Atheist struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself

[Simon Moon]

i'm wondering if you can help me im an atheist but am struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself it goes something like this.....

If you see an ant crawling across the ground, to the ant, you are his god that could wipe him out at time, he has no intelligence of you or that you exist, for the ant he is as intelligent as he is going to get, and can't even comprehend we exist.

So could we be in the same position as the ant? as far as we can see humans right now are as intelligent as we can get, but growing up we do not have the intelligence capacity to comprehend our surrounding. As children, take a 1 year old or any age under 3-4 we are also at that point, (The same as the ant) as intelligent at THAT time as we are going to get and cannot comprehend to world around us intelligently.

So just the same as the ant, adults at our height point of intelligence, to the toddler we are the Gods. What if we, right NOW are at this point in time, at our current level of intelligence are in the same position as the Ant and Toddler? Could there be an unknown Force, Entity, that just the same as we are unknown to the ant and the toddler to his or her world, that is looking at us as we look at the ant?

As its happening right now to the ant and toddler, this is proof it can, and is happening, It doesn't seem that extraordinary somthing is looknig at us in the same way,

Would love to hear what you think,

Thanks

The answer is YES.

But what would be my justification to BELIEVE that such a being exists?

Remember, atheism is NOT the claim that gods don't exist. It is the rejection of theistic claims.

It actually is quite extraordinary to posit that a god is looking down on us. There is drastically insufficient evidence and valid/sound logic to support such a proposition.

[Brian37]

Again, that is only the trivial definition of atheism you and others have chosen to embrace, i.e. one that applies applies to infants and the unaware. The alternate and meaningful definition of atheism is a intellectual negative stance with respect to the proposition that "God(s) exist."

I do not consider you so young or so indifferent as to not have taken a stance.

Nothing about atheism requires this "negative stance" if by that you mean taking up a knowledge position that there are no gods. It only requires seeing no valid reason to afford belief to any deities.

I believe that you are describing gnostic or "hard" atheism which I daresay most atheists who have really considered their philosophical position do not subscribe to.

Why? Because invisible beings and realms are inherently unfalsifiable hypotheses ... therefore, no knowledge position for OR against can be justified.

That's a rather technical distinction of course. What theists want, and what we withhold, is belief given without a requirement of evidence / substantiation / logical argument.

Ok, if NEO wants to play that game and use "negative stance", let him have it.

I also take a negative stance against invisible pink unicorns and the tooth fairy. Funny how NEO doesn't take time to reject those claims.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Again, that is only the trivial definition of atheism you and others have chosen to embrace, i.e. one that applies applies to infants and the unaware. The alternate and meaningful definition of atheism is a intellectual negative stance with respect to the proposition that "God(s) exist."

I do not consider you so young or so indifferent as to not have taken a stance.

Nothing about atheism requires this "negative stance" if by that you mean taking up a knowledge position that there are no gods. It only requires seeing no valid reason to afford belief to any deities.

A proposition is either true or not true. So with respect to the proposition "God(s) exist." there are only two options. The proposition is either true, the theist stance, or it is not true, the atheist stance. The meaningful definition of atheism I have given does not force atheists to claim metaphysical knowledge; but rather asks them to own where they stand with respect to the question.

(Well, maybe there is a third option called 'I don't care' but I do not seriously believe any AF member falls into that category.)

[Whateverist]

The former which our new member brought up at least keeps in mind perspective where yours just glibly assumes things we are in no position to know.

That is precisely my objection to atheism...it devolves into nihilism. When you say "we are in no position to know" you are basically saying that reason is unreliable and that the world is not intelligible. Holding either or both is self-defeating.

To point out some limits to reason is hardly the same thing as concluding the world is not intelligible. It is in contrast to the largely intelligible world that your confident claims regarding what is beyond the world makes no sense. If you say you prefer to imagine there is an absolute uber-omega fine. But if you insist that because you can imagine it it must be so, you go too far. By all means, have it your way for private purposes. But don't be surprised when those without your kinks are not persuaded.

---

Nothing about atheism requires this "negative stance" if by that you mean taking up a knowledge position that there are no gods. It only requires seeing no valid reason to afford belief to any deities.

A proposition is either true or not true. So with respect to the proposition "God(s) exist." there are only two options. The proposition is either true, the theist stance, or it is not true, the atheist stance. The meaningful definition of atheism I have given does not force atheists to claim metaphysical knowledge; but rather asks them to own where they stand with respect to the question.

(Well, maybe there is a third option called 'I don't care' but I do not seriously believe any AF member falls into that category.)

Well, I think it is possible to be interested in why humankind has been so taken by god belief and why so many still are without having interest in the question whether literal gods are out there in the cosmos.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing about atheism requires this "negative stance" if by that you mean taking up a knowledge position that there are no gods. It only requires seeing no valid reason to afford belief to any deities.

A proposition is either true or not true. So with respect to the proposition "God(s) exist." there are only two options. The proposition is either true, the theist stance, or it is not true, the atheist stance. The meaningful definition of atheism I have given does not force atheists to claim metaphysical knowledge; but rather asks them to own where they stand with respect to the question.

(Well, maybe there is a third option called 'I don't care' but I do not seriously believe any AF member falls into that category.)

Hm, I must have missed it, where's the nihilism in a negative stance to the god proposition?  Let me check again.  Nope...still not there. Third times the charm....ah.....maybe if I squint real hard?

[Fake Messiah]

Well this topic is nothing but the classic "You can't prove that God does not exist" and again for uptinth time atheism is not a declaration that no gods exist. Atheism is no belief in gods. That's all. The absence of belief is not the same as knowledge about the nonexistence of gods. The universe is a big place. A few gods might be hiding somewhere over in the next galaxy. Or fairies, or Borg. So if someone says to me, "Fairies are real and you should believe in them," it's not my responsibility to prove that fairies don't exist.

Same thing is with the rest of the gods that are not part of "your" religion. Like your inability to disprove the existence of god Daksha mean that he must be real so everybody should worship him?

[Rhondazvous]

If I am to god as the ant is to me then I could no more love or worship said god than an ant can love or worship me. It I can have no more awareness of a god than an ant has of me then I'm not called to any action. I live my life in my limited intelligence just as the ant does in his.

On the other hand, no god named by humans has a life of his own to live, but spends all his time worrying about what humans are doing. In that way the comparison to ants breaks down.

[brewer]

I show love with a magnifying glass.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That is precisely my objection to atheism...it devolves into nihilism. When you say "we are in no position to know" you are basically saying that reason is unreliable and that the world is not intelligible. Holding either or both is self-defeating.

To point out some limits to reason is hardly the same thing as concluding the world is not intelligible.

Of course there are epistemological limits to what reason can and cannot reveal. My point is about the efficacy of reason as a tool. i.e. that there are truth preserving forms, such as syllogisms, and inviolate rules of thought, such as the principle of non-contradiction. You cannot rationally prove these are valid, you either recognize them as self-evident and believe they are true or you don't. Similarly, you either believe that the world has a rational order or you don't. No one can prove that it does; the world could be absurd.

Nevertheless, both of these foundational beliefs are fundamental to Christian theism. Believers' reliance on these as absolute principles is repeatedly attacked when atheists dispute the main logical demonstrations for theism, such as First Cause and Necessary Being. And indeed those objections work because the absolute principles on which those demonstrations rest are beyond the epistemological limit. But that kind of victory comes at great cost. In so doing, the skeptics are either denying reason's efficacy and/or asserting absurdity. Both approaches are nihilistic in nature.

[Thumpalumpacus]

i'm wondering if you can help me im an atheist but am struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself it goes something like this.....

If you see an ant crawling across the ground, to the ant, you are his god that could wipe him out at time, he has no intelligence of you or that you exist, for the ant he is as intelligent as he is going to get, and can't even comprehend we exist.

So could we be in the same position as the ant? as far as we can see humans right now are as intelligent as we can get, but growing up we do not have the intelligence capacity to comprehend our surrounding. As children, take a 1 year old or any age under 3-4 we are also at that point, (The same as the ant) as intelligent at THAT time as we are going to get and cannot comprehend to world around us intelligently.

So just the same as the ant, adults at our height point of intelligence, to the toddler we are the Gods. What if we, right NOW are at this point in time, at our current level of intelligence are in the same position as the Ant and Toddler? Could there be an unknown Force, Entity, that just the same as we are unknown to the ant and the toddler to his or her world, that is looking at us as we look at the ant?

As its happening right now to the ant and toddler, this is proof it can, and is happening, It doesn't seem that extraordinary somthing is looknig at us in the same way,

Would love to hear what you think,

Thanks

When my son was a toddler, I didn't let him cross freeways on his own, and I sure didn't bake him in the oven when when he broke the rules. It kinda goes along with that whole "I know better" thing.

Nice try, though.

---

We're always wondering/worried that someone or something is watching us - at least on some level.  It;s one of the reasons we project conceptual "entities"onto forces, or imagine that there is some equivalence between them [...]