The Sects of Atheism

[vulcanlogician]

Antisthenes was the guy who commented on natural gods, considered the founder of cynicism.

Cicero, De Natura Deorum

Ah. Gotcha. We learned about Diogenes in school. Dunno where he stands on supernatural or natural gods, but I like the disdain for business as usual. Diogenes was like a proto-Oscar the Grouch. Lived in a clay pot... claimed it was better than owning a decked out house and rolling with elites.

I'm curious about what a natural god is though.

[The Grand Nudger]

I always read that as a clever joke about his alcoholism. As for the one true god in nature being a natural god - we have to say from the outset that it's his detractors who complained about this. He may have simply offered some criticism to unethical priests like "yeah..your trashgod pulling chariots of fire across the sky, that's garbage, the sun isn't being pulled by a chariot you massive douche canoe. Give the people their stuff back and do something good with your life" - and whatever we know about him was the arglebargle that fell out of a pissy god botherer's mind on account of someone having the audacity to mention what was manifestly true even then.

Like here at AF. Like this thread.

Imagine a modern day analog to the priests of the charioteer who pulls the sun. They were massively invested in that imagery, to the point of using the funds they bilked out of poor people to buy chariots..you know, to glorify chariot god and adorn chariot gods temple. Like, how can you even jesus properly without three bentleys and a jet? The Joel Osteens and Creflo Dollars of the world have always been with us, any god story is just as good as another to them.

However, tackling the idea head on, it's not all that remarkable. The vast majority of pagan gods are and were closer to natural gods than supernatural ones - and there's wiggle room in perception because people haven't always believed that the things now held in the category "supernatural" belonged there. They would get lonely, sick, they could die..... they were vulnerable, in short. There are remnants in contemporary monotheism ,we have reason to wonder...is god's allergy to iron supernatural, or is it just the kryptonite to his superman? What's the deal with wrestling jacob, and losing, like a common ford troll? It's the notion that any existent god in this universe is just as subject to the laws of the universe as we are. More powerful, maybe, more intelligent (again, maybe..debatable with respect to the stories and the fact that many gods seem to exist only to be had by our trickster heroes). Has abilities that we don't - but none of them conceived of as something other-than. More generally, that what we believe to be supernatural falls into one of two categories. Wrong on the facts, or a misapprehension of a natural fact. That the gods, and their godpowers....just like clark kent, were part of nature. If not nature itself. That they just know where the levers are, and we don't - or were born with that spoon in their mouth when we aren't, even. Greek society, before it's fall, had gone through something akin to modern day religious indifference and secularization. At the end, it couldn't really be said that the position of the classical intelligentsia was maintained from the time of it's pre-mythical origin. The overriding consensus turned into something like "our society had gotten it all wrong - god's aren't x..they're y." X defined as the contents of their narrative vehicles as then-traditionally stated.

Christians would later use naturalization as a diminutive prism for competing gods. Effectively branding gods as a thing that should be supernatural (whatever that is) and positioning themselves as the sole supplier of quality supernatural gods. People tend not to purchase jeff, the god of biscuits, who lives in a hut in the middle of the forest..when the genie of the lamp is also on offer on the same shelf. That's not just bad for Jeff, it's bad for people too - as unrealistic expectations and demands breed unethical behaviors and responses - which is what antisthenes was most concerned about in his own words, such that we have them. It's only because people can very easily be made to believe in unrepresentative demands and expectations that smooth operators can take them for everything they have. It's only because we expected (and, indeed, demanded) that our rituals to some god would work that we go looking for the witch that spoofed our spell when they don't, in order to burn her..as examples.

Ultimately, a natural god and a religion of nature share one important quality. That all of the divine and sacred is made manifest by, and in, mere reality. That mere reality is grand enough to have gods, or to have sacred meaning. In the formulation cicero was complaining about - that all of those other allegedly supernatural gods were actually just borrowed pieces of the numinous that exists in nature or as nature. There's no need to invoke a supernatural realm to explain it, and..in fact, invoking a supernatural realm doesn't go any way towards explaining any of it in the first place.

[The Grand Nudger]

As an additional bit of fun to chew over, it's not clear that contemporary western theists believe in a supernatural god anymore, either. We're often told when we ask about it, that their god isn't doing anything supernatural, per se - just something we don't understand. The shadow of pagan influence on western society looms large.

[Ahriman]

Religion will always exist in some form or another.......no need to be salty about it.

[no one]

Always? That's a bit of stretch, isn't it? It hasn't always existed, has it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Religion will always exist in some form or another.......no need to be salty about it.

Way to entirely miss the mark, again?   A religion is as good or bad as it's contents, imo.  I doubt you'd rush to mount a defense of the fetus eating religion if I suggested it needed to gtfo.

---

Always? That's a bit of stretch, isn't it? It hasn't always existed, has it?

OFC not, and it hasn't always existed as it exists today, either.   Ahri's religion didn't exist until he had a particularly fanciful set of dreams, for example.

[Mister Agenda]

You suspect Helios doesn't know his own reasons for not believing or is lying about

No. I am suggesting that Helios presented an opinion on a complex topic as if it were a settled fact. At the same time, I am also noting that as a general rule the evidence offered by a theist will not meet the evidentiary standard for an atheist. Again, this is a difference of opinion, not a character flaw or lack of intelligence on anyone's part.

My reasons for not believing are a settled fact and not a 'cover story' and the insinuation that atheists are using 'cover stories' to hide their real reasons for not believing is insulting, uncharitable, and IMHO, trolling.

---

I forgot to leave this here.
I ❤️ You guys.

What happens at an atheist church?
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21319945

People sometimes get together but that does not mean that they are in some religion. People gather in stadiums to cheer for same team but it's not a religion, or gather in the chess club to play chess.

Notice the people involved aren't calling it a church, and if they did, there would probably be some Christians complaining about the appropriation of the term. Heck, I'm a UU and there are Christians saying what we do isn't legitimately church, and it looks a lot churchier than that Sunday Assembly thing.

---

All right serious poster. Let’s define it as “consciousness”. Your turn.

I'll chime in: I believe in consciousness. I experience it, there's evidence others experience it too, and there's even evidence some animal species may experience it. There's nothing in the definition of consciousness that requires it to be something that survives brain death, so I don't imagine that it does.

---

Hah, what a low effort troll.  If you wanna talk souls, talk souls.  If you wanna talk consciousness..lead with that, not some horseshit about a soul.

The soul is awareness after death and yes we will talk about consciousness in another topic. I will use google translate when speaking to you.

So it isn't consciousnes (maybe you should have used one of the other definitions Possibletarian gave you), it's an awareness after death? I don't see any good reason to think that's real.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No. I am suggesting that Helios presented an opinion on a complex topic as if it were a settled fact. At the same time, I am also noting that as a general rule the evidence offered by a theist will not meet the evidentiary standard for an atheist. Again, this is a difference of opinion, not a character flaw or lack of intelligence on anyone's part.

My reasons for not believing are a settled fact and not a 'cover story' and the insinuation that atheists are using 'cover stories' to hide their real reasons for not believing is insulting, uncharitable, and IMHO, trolling.

I hope you aren't referring in any way to me here. I thought I was demonstrating epistemic humility while at the same time suggesting to Helios that what he presented as fact was properly an opinion. The idea I was suggesting, that it is okay for people have different belief thresholds for various kinds of evidence,...that idea sounds very tolerant to me. I expected a little debate but intended no insult to Helios in particular or other contributors in general. Please help me understand how my words may have offended so I avoid doing so in the future.

Or if you you want to debate a little about whether it is in fact okay for people to have different belief thresholds....if you want.

[Astreja]

My reasons for not believing are a settled fact and not a 'cover story' and the insinuation that atheists are using 'cover stories' to hide their real reasons for not believing is insulting, uncharitable, and IMHO, trolling.

I hope you aren't referring in any way to me here...

The "cover story" culprit was Ahriman, in post #161.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As an additional bit of fun to chew over, it's not clear that contemporary western theists believe in a supernatural god anymore, either.  We're often told when we ask about it, that their god isn't doing anything supernatural, per se - just something we don't understand.  The shadow of pagan influence on western society looms large.

Or it may be that some, like me, do not see much of a binary distinction between the natural and the supernatural.