My view and reasons for them. Atheist and Christians welcome here. (short)

[Astreja]

I don't believe many people thought up the idea there is no God on their own...

It comes naturally when you listen to wild-ass claims about things like people coming back from the dead, magic trees, and Talking Snakes™ and then realize, much to your shock, that some people believe those things are real.

[Edwardo Piet]

 

Isn't it convenient that all religitards everywhere manage to get born into a culture which just so happens to follow the One True Religion?  Almost miraculous.

I'm not religious.

How does your pantheism differ from atheism in any way in regards to what you actually believe? Is your pantheism a difference of belief or just a re-labeling of something that isn't a deity that everybody already believes exists (such as the universe)?

---

My opinion is this: You have been taught the steps, what more is your belief than that? I don't believe many people thought up the idea there is no God on their own since historically speaking, humans have believed a God exists. So I don't think they came to the conclusion themselves, but that this is something that is taught (or worse, they are simply believing in an antithesis). The point here is that people are not thinking for themselves.....

“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” ~ Anaïs Nin

Good one, and one I've enjoyed for many years myself, too.

Although here's my personal favorite on this matter:

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer,
Psychological observations

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't believe many people thought up the idea there is no God on their own...

It comes naturally when you listen to wild-ass claims about things like people coming back from the dead, magic trees, and Talking Snakes™ and then realize, much to your shock, that some people believe those things are real.

It's as simple as not picking up a penny, eh, lol?  If I had to make wild guess (and why not, right, lol) I;d chalk it up to the faithfuls experience being so much the opposite of this that they can;t imagine a faithless state.  They think there;s something a person has to do, or learn, or maintain.  They think..in short, that it mirrors their god beliefs.

[The Industrial Atheist]

I don;t recall it having ever been any sort of idea that I came up with at all.  As you mention.."historically", people have been believers.  I just never believed what so many of you believe.  I didn't know there was a name for it until much, much later. 

I think that is a perfectly reasonable answer. The only thing I will say is that you probably changed and started playing the dance when you did find out what it was called. I find myself in a state  of reevaluation knowing that what you are saying here about your beliefs is probably true. My only problem there is that I question where the point that your learned what it was called if you are an atheist since I think that is a pretty common belief which would be difficult to not know about.

People thought that the browns were a lesser race since a long time ago, as well.  I don;t know how anything you just wrote absolves your "historically" common god believing hypocrisy, why you feel that you can;t know whether or not gods exist, or why something being written on a cave wall is suddenly more likely to be true...........or that any of that would lead to anything miraculous or divine. Glad to clear up your misunderstanding, in my case..anyway.  Maybe you could clear some of the above up for me?

What makes you say I am automatically a hypocrite based on my beliefs? I am not saying those things lead to things that are miraculous or divine. 

Oh yeah, this guy's gonna be around here for a looooong time.....

I might duck out if it gets toxic >.<

And how do you know that we're not thinking for ourselves, Quick?  It's easy to fling out vague accusations at people who don't share your worldview; it's quite another thing to demonstrate the veracity of those accusations.  Show your work, please.

I am not saying that people don't think for themselves in all aspects of their life. IME, simply living life requires at least some thinking on your own. What I am talking about is where there is when you take a stance, and it is a stance many people have taken before you, you are probably going to use what those other people have said and follow it. In a way, I am saying people are groomed to know the "correct" way. There is a psychological component here of us vs them and in doing so, this leads to a certain correctness which leads to people not thinking on their own.

There are too many fallacies in that ^ for me to even begin... sorry matey.
The word god is a loaded word ... And if not of the bible, then what? advanced alien? we can do this all day?

There's a reason why I'm ignostic... It's like agnostic but with no sugar. (for people like me with no imagination)

I am not sure what the fallacies I am making are. IME ignostic is just apathy while agnostic is uncertainty. The latter leads to discovery and the former does not.

Can you give a specific example of what you mean here because without it this statement of yours looks like nothing more than word salad
I think the connect between an objective phenomena and your own interpretation of it might be so loose as to allow for the God hypothesis

Sure. Like take for example how in quantum mechanics that if you are looking for something, a different things happens than if you are not looking.

I'm very confused by your use of the word agnostic here, could you define the word 'agnosticism' for me.


This is not pantheism. What you have described here is a deity.

When I say agnostic what I am really saying is that I do not actually know whether that thing is true or not. I am unsure. 

I am not going to swet the details of what my belief is called or falls under, because I don't think it is important. I find what the actual belief is is more important than what it is called.

I had been a Christian from my early teens to mid thirties. I became disillusioned when I realized all those rules can't be followed, and all the guilt was for nothing. Sure I took advantage of available resources like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Stenger. But the initiative was all me, and I was convinced rather than brainwashed.

So it all flowed from this: These rules are supposed to come from god, god is supposed to be supremely moral, these rules can't be followed, resulting in unjust suffering(guilt)
Therefore this supposed just god doesn't exist, or someone has been lying about what he wants and expects.

Again, I am not saying the discovery process of finding out what you believe wasn't your own doing, but that once you knew, you started to figure out what the rules of the game were and followed them, which then leads to less thinking on your own. It is the same basic thing you did for your christianity that you are doing for atheism.

Well, nothing happens in a vacuum. This goes for pretty much everything. Especially in the case of Victor Stenger's "God, the Failed Hypothesis" credible evidence was presented. Believing credible evidence is just basic. I suppose I could have tried to do all that research on my own, but I didn't have to. With anything, nobody starts from square one.

Now sometimes, charismatic people can convince you of things that aren't true, but I don't think this is the case here. Even if I had a  degree in Evolutionary Biology, I would have had to accept facts based on credible evidence to get to that point.

I mean, I could have gone back to being a Christian if I wanted to. In some ways my life would have been easier.

[Simon Moon]

I do not mean the God of the bible. I am very very agnostic towards what the bible says as a matter of fact. I am talking about my own subjective interpretation of how some things appear to be apart of something bigger than oneself and that this could be interpreted as the will of a greater being that is intentionally ambiguous in its dichotomies because it is very hard to see it's limitations and/or tangible observability.

What makes you believe that your subjective opinion maps, in an accurate way, to reality?

Humans live our day to day lives relying almost exclusively by inference and induction. This works well because, for the most part, today is almost exactly like yesterday, and tomorrow. We are overly proud of this ability, because it works so well, until it doesn't. It doesn't tend to work, with regards to existential claims.

The core problem, is that our minds act like "hyperactive agency detectors" and "hyperactive pattern seekers". We try to find patterns, where they may not exist. And we try to find agency where it probably doesn't exist. We do this, because we evolved to survive on the African plains, not ponder the universe.

So, how do you discern the whether your position (that, 'some things appear to be apart of something bigger than oneself'), is actually true, or that is just your brain using its natural proclivity to find patterns and agency where there is none?

Wouldn't basing one's beliefs on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic be more reliable, than depending on your subjective interpretation?

Please explain how subjective interpretation is a reliable path to truth?

I mean after all, some people use their 'subjective interpretations' to come to the conclusion that: 1000's of people are possessed by demons, that all things are inhabited and animated by spirits, that crystal healing is effective, that Tarot card readings are accurate, that Jinn exist in middle eastern deserts,  etc, etc, etc...

[Quick]

Sure but consider how we have a direct impact on things separate from what is

Everything is directly or indirectly connected to everything else so therefore the notion of any type of separation is a false one
For even if there are other universes and we inhabit a multiverse what exists between them is a part of the fabric of reality too

The fact that everything is connected, is a reason why I hold the beliefs I do. When I talk about separation, context is important. It should be obvious what I mean, but instead you try and apply a grand principle to the dichotomy I used to make a point. You didn't address that point I made, you stated that on a grand scale my premise is wrong. When looking at things there are orders of magnitude. You used a level of magnitude that doesn't fit the situation.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable answer. The only thing I will say is that you probably changed and started playing the dance when you did find out what it was called.

What...on earth...are you talking about, lol?

I started off by validating what you said and then went on to take about how I saw thing. You are not doing the same. What do you think I am talking about?

I find myself in a state  of reevaluation knowing that what you are saying here about your beliefs is probably true. My only problem there is that I question where the point that your learned what it was called if you are an atheist since I think that is a pretty common belief which would be difficult to not know about.

I cant recall when I first heard the term atheist and said..hm, oh yeah.  Why would I know anything about atheism in a "historically" believing world?  You know we non-believers aren;t grown on atheist farms or anything like that...right?

Again, you make the same mistake as the person I replied to first. As an order of magnitude, looking at time and seeing that historically, as in, the history of humans, which is a much larger time frame than the time frame used to say in recent history of humans in relation to the length of time we have been alive, these are two different things and you have made a misuse of magnitude.

And spare me your facetiousness, ofc I know atheists don't grow on farms. This comment tells me you are not approaching this conversation in a effort to understand.

What makes you say I am automatically a hypocrite based on my beliefs? I am not saying those things lead to things that are miraculous or divine. 

Fairly simple, really..you let loose a minor bitchfest about how atheists™ weren;t thinking for themselves..a common bit of nonsense for the faithful...then immediately assured yourself (I guess?) that you weren't a hypocrite...directly before listing off not only a common belief, but a common set of rationalizations for that belief.  Now...sure...sure, you could have arrived at the exact script of every other nutter in existence, by enormous coincidence alone...in a "historically" believing world.........but if you already find it unlikely that some minority viewpoint is thinking for itself...the likelihood of your scenario being representative of anything other than groupthinking hypocrisy must be even less than that.

Right?

Well, that's not my stance and that is not what I am saying. If you read my other comments in this thread, I give context to what I mean when I talk about being in a dance. My opinion is informed based on what I know, ofc. Part of what I know is different viewpoints on the belief in God or gods. But I am not really following other pantheists/agnostics to see what they believe so that it can inform me on what I believe, which, when/if I did, then I would be playing the same dance that everyone else is.

I don't believe many people thought up the idea there is no God on their own since historically speaking, humans have believed a God exists.

What about 40,000 years of prehistory and other species of humans prior to homo sapiens sapiens? What about homo erectus?  What about australopithecines? What about other modern non-human apes like chimps that share over 98% of our DNA?  

What about the fact that even in the year 2018 we're not born believing in God either? Belief in God is no more natural than celebrating Halloween.

Well, then I would say the entity first has to have the actual capacity to make a decision on whether they believe in God or not. Animals do not have that capacity.

I don't believe many people thought up the idea there is no God on their own...

It comes naturally when you listen to wild-ass claims about things like people coming back from the dead, magic trees, and Talking Snakes™ and then realize, much to your shock, that some people believe those things are real.

Again, I would say this is believing in an antithesis.

I'm not religious.

How does your pantheism differ from atheism in any way in regards to what you actually believe? Is your pantheism a difference of belief or just a re-labeling of something that isn't a deity that everybody already believes exists (such as the universe)?

How does my believes differ from an atheists? We I have been talking about what I believe in this thread. Measure that with what an atheist believes and you will have your answer.
I am not very quick to say what category my beliefs fall into because I don't think it's important. In this way, I would say, no, it's not just a relabeling of something else.

Well, nothing happens in a vacuum. This goes for pretty much everything. Especially in the case of Victor Stenger's "God, the Failed Hypothesis" credible evidence was presented. Believing credible evidence is just basic. I suppose I could have tried to do all that research on my own, but I didn't have to. With anything, nobody starts from square one.

Now sometimes, charismatic people can convince you of things that aren't true, but I don't think this is the case here. Even if I had a  degree in Evolutionary Biology, I would have had to accept facts based on credible evidence to get to that point.

I mean, I could have gone back to being a Christian if I wanted to. In some ways my life would have been easier.

I am not sure how what you are saying conflicts with what I have said. Could you clarify?

I do not mean the God of the bible. I am very very agnostic towards what the bible says as a matter of fact. I am talking about my own subjective interpretation of how some things appear to be apart of something bigger than oneself and that this could be interpreted as the will of a greater being that is intentionally ambiguous in its dichotomies because it is very hard to see it's limitations and/or tangible observability.

What makes you believe that your subjective opinion maps, in an accurate way, to reality?

Humans live our day to day lives relying almost exclusively by inference and induction. This works well because, for the most part, today is almost exactly like yesterday, and tomorrow. We are overly proud of this ability, because it works so well, until it doesn't. It doesn't tend to work, with regards to existential claims.

The core problem, is that our minds act like "hyperactive agency detectors" and "hyperactive pattern seekers". We try to find patterns, where they may not exist. And we try to find agency where it probably doesn't exist. We do this, because we evolved to survive on the African plains, not ponder the universe.

So, how do you discern the whether your position (that, 'some things appear to be apart of something bigger than oneself'), is actually true, or that is just your brain using its natural proclivity to find patterns and agency where there is none?

Wouldn't using demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic be more reliable, than depending on your subjective interpretation?

I mean after all, some people use their 'subjective interpretations' to come to the conclusion that: 1000's of people are possessed by demons, that all things are inhabited and animated by spirits, that crystal healing is effective, that Tarot card readings are accurate, that Jinn exist in middle eastern deserts,  etc, etc, etc...

I can't be sure my subjective mappings of reality are any more accurate than anyone else's.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm here to get an alibi.

"No, officer, at the time I was posting on an atheist forum."

'No, I have no idea how those body parts ended up in my car."

"What happened to the last officer who pulled me over? I have no idea!"

[The Industrial Atheist]

I think that is a perfectly reasonable answer. The only thing I will say is that you probably changed and started playing the dance when you did find out what it was called. I find myself in a state  of reevaluation knowing that what you are saying here about your beliefs is probably true. My only problem there is that I question where the point that your learned what it was called if you are an atheist since I think that is a pretty common belief which would be difficult to not know about.


What makes you say I am automatically a hypocrite based on my beliefs? I am not saying those things lead to things that are miraculous or divine. 


I might duck out if it gets toxic >.<


I am not saying that people don't think for themselves in all aspects of their life. IME, simply living life requires at least some thinking on your own. What I am talking about is where there is when you take a stance, and it is a stance many people have taken before you, you are probably going to use what those other people have said and follow it. In a way, I am saying people are groomed to know the "correct" way. There is a psychological component here of us vs them and in doing so, this leads to a certain correctness which leads to people not thinking on their own.


I am not sure what the fallacies I am making are. IME ignostic is just apathy while agnostic is uncertainty. The latter leads to discovery and the former does not.


Sure. Like take for example how in quantum mechanics that if you are looking for something, a different things happens than if you are not looking.


When I say agnostic what I am really saying is that I do not actually know whether that thing is true or not. I am unsure. 

I am not going to swet the details of what my belief is called or falls under, because I don't think it is important. I find what the actual belief is is more important than what it is called.


Again, I am not saying the discovery process of finding out what you believe wasn't your own doing, but that once you knew, you started to figure out what the rules of the game were and followed them, which then leads to less thinking on your own. It is the same basic thing you did for your christianity that you are doing for atheism.

Well, nothing happens in a vacuum. This goes for pretty much everything. Especially in the case of Victor Stenger's "God, the Failed Hypothesis" credible evidence was presented. Believing credible evidence is just basic. I suppose I could have tried to do all that research on my own, but I didn't have to. With anything, nobody starts from square one.

Now sometimes, charismatic people can convince you of things that aren't true, but I don't think this is the case here. Even if I had a  degree in Evolutionary Biology, I would have had to accept facts based on credible evidence to get to that point.

I mean, I could have gone back to being a Christian if I wanted to. In some ways my life would have been easier.

Christianity has invented myths rather than credible facts. They even say it's based on faith, and that any evidence they have comes from faith.

[Quick]

Christianity has invented myths rather than credible facts. They even say it's based on faith, and that any evidence they have comes from faith.

I'd say the belief that there is no God is a faith as well. The only way for your belief to not be a faith is to say you don't know since there isn't proof one way or another.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that's not my stance and that is not what I am saying. If you read my other comments in this thread, I give context to what I mean when I talk about being in a dance. My opinion is informed based on what I know, ofc. Part of what I know is different viewpoints on the belief in God or gods. But I am not really following other pantheists/agnostics to see what they believe so that it can inform me on what I believe, which, when/if I did, then I would be playing the same dance that everyone else is.

I think it;s cute that you think that, while simultaneously imagining that there's some atheist factory out there in the world..... and that you, yes you...are a credible authority on atheism.

So long as you presist in this utterly common bullshit about atheism being a belief...you will have missed what atheism actually is by as far as it could be missed. You'll likely be treated as if yoiu were any of the other nutters before you who;ve been through here and made the same claims, providing the same rationalizations.