earth and mankind, then why wouldn't he create other planets, other peoples.

As indeed Darwin did! The last paragraph of his 1860 edition of "On the Origin of Species" included the following:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

As for the creation of other worlds, in John 14, Jesus states that my father's house has many dwelling places (in the KJB, dwelling places is translated as mansions). This theologist argues that "father's house" does not refer to heaven, because heaven is not mentioned once in the whole chapter. "Father’s house” is more likely to mean anywhere where God’s presence is manifest. I.e. the universe. I would not be surprised if a future interpretation of this scripture is more along the lines of "the universe created by God contains many worlds".

https://seedbed.com/fathers-house-many-mansions/

 

[Sid]

I can only speak for myself, but I went from Christian theist to agnostic/ atheist nihilist and I guess it was replacing one worldview with another, but with greater emphasis on what I no longer accept rather than on what I do. I used to believe X, but now I don't believe X etc.

I think our quality of intelligence makes us all - in one way or another, question everything. . . continually seems to be the way to go. To fixate on one belief is to ignore everything and only accept what you need to justify your views on life and what might, or might not lay behind it.

 

[Delightful]

I certainly change my mind, lifestyle, and pretty much everything else, fairly often.

There aren't many ways in which I haven't changed over the years.

 

[Night_Watch]

I have [permanent] neurological conditions including gait ataxia. The word 'ataxia' comes from the greek; 'a' - without and 'taxis' - order. In my case ataxia has the general meaning of lacking coordination. Atheism is 'a' - without and 'theos' - god. The modern [online] Oxford English Dictionary describes atheism thus; 'The theory or belief that God does not exist.'. Though other dictionaries alter this slightly to 'The theory or belief that God does not or gods do not exist.'. I remember from when I was quite young reading that atheism is a lack of believe in, but not necessarily denial of, the Christian God specifically.

My take on atheism has developed over a long time! Atheism to me is a stand point from where a person does not believe in any god or diety. This can include a lack of believe in what some would call scientific fact.

I had a talk with a pastor recently and told him that I do not have any belief in any god. The pastor replied on the lines that although I may no longer believe in god it is not true that god no longer believes in me. Being a touch of a cad I asked the pastor which god believes in me. After physically moving back in his chair [taken aback] the pastor replied something like 'The God of christianity'. Continuing my cadishness I pointed out that all christians could be classed as atheists in the wider sense of the term. To an Islamic person the christian could be seen as a non believer for example.

I have had similar conversations with a couple of scientists I know. It basically goes that science has proven this or that and I say something in the order of 'Until it is proven otherwise.'. Sometimes I will say that science in itself is little more than a belief system and for some that follow it science is more than just belief and akin to a faith or religion. This has sparked some very interesting debate. There is a lot more to this but it would take a lot of text and time to write it up.

Science and religion are so close to each other with both requiring varients of belief and faith. It is so sad that so many people use there faith and / or believe or lack of either in such negative ways to actively exclude others, cause harm or generally justify their abhorrent behaviour.

As to atheism being a religion or belief system in itself or a fact; maybe it's a bit of all. The answers given regarding any religions, belief systems or facts will vary as to who is being asked. The one thing that can be be said with any certainty is that most people will insist that their worldview is the correct one. Even folk that say they have an open mind and are willing to consider any idea will have been influenced by their life experience and the bias that remains within their or any community. Such is humanity.

 

[uair01]

As a practicing Catholic I don't have much problems with atheists, because for me the domains of fact and belief feel very different. And also the domains of practice and belief feel very different. In my life practice becomes more and more the focus of my religion and belief and fact are secondary. I've been told that Jewish religion is similar, focus is on doing the religion and less on believing or defending the religion. I feel comfortable with that.

Also I follow what Walter Benjamin meant when he said "I don't have a musical ear for religion". For me religion has been a thing since I was six years old. It is a beautiful and enticing construct for me. But I can totally understand that for others it's meaningless.

Like: I totally don't get heavy metal music but I totally get the Grateful Dead. I totally don't get Wagner but I totally get Monteverdi.

 

[ramonmercado]

Secular Services.

Shared testimonies, collective singing, silent meditation and baptism rituals—these are all activities you might find at a Christian church service on a Sunday morning in the United States. But what would it look like if atheists were gathering to do these rituals instead?

Today, almost 30% of adults in the United States say they have no religious affiliation, and only half attend worship services regularly. But not all forms of church are on the decline—including "secular congregations," or what many call "atheist churches."

As a sociologist of religion who has spent the past 10 years studying nonreligious communities, I have found that atheist churches serve many of the same purposes as religious churches. Their growth is evidence that religious decline does not necessarily mean a decline in community, ritual or people's well-being.

Secular congregations often mimic religious organizations by using the language and structure of a "church," such as meeting on Sundays or hearing a member's "testimony," or by adapting religious language or practices in other ways.

For example, there are a growing number of psychedelic churches, which cater to people looking to experience spirituality and ritual through drug use.

There are also secular organizations that promote the idea that people can live forever, such as the Church of Perpetual Life. Members believe they can achieve immortality on Earth through radical life-extension technologies such as gene editing or cryonic preservation—freezing bodies after death in hopes that they can someday be resuscitated.

These secular congregations often appeal to atheists and other secular people, but their main purpose is not promoting atheism.

However, "atheist church" organizations like the Sunday Assembly and the Oasis explicitly celebrate atheists' identities and beliefs, even though not everyone who attends identifies as an atheist. Testimonies and activities extol values like rational thinking and materialist philosophies, ...

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-church-god-secular-congregations-nonreligious.html

 

[escargot]

Secular Services.

Shared testimonies, collective singing, silent meditation and baptism rituals—these are all activities you might find at a Christian church service on a Sunday morning in the United States. But what would it look like if atheists were gathering to do these rituals instead?

Today, almost 30% of adults in the United States say they have no religious affiliation, and only half attend worship services regularly. But not all forms of church are on the decline—including "secular congregations," or what many call "atheist churches."

As a sociologist of religion who has spent the past 10 years studying nonreligious communities, I have found that atheist churches serve many of the same purposes as religious churches. Their growth is evidence that religious decline does not necessarily mean a decline in community, ritual or people's well-being.

Secular congregations often mimic religious organizations by using the language and structure of a "church," such as meeting on Sundays or hearing a member's "testimony," or by adapting religious language or practices in other ways.

For example, there are a growing number of psychedelic churches, which cater to people looking to experience spirituality and ritual through drug use.

There are also secular organizations that promote the idea that people can live forever, such as the Church of Perpetual Life. Members believe they can achieve immortality on Earth through radical life-extension technologies such as gene editing or cryonic preservation—freezing bodies after death in hopes that they can someday be resuscitated.

These secular congregations often appeal to atheists and other secular people, but their main purpose is not promoting atheism.

However, "atheist church" organizations like the Sunday Assembly and the Oasis explicitly celebrate atheists' identities and beliefs, even though not everyone who attends identifies as an atheist. Testimonies and activities extol values like rational thinking and materialist philosophies, ...

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-church-god-secular-congregations-nonreligious.html

This has been going for a good while now. I'd go to one if there were any near me. Singing, chatting, cups of tea, biscuits, mutual support, sounds great.

 

[Steven]

I'm really surprised that any forms similar to those of organised religions would appeal to atheists. Though it's probable that I'm lacking sufficient subtlety of thought.