Definition of Atheist

Consensus? What am I thinking?
I’ll bring this back to the question of defining Atheism. (Save the koans for later.)
If the Universe were empirically known to be sentient, would that automatically require a Theistic relationship to it? Or, would it just mean adjustments within various disciplines; such as Physics and Psychology. Would science itself simply expand to inquire into the nature of that sentience?
Would Atheism still reasonably be about “no god”? Or, would it be more narrowly defined as the antidote for shoddy Theism?
Mike,
I was writing the above and thought to check other posts before submitting it. Glad I did. It seems to be along very similar lines as your comment.
I will have to get more familiar with the term “Gnosis” before I use it freely but am translating it into what I think of as “Authentic expression of reality”.
I have the utmost respect for the ancient Rishis.

Mike you are getting tangled up in semantics. I suggest you go online and look for a used copy of an out-of-print book called “Language in Thought and Action” by S. I. Hawakawa. It should be quite reasonable. It’s quite readable and enjoyable while helping you clarify your thinking about these definitions.
Occam

Mike, you may also look into David Bohm’s works.
A little excerpt may peak your curiosity.

One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order. 'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order, the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.

brmckay
Posted: 02 June 2013 02:04 PM
I was writing the above and thought to check other posts before submitting it. Glad I did. It seems to be along very similar lines as your comment.
I will have to get more familiar with the term “Gnosis" before I use it freely but am translating it into what I think of as “Authentic expression of reality".
I have the utmost respect for the ancient Rishis.


I think you are there. Rishis is about knowledge. Not saying they were correct on all subjects, but they tried.
In Egypt you had two systems of religious training. one - the Roman thinking of gods. And two - the Egyptian Gnostic way of thinking about gods.
We have the same thing yet today, no different.
One - the people who follow belief and two the people that follow facts and knowledge.
At the University in Egypt, they had one side of the university teaching the Roman way and the other side teaching the Gnostic way.
Rome itself was not sure which way to go. They had the head master of the university in Egypt go to Rome four different times because they were thinking about changing the state religious system to Gnostic.
Remember, Rome was the largest city of a million people. With 40% of those being from other countries with many religions.
One would have to conclude that Gnostic was well understood and used for this to have happened.
I would like to leave you with a question. You brought up the Rishis. The Rishi’s soul is interpreted as imbibing wisdom directly from the universal source(Wikipedia). So God was not a man form, and when the Rishis spoke it was god speaking and god was part of everyone and everything. Their god was an energy source fed by all things in the universe. An offshoot of the Vedic ways.
Do you think they had atheists back then when they used this type of a system of religion?
Note, the posting is the meaning of atheist. I say the word atheist it is based upon the one’s meaning of god.
Everyone is telling me that I am off base. But I see religion in America is in disarray and people are looking for a change or no religion.
The fix of the problem is to change how people view god.
The old system worked until they combined god into government or ruling the people by merging the King and Priest into one.
Well today we are trying to separate the two.

Mid atlantic RE: Are the Stone age Gods more believable? That would be pre-history. The question I have is about the red ochre burials that show up everywhere on earth, some going back over 100,000 years. Sure opens up a lot of possibilities.
What possibilities? Why are red ochre burials spiritually significant?
RE: Gnostic Jesus’ god. The Gnostic god is 180 degrees from the God of Abraham.
The Gnostic God and the Abrahamic God are non-existent.
What level of precision might be required for everyday living?
The level of precision would be zero.
Is there value in having a sense of the sacred?
There can be completely subjective value.

Mid atlantic
Are the Stone age Gods more believable?
I got to pick a spot on the timeline to answer this question.
I will use the Rig Veda, most will agree going back to 12,000 years ago, and some say 32,000 years ago.
I would have to say Yes.
Reason of thought.
A. In the history of mankind Christianity will be known as terrible religion.
B. And as a religion of the uneducated and third world.
C. You can go to a few spots of the world and the Vedic religion is still in operation in evolved forms.
Christianity is on it way out of America right now. It has been taken over by smaller groups that say they are Christian but are they really a force with the power of a major religion? Or are they there filling the vacuum left by the organized church? Are the kids today following the religious paths of the parents?
Fifteen years ago there was a huge Christian movement in America. Now it is going the other way.
First, you have to establish whether the Gnostic Jesus existed, and if his knowledge of God was accurate.
Gnostic Jesus is found in the Quran and in the bible as well the Nag Hammadi Scrolls.
Examples from the bible.
Paul’s Jesus; “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Gnostic Jesus; “I am the knowledge of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk not knowing, but will have the knowledge of life."
Paul’s Jesus; Those who are enlightened will understand what I’m saying." Simon Peter asked him, “When you have departed from us, who will give us Light?”
Find the light inside, and share this light with the world;
Gnostic Jesus; Those who learn knowledge will understand what I’m saying." Simon Peter asked him, “When you have departed from us, who will give us knowledge?”
Find the knowledge inside, and share this knowledge with the world;
Just a couple quick examples. You have to finish the translation into Gnostic form.
I have had arguments with my Christian friends about this and they insist that it really means a ray of light.

1 Like

I reject god(s) or anything supernatural. Does that qualify as atheist?

Mid atlantic
What possibilities? Why are red ochre burials spiritually significant?
A couple of things, they covered a long period of time. Some say they go back as far as 100K years, one of the members on this forum said he found they went back 300K years. And they have been found on every continent except Antarctica. That would mean that man had the same religion system around the world for a long time. And many experts think the reason for the red ochre was after life.

FinallyDecided
I reject god(s) or anything supernatural. Does that qualify as atheist?
Yes, if you reject because you do not believe in the supernatural.
I’m an atheist, but I still believe in Witches.
I was married to one for years.
Change of thought ---- as of June 5th.
I need to change my reply because of new data.
The way “Atheist" is used today you are in fact presupposing that “God" does exist, and that you are just a non-believer.
I need to change my answer.
No, if you say you are an “Atheist" you are still recognizing that “God" exist.
According to Dr. Terence Meaden, - Words like ‘non-theist’ and ‘atheist’, as used by theists, are often taken to imply a position of being against what believers assume to be the reality of a supreme god who is creator and ruler of the universe.

FinallyDecided I reject god(s) or anything supernatural. Does that qualify as atheist? Yes, if you reject because you do not believe in the supernatural. I’m an atheist, but I still believe in Witches. I was married to one for years.
I believe things are as they are and it makes my life much easier. :) Why live life thinking there is some entity watching me and keeping score on my life? So basically, I have no "faith" I would say.
What level of precision might be required for everyday living?
The level of precision would be zero.
Is there value in having a sense of the sacred?
There can be completely subjective value. I would say there is evidence for objective value for religions themselves. That evidence is the ubiquitous survival of religions throughout the ages. Whether there is positive value for society as a whole is not so clear.

TimB
I would say there is evidence for objective value for religions themselves. That evidence is the ubiquitous survival of religions throughout the ages. Whether there is positive value for society as a whole is not so clear.


It is clear to me that there is a very positive value in religion. Just go to any small town America and every Sunday all the people gather in a building and sing. They comfort their neighbors in times of sorrow and rejoice together in times of happiness in this same building.
The pagans were ten times better at gathering people in happy celebration than the Christians are. And the Egyptians and Romans took this type of togetherness to great heights that were ten times better than the Pagans.
Over all Christianity is a very sad religion. But it is better than no religion for many societies.
I think that most of the members here could get along just fine without religion and without Christmas too. But do you not want your children not to enjoy Christmas?
To me it would be OK, if we replaced it with a better holiday and the same with Christianity.
As you know TimB I am a researcher. And what I have found is that the Egyptians had the happiest society in history so far. And the pyramid building was designed to keep parts of the social structure in balance.
America could not handle the level of happiness that the Egyptians enjoyed. Though it would be nice to think we could.
Now with that said, do you think that happier religions had better gods? I mean just look at the god of Abraham, what a sad mess. If Jesus went to Egypt as a child and then returned to Judah, who wouldn’t try and change it’s god.
If Jesus had taught Paul and John and the rest in Egypt we would have a different world today. Thomas and Mary obviously had spent time in Egypt and therefore understood Jesus teachings in a Gnostic way.

Mike, Sure, some religious groups do objectively good things, and some people take comfort in their religion. What I think is questionable is whether there is a net value for society of religion, an overall value when taking into consideration the harm it does and has done historically.
I understand your premise, I think, that the “right kind” of religion could make the world a better place. But I have 2 main problems with that premise. 1) It is a virtual impossibility that the world will be converted to and believe in and follow one certain idealistic religion. and 2) I think that any religion is subject to inflicting harm. e.g., religions tend to have elements of superstition, and superstition can be harmful. Also, all religions tend to become inundated with dogma, and dogma can be harmful.

Sr. Member, “An atheist is one who LACKS a belief in any god or gods." That’s good. And I have always seen and understand what you are saying. But, In ten thousand years of religion, we have had atheist for what, a couple hundred years. I am just saying, mankind created gods. History shows us that man needed gods before he need pottery.
Your post is a verbose exercise on grotesquely...and I do me grotesquely overthinking the problem. It is of no relevance how long atheists have existed. It is of no relevance how long religions existed or what their their belief systems and creeds were. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in any god or gods. That's all there is to it.
I believe things are as they are and it makes my life much easier. :)
This seems good, but by "things" do you include hopes and aspirations?
Why live life thinking there is some entity watching me and keeping score on my life? So basically, I have no "faith" I would say.
Where did you get the idea that this was how it worked? Why impose somebody elses neurosis on your own contemplation of the "Big Picture"?
Mid atlantic What possibilities? Why are red ochre burials spiritually significant? A couple of things, they covered a long period of time. Some say they go back as far as 100K years, one of the members on this forum said he found they went back 300K years. And they have been found on every continent except Antarctica. That would mean that man had the same religion system around the world for a long time. And many experts think the reason for the red ochre was after life.
How about using red ochre to imitate the colors they saw in other animals. Of all species, we are the plainest, and we do still use make-up to look "pretty". Many primitive tribes today use feathers, colors, and any animal parts (feathers) to "dress up" for celebrations. Nature itself dresses animals in the most astounding colors and plumages. Anything divine about that or a survival technique? Was it any wonder we should not use pretty colors or scary masks also? Below is a link which describes the earliest humans.
Primitive humans who inhabited the coast of South Africa 165,000 years ago and lived on a diet rich in shellfish could be the original ancestors of everyone alive today, a study suggests. The people who lived in high caves at Pinnacle Point, overlooking the Indian Ocean near Mossel Bay, harvested and cooked mussels, used red pigment from ground rocks as a form of make-up and made tiny, bladed tools. Experts say they are very likely to be the ancestors of Homo sapiens, the anatomically modern human species which migrated across the world. It is known that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago but scientists are not sure where on the continent they first arose as a distinct species. The latest evidence points to the southern tip of Africa. Archaeologists working at Pinnacle Point identified stone tools and a red pigment used in ritualistic ceremonies which they believe could only have been used by humans showing "modern behaviour".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/first-humans-lived-at-southern-tip-of-africa-397161.html Note, the 300,000 years I mentioned was an estimation from even the earliest hominids, before they split. Note these people used red paint and apparently it was a "ritualized custom", but how you can leap from that to the actual existence of a god is speculative at best. As I explained before, today (looking back in history) Chimpanzees show signs of belief in an "unseen power". How could they not. Later, they discovered fire ( and fire gods) and their language probably consisted of grunts for "food, home, danger". Hardly a reliable source for deep insight into the nature of the universe. Early man invented gods to make sense of the universe and natural occurrences. But they were wrong in almost all explanations as to "causality" which science has proved over and over again. God is not necessary to the universe, it WAS necessary for mankind at one time, but no longer
We're getting far afield here...Lotta ground for one thread, let alone one post!
Let's see if there is consensus on this. In my mind these are very related questions. Well if they are related, please explain how they are related. And please explain some of those points in more detail. Getting a little philosophical.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
Your post is a verbose exercise on grotesquely…and I do me grotesquely overthinking the problem.
It is of no relevance how long atheists have existed. It is of no relevance how long religions existed or what their their belief systems and creeds were.
An atheist is one who lacks a belief in any god or gods.
That’s all there is to it.


Then are all Buddha and Hinduism atheist?
All I was stating is that atheist is one who lacks a belief in god. So in saying that you must feel that everyone agrees what a god or gods is.
Therefore the meaning is connected to the word god.
Stephen Hawking a true atheist, but he is looking for the God Particle.
God must have a different meaning to Mr. Hawking.
I know over thinking.
Back to the original question.
The Gnostic thinking is not in one superior being, or one god or gods but they still believe in god. Just like the Buddha and Hindus.
So there lies the problem in the definition of god.

MikeY-Then are all Buddha and Hinduism atheist? All I was stating is that atheist is one who lacks a belief in god. So in saying that you must feel that everyone agrees what a god or gods is. Therefore the meaning is connected to the word god.
I don't mean to cut in between you and E.O.C. but it doesn't matter if everyone agrees what a god(s) is. An atheist knows what everyone's idea of a god is-and eschews them all.