The first question or feeling that always comes to my mind, when the definition of atheism is given by a rejection of a belive in deity is: what we are really talking about? It seems to me that gods of monotheistic and polytheistic religions are meant. Which means to me, that they are outside entities with metaphysical skills interfering humans life (mostly in some kind of enslaving way with rules and so on).

Since I am new, not only in this forum but also in the intellectual world of atheism , I just read across several threads and also looked up some definitions. What I found was very inhomogenious. This is a fruitful situation, since there are many perspectives. There are people seaming to be atheists, according to the explanation above, some people seeming to be some kind of achristians, having reasons to express their opposition to christianity as form of atheism, there are people naming themselfs agnostic atheists (reading about that I found this position quite interesting).

Up to now, by question myself about my feelings and beliefs, I came to the result, that I have a need to define, what is meant about deity, otherwise speaking about it would not make sens to me. As I recently learned by research about these topics this might be a kind of ignosticism? What I can do is to define what I understand and then taking a position in relation to this definition. (yes, I confess beeing an inch pincher by Passion )

My point of view, is, that these outside deities, I tried to define above, are projections from humans, that mirror inside characteristics, archetypes and so on, at the one hand, or that this deities with their rules have been introduced because of leading people, (ab)using power is much easier if you have an almighty power in your back giving you authority you otherwise wouldn't have, and that could not be confronted with any kind of logic. In this sense of deieties I would say, no they are not real and they do not exists in real life but are a creation of people that need it for their aims, what ever they might be.

On the other hand I am not a naturalist in a sense of the philosophical meaning of the word (only the natural world, ruled by the principles of nature exist, and nothing else). This was what my grandfather understood for himself when he said, that he is an atheist. In my opinion there is more than our conciousness identifies as the natural world in the sense of a trivial use of the word 'reallity'. But this is in no way something like an outstanding deity.

What would you say, is this a kind of atheism?

Quote:What would you say, is this a kind of atheism?

No


The definition of atheism is simple and unequivocal. IE A disbelief in gods; it is about BELIEF.

Atheism is unrelated to gnosticism,agnosticism or ignosticism,which are about KNOWLEDGE.

(December 25, 2011 at 4:52 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:What would you say, is this a kind of atheism?

The definition of atheism is simple and unequivocal. IE A disbelief in gods; it is about BELIEF.

But I can also beliefe in pink elephants driving cars without belief that they are gods. And that truely would not have anything to do with atheism but is all about belief. So atheism is also about something that you just call gods, and that was the point. Coming from a monotheistic or also polytheistic religion it might be clear what is meant by 'gods'. But then I have to understand atheism (coming from a family with naturalistic background) as kind of opposition to such religions. But there are so many other possible positions. This is not disposing it all. For an ex-christian or something likely, this would be really a great step for his personal freedom, but seen in entirety is it only this opposition to monotheistic/polytheistic religion? (this is not a rethoric or provocing question, I just want to understand things that are not clear to me).

Suit yourself.. I grew out of sophism as a first year undergraduate.

(December 26, 2011 at 5:03 am)Mind42 Wrote:

(December 25, 2011 at 4:52 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:What would you say, is this a kind of atheism?

The definition of atheism is simple and unequivocal. IE A disbelief in gods; it is about BELIEF.

But I can also beliefe in pink elephants driving cars without belief that they are gods. And that truely would not have anything to do with atheism but is all about belief. So atheism is also about something that you just call gods, and that was the point. Coming from a monotheistic or also polytheistic religion it might be clear what is meant by 'gods'. But then I have to understand atheism (coming from a family with naturalistic background) as kind of opposition to such religions. But there are so many other possible positions. This is not disposing it all. For an ex-christian or something likely, this would be really a great step for his personal freedom, but seen in entirety is it only this opposition to monotheistic/polytheistic religion? (this is not a rethoric or provocing question, I just want to understand things that are not clear to me).

Is English your native language? I'm having some trouble figuring out why you used some words where you did.
A deity is, in my opinion, any entity with powers which can affect our world, and which can't be measured or explained in a logical manner.
Atheism is classified as a disbelief in a deity or multiple deities. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Therefore, a person can choose not to believe in anything they wish, but unless that thing classifies as a deity, the person is not an atheist.

Quote:what we are really talking about?

Basically we are talking about whatever invisible sky-daddy is held in high esteem by the theist asking the question. They dismiss all other invisible sky-daddy's but their own.

(December 26, 2011 at 5:03 am)Mind42 Wrote:

(December 25, 2011 at 4:52 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:What would you say, is this a kind of atheism?

The definition of atheism is simple and unequivocal. IE A disbelief in gods; it is about BELIEF.

But I can also beliefe in pink elephants driving cars without belief that they are gods. And that truely would not have anything to do with atheism but is all about belief. So atheism is also about something that you just call gods, and that was the point. Coming from a monotheistic or also polytheistic religion it might be clear what is meant by 'gods'. But then I have to understand atheism (coming from a family with naturalistic background) as kind of opposition to such religions. But there are so many other possible positions. This is not disposing it all. For an ex-christian or something likely, this would be really a great step for his personal freedom, but seen in entirety is it only this opposition to monotheistic/polytheistic religion? (this is not a rethoric or provocing question, I just want to understand things that are not clear to me).

I just want to understand things that are not clear to me.


Just step out of mind itself, then all will be clear. You seem confused - mind itself is synonymous with confusion so if you are in it, you will always be split, divided and unsure. There are as many questions as they're answers, stick to relevence. The question of wether or not there is a God is childish. People only cling to Gods out of fear and greed which is understandable if you are identified with the mind. There is no answer to such a question. And indeed such a question cannot even be asked. If it could then you would also be in a position to ask what is the meaning of life. But first you would need to create distance and since you are life itself this too would also be an impossibility. Unless of course you topped yourself but then you would be defeating the objective.

Ellease

Quote:I just want to understand things that are not clear to me.

That may be so,but what comes across is a patronising,didactic twat with nothing to teach

So thank you for all the answers.
First: so yes, english is far away from being my mother tongue, and I have to look up words, so I surely also choose expressions that are unusual or not suiting well. In the second place, the correction function of taptalk really is annoying me, since it often changes my words. I re-read what I wrote afterwards, but I am sometimes do not find the wrongly 'corrected' words.

What adds to this fact is that I am really confused, and obviously have problems to define a clear question, so I think I wrote to find my question, not to ask a question. I read across several threads and looked up some terms in a dictionary and then all my thougths rolled over quite a bit. I am still not satisfied with this deity-thing I feel. But what makes it so unsatisfying?
Let me have another try.
From the view of my grandfather, the thing is clear. There is nothing beyond physical world. Also no god, that is an entity. Even I do not have a need for a controlling or interfering entity, and think that such entities are projections, I've problems with this total refusement of every kind of metaphysics. But this is maybe the problem of beeing trapped in my thoughts at the moment, as you mentioned.

Uhm, don't know. I am still confused and also not satisfied... I guess, if the answer is 42, I still have to search for the rigth question.

To me it makes little or no difference if one believes in a deity that has little or no impact on the known universe, that it might as well not be there at all. I just don't see any reason for me to believe there is one.