How do you define atheism for your purposes?

Humanism
1

Seems to me that since “God” is so poorly defined and basically anything to anyone - that its equally impossible to give a serious answer to the question. Or at least one ought to define God first before even raising it, then you’ll have something to play with.

Me, I’m fine with the notion of an unknowable God, something more, that’s beyond our reach and timeless.

Where people cross over into poison-KoolAid territory is when the presume their petty little human minds grasp the god security blanket by convincing themselves that they have a personal relation with a god who’s actively looking down on them and who’s all concerned about them and how much they worship their designated god of the universe.

The notion that dedicating your life to studying manmade scriptures (perhaps enlightened, perhaps just high, no matter, still self-obsessed human musings) will somehow get you closer to god, I find ludicrous, no matter how seriously these religious ‘scholars’ take themselves. All that study does is take people into their own human mindscape.

For me God is in her ongoing Creation, billions and billions of dynamic years unfolding one day at a time.

I’m convinced you’ll get closer to universal truths (and “god”) by spending your time simply absorbing the unfolding reality of nature, particularly in this age of fantastic scientific insights and visualizations. Of course, if you want to see our human god experiment gone horribly wrong, there’s always human history to learn about and weep. Consider today’s self-certain absolutists those god-fearing trumpkins with their wannabe totalitarian president whom they embrace with such self-created fear & hate driven passions that have totally unhinged them from recognizing fundamental physical reality.

2

When asked, I usually start with the short answer, the absence of belief. I might expand a bit, saying I have researched many existing religions, experienced them, read them, road tested them, and can’t find one I like. If they don’t wig out, I follow up saying I’m always open to something new, even if it’s just their description of whatever old religion they are following. If the conversation continues for a minute or more, I usually mention something about awe and wonder and discovery and openness to hearing what the universe is “saying”, but I’m clear that I’m reading the book of nature, not listening for voices in my head.

What I’d like, is to be around more people who see the universe as something that exists and follows laws that keep it existing as it as and that can be traced back to help us understand how we got here, and, we have a limited capacity to experience it through our senses and our ability to reason. That’s a key point of the scientific method, that we never have certainty. I like to point out that every major religion has some scripture that says we can’t know the mind of God (or something similar), so we actually all agree on that point.

3

 

Lausten: "... I usually mention something about awe and wonder and discovery and openness to hearing what the universe is “saying”, but I’m clear that I’m reading the book of nature, not listening for voices in my head.

What I’d like, is to be around more people who see the universe as something that exists and follows laws that keep it existing as it as and that can be traced back to help us understand how we got here, and, we have a limited capacity to experience it through our senses and our ability to reason. That’s a key point of the scientific method, that we never have certainty. I like to point out that every major religion has some scripture that says we can’t know the mind of God (or something similar), so we actually all agree on that point."


That’s pretty spot on.

I’ve latched on to the concept of our MINDSCAPES because the concept encompasses the idea that we are interpreting the world around us. Further that our interpretations depends on the quality and amount of knowledge we’ve absorbed. Seems to me you are saying pretty much the same thing.

 

4
AMH - I don’t define atheism at all. Defining atheism gives credibility to theism. The argument in itself is totally inutile for either side.
I think that's pretty much where I'm at. For me personally "atheism" is an irrelevant concept that's totally dependent on agreeing on one's concept of god. But other's concept of god is totally irrelevant to me, done my learning on my own, so know a thing or two.

A personal God that listens to your prayers, that’s absolute fantasy - An unknowable something within the fabric of creation, now that’s my kind of “God” - Some ethical impulse that makes me live a forthright honorable proud life, beyond any description, there again, if someone wants to refer to that as “God” fine, no harm done.

But, someone tell me they know who God, and I know they know nothing, and that they mistake their own EGO’s for god.

5

A=without

theism=belief in god

There is the definition. It’s all anyone needs. If a person has no belief that a god exists he or she is an atheist. It doesn’t matter if a person is not sure. If the person can’t claim a positive belief in a god he or she is an atheist. There are no gradations of atheism. Everyone on earth is either an atheist or a theist. It is not complicated.

 

 

 

 

 

6

“It is not complicated.”

If only that were true. While working on a blog series about this, I looked up the dictionary definition. Something I kinda hate doing, but had to in this case. In the #1 definition, it said what you said, then “… or a strong disbelief in gods.” If we could make everyone agree on a definition, many of the problems of the world would be solved. But atheism is currently a subjective term. A lot of people take it to mean you feel strongly enough about this question to adopt this term, and your term makes a statement about there choice to believe. Words are defined by what the culture says they mean, not by any one person’s logic.

7

That’s why I added “for your purposes.” I wanted to get a feel for what people on this forum think atheism means.

8

I feel like I’m missing some part of this thread Lois. You say you added “for your purposes”, but the thread starts with CC. Then you say you want to get a feel for what we think, and I did give my thoughts back on Oct 14, but you seem to be shutting that down with your definition instead of keeping the conversation open.

9

Lois writes:

"A=without

theism=belief in god

There is the definition. It’s all anyone needs. If a person has no belief that a god exists he or she is an atheist. It doesn’t matter if a person is not sure. If the person can’t claim a positive belief in a god he or she is an atheist. There are no gradations of atheism. Everyone on earth is either an atheist or a theist. It is not complicated."

=============================================

And I suggest that brings us right back to the chicken and egg problem - “belief in god” - Well, what the heck is “god” ?

10

Acceptance of the (well supported) assumption that there is no such thing as “the supernatural”.

11

Most theists can’t imagine not believing in a god, so they can’t comprehend how atheists don’t believe. Their minds instantly assumes we’re “rejecting” their god.

It’s almost like it’s human nature to not understand the atheist’s position unless you’re an atheist.

12

Last sentence really says a lot.

13

Basic superstitious behaviors can develop naturally within any organism, including humans. So to that extent, at least, the building blocks for the development of believing in the supernatural IS part of human nature. Add, to that our cultural institutions and practices that exist almost universally within human societies, and add our predilections related to being social creatures, then YES one could say that it’s almost like it’s human nature to believe in “God”.

Fortunately, there is a process called critical thinking that some humans can develop to overcome such natural inclinations.

14

I agree with the premise that Humans develop superstitious behaviors, but not that superstitious behaviors can develop in any organism. In what organisms other than humans have you seen superstitious behaviors?

15

Decades ago, I read about pigeons adopting ‘superstitious’ behavior. Your question asking what other organism has superstitious behaviors, made me think of that article for the first time in many years.

I did an internet search for “superstition in pigeons”, and got lots of hits on the experiment. Interesting stuff.

16

Lois, very basic “superstitious” behavior can occur in any organism that has operant learning (which is pretty much all organisms). Operant behavior is behavior that is learned (or technically, more likely to occur if it immediately results in a reinforcing consequence. Typically, this is a functional way of learning for an organism. Because if the organism does the behavior again, in the same situation, the reinforcing consequence may be repeated. But a non-functional “superstitious” behavior can be learned if the reinforcing consequence just happens randomly (i.e., not a naturally occurring event that tends to follow the behavior).

When I was a young man, I worked for awhile on a horse breeding ranch and was in a position in which I was personally present, alone, with mares who were foaling. I observed dozens of births over the course of several months. When a newborn foal comes out of the womb, it struggles a bit to clear the afterbirth shroud if it is still somewhat intact. But soon thereafter it begins attempting to stand. This, apparently, is an in-born impulse. It struggles to stand and fails, and continues to attempt standing, until, eventually it successfully stands. This is a critical evolved behavior, as the colt or filly, must stand very soon in order to get mother’s milk, and must also (in the wild) be able, asap, to be mobile due to the possibility of predation.

So in this story, the foals’ behavior of various movements in attempting to stand was reinforced by almost standing, and when he got those movements right, by the positive consequence of successfully standing. So if it subsequently fell or lay down, it was likely to repeat the same set of movements that resulted in its successfully standing. That is an example of successful operant learning.

However, one time, being a kind hearted person, I picked up a foal who was doing the natural struggle to stand, and set him on his legs, so that he was standing. This was a mistake. The foal did not keep his balance, and when he was once again, on the ground, he still had not learned how to stand on his own. And to my dismay, he had apparently learned to simply wait for me to stand him up. He had learned the behavior of waiting until he was lifted up to stand. THAT is an example of learned “superstitious” behavior.

(I left the foal to his own devices after that, and although taking significantly longer than other foals I had observed, he eventually began struggling on his own again, and eventually learned to stand.)

Anyway, – at times, randomly occurring positive consequences occur for pretty much all organisms after they do some sort of response. (e.g., a squirrel happens to stand on a rock, and at that moment, a nut just happens to fall right in front of him.) So when that sort of thing happens, the organism is more likely to repeat the behavior that preceded that consequence. (The squirrel may subsequently go back and stand on the rock multiple times.) This is a “superstitious” behavior.

 

 

 

17

Oh, and to answer your question more specifically, Lois, some experimental behavior analyst, somewhere has probably established “superstitious” behaviors in any animal you can think of. It happens, there is no doubt about it.

18

In post 298248, above, I used the term “afterbirth shroud”… I should have said “placenta”. Sorry.

19

I don’t know, I have watched a baby be born, . . . before that i watched her pee into her amniotic sack - I never knew they do that. Doc said, where do you think the fluid in there comes from?

‘shroud’ prints a vivid sort of scene, gives the mind such splendid possibilities.

For the poetically inclined, i guess ;- )

20

Simply: Agnostic atheist . from the Greek: A=without , Theos=god= Without god. A=without, gnosis=knowledge. If asked, I say; I do not believe in god due to a lack of evidence, but I do not claim to know. I make no claims…

 

If pressed: I do not believe in god(s), the soul, an after life, heaven, hell, the devil, angels, demons, the para normal, dragons**, mountain trolls, or fairies at the bottom of my garden–same reason, no proof.

** not quite so sure about dragons since watching Game Of Thrones.