Calling all atheists

[thews]

Both Godless and I have tried to explain this to you.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in any god. Period. That's it.

Ok, I'll ask you again. Please explain to me the difference between an agnostic and an athesit without using the word "know" becuase, regardless of what one believes, no one "knows" for sure.

To a theist it is. To an atheist, it is not.

Atheist = a lack of belief in gods. Period.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.

Why, while you don't believe in God or spirit forces, are you attempting to place "spirit forces" under the definition of atheist rather than agnostic? I'm curious... because it really doesn't make any logical sense.

I don't happen to believe in an afterlife, but I'm sure there are atheists who do. An afterlife does not require a god.

I find this stement absurd. What your saying is someone is so sure that something exists, a soul for example, but they are also sure that there is no God involved in its creation? What sense does this make? If random chemicals mixed together from an explosion that came from nothing (which also started time), then what you're saying is from that random explosion and random mixing of chemicals, a soul was also created... a spirit. That spirit, goes on to exist after one is dead, but because the random explosion and random mixing of chemicals came from nothing, there is no God... just a soul comprised of chemicals... random chemicals. This make no sense whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

The use of the word "random" is key here. If chemical hapenstance mixing created all life, then it would make sense that when that life form dies nothing would remain. If "something" did remain, then it would be a result of random chemicals. My question then, is that is an atheist believes in evolution, but also "spirit forces," then the spirit forces came from chemical hapenstance. Do you disagree with this logic?

Note: From what you've stated, you don't believe in spirit forces. I find it odd how hard you're arguing for a belief in spirit forces as athesitc rather than agnostic... I wish one of you would define what an agnostic is so I can understand why you champion the cause without subscribing to it.

If you're asking me if, because I believe in evolution. a spirit would be the result of that evolution, I could entertain that thought. It does not mean I am not an atheist if I do so.

Yes it does. You would then be an agnostic, because you haven't decided whether or not "God" exists. This lame attempt to define "spirit forces" without God is simply a tap dance.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.

Being an agnostic means you haven't decided about God. Period. (Note "God" included "spirit forces").

These is nothing preventing an atheist from believing s/he is finite.

We are all finite. Period.

Matter came from the Big Bang. I think your question is what came before that caused the BB. That is an excellent question, but one, I believe, can, and will be answered with time. I do think that timeline is far, far into the future.

You are grasping at straws that define false hope. Your mind is finite and I can prove it to you, so "proving" something came from nothing is impossible. It's also impossible for me to explain to you who I believe made God, and I agree I can't, and that's because we are both finite in out thought process.

But something in the physical universe happened, and given the technologies continuosly improve to do what we previously never thought possible, makes it a strong possiblity.

For example, RELEVANT Magazine - Detailed Molecule Seen for the First Time

This is the first time a molecule has ever been seen. That gives me goose bumps. But to the point, there was a time when no one could have foreseen this happening.

I know you do. And neither one of them precludes a person from being an atheist.

Gainig knowledge of the universe and its propertiesis never (I used "never") going to explain, even in theory, how matter just "appeared" on day from nothing. Going back to the one atom = big bang and everything after, that one atom came from somewhere, because the day before ut "appeared" there was nothing. Space is "something" and your mind is finite... you are claiming the impossibe.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in gods. Period.

I get it. Spirit forces = a strong possibility that God has to exist, because one "believes" in an afterlife, and that = "Agnostic."

No, the scientific commmunity would not agree with you because it is not interested in changing the definition of an atheist. It would be impossible to do so.

Why you're trying so hard to snuff out the word agnostic to fix your agenda is what I'm trying to figure out. I'm quite sure the scientific community would agree that belief in spirit forces would not fall under the definition of an atheist.

You get to disagree.

I did not intend to insult your beliefs. I attempted to demonstrate how, to me, it is as impossible for me to believe in a god than it is for me to believe in an Easter Bunny. I can dance around that forever, but sometimes it takes silly examples like this to get someone to finally get what I mean by "no gods."

I get what you mean, but also don't get this absurd "spirit forces" = athesism argument, because it doesn't make sense.

No, you can't.

a·the·ist [áythee ist]

(plural a·the·ists)

n

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictgionary, 1980

atheist: one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oxford Dictionary: atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged

atheism: (from Greek atheos, "godless, not believing in the existence of gods) 1a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity 2: godlessness esp. in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Neither can you on "agnostic":

- someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

- of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism

- a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

- uncertain of all claims to knowledge

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

See where it says "(but does not deny that God might exist)"? See that? If you dent God may exist, then you can be an atheist. If you don't deny God might exist, then you are an agnostic. Period.

Except for the "God" part, I agree.

Ok... you'll be waiting a long time for the scientific community to figure this out for you. FYI - The scientific method is contained by the existing universe.

Your mention of anti-matter is perfect to describe what I mean about technological advances furthering our scientific knowing:

In Search of Antimatter Galaxies | International Space Fellowship

Then you missed my point.Claiming antimatter is made up of antimatter particles is 100% bogus... retarded logic. Atimatter = the opposite of something, which includes space. The further define it as "particles" or "things" made up of something tangible is absurd.

First, you're using "cognitive dissonance" incorrectly. I'll let you look it up.

No I'm not. Cognitive dissonance is the belief in conflicting things, and what the mind does to rationalize it. If you believe there is no God, then when you die that's it... you cease to exist. This may be comfortable to you, but to someone else it may be discomforting. To that person, finding a crack in the belief there is no God, but also placing belief in "spirit forces" is a perfect example of believing in two different things.

PS - "Actions" are not mutually exclusive to this definition. The "action" can be an internal belief,and not a physical act.

cognitive dissonance: Definition from Answers.com

In general: psychological theory of human behavior. The theory suggests that conflicts between behavior and beliefs create a sense of discomfort, or cognitive dissonance, that the individual subconsciously attempts to eliminate by modifying his or her beliefs. For example, a man who believes in nonviolence may strike someone in anger. The theory states that the man will either modify his beliefs about nonviolence to justify the violent behavior or will believe his action to be something other than violence. He may convince himself that he was acting out of instinct or self-protection rather than a desire to inflict harm, or that the provocation was so extreme that even a nonviolent person like himself would have no choice but to respond. Individuals often seek reassurance from external sources that their behavior is not in conflict with their beliefs. Nazi war criminals defended their actions to themselves and others by claiming they were "only following orders" and were not responsible for behavior that was in conflict with social mores.

Second, I reject your conclusion. I do believe the entire physical world can be proven by physics and mathematics. As I said earlier, I know it won't happen soon--it may take centuries. But whatever exists can be discovered and explained.

Elphaba

Well, you're wrong IMO, and something coming from nothing is impossible. Regardless of some theory that attempts to explain it, the end result is that the origin of matter and the beginning of time are both infinite concepts that we, as humans with finite minds, cannot perceive.

[Dravin]

No I'm not. Cognitive dissonance is the belief in conflicting things, and what the mind does to rationalize it.

Actually its the conflict caused by the belief in conflicting things, not the belief in conflicting things. Believing apples are 100% evil and that apples are 100% good doesn't get you into cognitive dissonance territory, not even the act of coming up with theories to explain how such can be the case gets one into that territory, it isn't until that cases you issues that you enter that territory.

From our friends at Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: cognitive dissonance

Function: noun

Date: 1957

: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

[thews]

Actually its the conflict caused by the belief in conflicting things, not the belief in conflicting things. Believing apples are 100% evil and that apples are 100% good doesn't get you into cognitive dissonance territory, not even the act of coming up with theories to explain how such can be the case gets one into that territory, it isn't until that cases you issues that you enter that territory.

From our friends at Merriam-Webster

I disagree. A good example (I can't find the link) is someone who buys a car when they can't afford it. Internally, they know they can't afford it, but since the new car gets better gas mileage than the older car and will require less maintenance, they find comfort in that and use it to rationalize buying it, which calms the fact that the overall delta between the new car and the old one is not a wash, but the new car is more expensive.

In this example, if someone really does believe they cease to exist when they die, this is not a comfort IMO, but, if they also "believe" that the soul becomes some sort of "spirit force" with no purpose, it makes the thought of death more comfortable, because they exist in some form, which is why the use of cognitive dissonance is relevat to this argument.

The logic I'm having a hard time with, is the argument someone can believe in spirit forces but not God. This doesn't make sense (to me) if one believes we are nothing more than a byproduct of chemical happenstance. It can be argued, but it doesn't make sense.

[Dravin]

I disagree.

Lovely, I, Ephalba and Merriam Webster, MSN Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica (Online) and the American Heritage Dictionary disagree with you (I really wish I could check the OED.). We could of course be wrong (And admittedly mine and Ephalba's opinions carry relatively little weight), but generally speaking I'm going to give encyclopedias and dictionaries preference in the definitions of words as opposed to some random person on the internet saying they disagree.

As far as your example, once again from Merriam Webster (you even used the word yourself):

Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·ize

Pronunciation: \ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): ra·tio·nal·ized; ra·tio·nal·iz·ing

Date: 1803

transitive verb

1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

[thews]

Lovely, I, Ephalba and Merriam Webster, MSN Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica (Online) and the American Heritage Dictionary disagree with you (I really wish I could check the OED.). We could of course be wrong (And admittedly mine and Ephalba's opinions carry relatively little weight), but generally speaking I'm going to give encyclopedias and dictionaries preference in the definitions of words as opposed to some random person on the internet saying they disagree.

As far as your example, once again from Merriam Webster (you even used the word yourself):

Just because you agree with three other people doesn't make the statement any more valid. Ephalba claimed my use of cognitive dissonance was incorrect, whcih is disagreed with. Other than agreeing with them for the sake of showing support, what exactly is your point WRT to this discussion?

[Dravin]

Just because you agree with three other people doesn't make the statement any more valid. Ephalba claimed my use of cognitive dissonance was incorrect, whcih is disagreed with. Other than agreeing with them for the sake of showing support, what exactly is your point WRT to this discussion?

That your usage of cognitive dissonance is incorrect. Admittedly my and Ephalba's opinion on the definition of cognitive dissonance isn't overly authoritative, but where I come from finding an authority on the subject (dictionaries and encyclopedias in this case) that agrees with your conclusion is called a cite, of which I provided 4 (I suppose I should have supplied links, but the names and term involved is sufficient for you to confirm I am not misrepresenting their agreement with me on the subject). You on the other hand have provided nothing supporting your claim as to the definition of the term cognitive dissonance, while my cites prove no absolute truth, citations from reputable authorities on subjects generally give one's position a stronger leg to stand on, a leg I might point out you've failed to provide your own position.

[thews]

That your usage of cognitive dissonance is incorrect. Admittedly my and Ephalba's opinion on the definition of cognitive dissonance isn't overly authoritative, but where I come from finding an authority on the subject (dictionaries and encyclopedias in this case) that agrees with your conclusion is called a cite, of which I provided 4 (I suppose I should have supplied links, but the names and term involved is sufficient for you to confirm I am not misrepresenting their agreement with me on the subject). You on the other hand have provided nothing supporting your claim as to the definition of the term cognitive dissonance, while my cites prove no absolute truth, citations from reputable authorities on subjects generally give one's position a stronger leg to stand on, a leg I might point out you've failed to provide your own position.

Again, other than a show of support I fail to see what relevance this has to the discussion. But OK...

Note that I don't use Wikipedia for anything, as i've found their data biased and incorrect on many things.

cognitive dissonance - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: cognitive dissonance

Function: noun

Date: 1957

: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

And again my point was the dissonance felt when one actually believes there is no God, but there is a spirit. This is correct and again I fail to see what point you're making, other than show support for a fellow poster.

[Guest Godless]

I'm going to take a brief hiatus from this discussion. I'm on the East Coast and currently distracted by old friends and such. However, I have a close friend in San Antonio who considers herself a spiritual atheist. I'll pick her brain a bit after I've returned to Texas, and hopefully then I'll be able to provide some coherent input. Until then, I'm afraid we've hit a brick wall since we're discussing a worldview that neither of us fully understand.

[Dravin]

Your cite doesn't support your position.

Main Entry: cognitive dissonance

Function: noun

Date: 1957

: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

Actually it supports mine, namely that cognitive dissonance is the conflict (stated as causing issues by me) from holding incongruous belief. It's why I quoted it in support of my position to begin with.

Your position:

Cognitive dissonance is the belief in conflicting things, and what the mind does to rationalize it.

Rationalization of incongruent positions is not cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance is... well no need to repeat it, its been quoted twice in this thread already. Maybe a rephrasing would be helpful though, if I might. Cognitive dissonance is not when you a moral vegetarian rationalize eating your weekly hamburger, its the unease, the sense that things don't quite mesh, the psychological conflict resulting from both holding the position that eating meat is immoral and eating meat anyway and somehow coming to the conclusion that your doing it is somehow not immoral.

No unease, no psychological conflict no cognitive dissonance, you are simply a hypocrite or some guy who holds conflicting views.

I fail to see what point you're making

Considering I've expressly stated the point I am making I can't help your lack of understanding in that matter further.

[thews]

I'm going to take a brief hiatus from this discussion. I'm on the East Coast and currently distracted by old friends and such. However, I have a close friend in San Antonio who considers herself a spiritual atheist. I'll pick her brain a bit after I've returned to Texas, and hopefully then I'll be able to provide some coherent input. Until then, I'm afraid we've hit a brick wall since we're discussing a worldview that neither of us fully understand.

I look forward to hearing what she says. Can you ask her specifically is she discounts God as a possibility?

[thews]

Your cite doesn't support your position.

Actually it supports mine, namely that cognitive dissonance is the conflict (stated as causing issues by me) from holding incongruous belief. It's why I quoted it in support of my position to begin with.

Um... no it doesn't. The dissonance I'm pointing out is the supposed belief that God does not exist, yet clinging to the thought of an afterlife to calm the thought of not existing.

I fail to see what point you're making, other than argue what you believe is someone's opinion.

Your position:

Rationalization of incongruent positions is not cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance is... well no need to repeat it, its been quoted twice in this thread already. Maybe a rephrasing would be helpful though, if I might. Cognitive dissonance is not when you a moral vegetarian rationalize eating your weekly hamburger, its the unease, the sense that things don't quite mesh, the psychological conflict resulting from both holding the position that eating meat is immoral and eating meat anyway and somehow coming to the conclusion that your doing it is somehow not immoral.

No unease, no psychological conflict no cognitive dissonance, you are simply a hypocrite or some guy who holds conflicting views.

You aren't making sense. The dissonance I'm specifically stating deals with the belief that there is no afterlife, no God, and calling yourself an Atheist, yet claiming to also believe in spirit forces. Why you can't see this is something that isn't defined by your deciding that this doesn't encompass cognitive dissonance, because it clearly does. There is a conflict, and I fail to see your point. Do you believe in spirit forces wihtout the possibility that God exists?

Considering I've expressly stated the point I am making I can't help your lack of understanding in that matter further.

I'm not the one lacking understanding. What is your point, other than agree with someone else for the show of support?

[Dravin]

Um... no it doesn't.

Please explain how a definition for cognitive dissonance explaining how it is the psychological conflict caused by having an incongruent views or beliefs does not support the position that:

Actually its [cognitive dissonance] the conflict caused by the belief in conflicting things, not the belief in conflicting things.

The dissonance I'm pointing out is the supposed belief that God does not exist, yet clinging to the thought of an afterlife to calm the thought of not existing.

Yep, there is a dissonance (according to you, I'm not arguing the compatibility of various views), its not cognitive dissonance which would be the psychological conflict resulting from said dissonance.

There is a conflict, and I fail to see your point.

Its not psychological conflict caused by having an incongruent position, its just an incongruent position (according to you, once again not arguing that), the conflict isn't where it needs to be, namely in the psyche of the person holding the views, simply holding incongruent views is not cognitive dissonance, and it certainly isn't the rationalization that enables such, its the psychological conflict that results from that, you're missing a step.

I'm not the one lacking understanding. What is your point, other than agree with someone else for the show of support?

That your usage of cognitive dissonance is incorrect.

Though looking back through the thread you've shown a correct understanding that cognitive dissonance is the feeling caused by discordant views not the holding of the discordant views, so I'm curious why you didn't just say, "Yeah, I think you're reading my definition a little wonky, I agree cognitive dissonance is the feeling, the psychological conflict cased by conflicting views." Thats okay though, I think we all have those moments, I know I have my fair share (possibly more than my fair share, this may very well be one of them).

I will plead guilty to just jumping to the last page (and apologize for just latching onto one thrown out off the cuff definition), looking back you show an understanding of the definition of the term.

Though I daresay I don't agree (if I'm reading you right) that the theory of anti-matter is the result of scientists trying to soothe some sort of cognitive dissonance (though I suppose that's neither here nor there) if we did go with that the anti-matter theory would be as a result of the cognitive dissonance and not the cognitive dissonance itself, it being a view not a feeling. I'm not sure exactly how to parse the comment that: (anti-matter) being an attempt at bridging the gap of (the feeling caused by holding conflicting views) between what is finite and what is infinite... if you were trying to say it was an attempt to sooth the cognitive dissonance then that works as far as usage of cognitive dissonance (ignoring any other possible ways it might not work), if its to say anti-matter is a cognitive dissonance (or rather its theorization) in itself as noted above that doesn't work.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Dravin

[thews]

Please explain how a definition for cognitive dissonance explaining how it is the psychological conflict caused by having an incongruent views or beliefs does not support the position that:

I already have many times, but again

no afterlife = angst

spirit forces = afterlife

thus the dissonance and conflict in claiming God does not exist, but spirit forces do. This is very simple.

Yep, there is a dissonance (according to you, I'm not arguing the compatibility of various views), its not cognitive dissonance which would be the psychological conflict resulting from said dissonance.

I disagree that calling yourself an "atheist" as opposed to an "agnostic" and also believing in spirit forces is not cognitive dissonance. I also fail to see your point in stating the same thing numerous times, when the definition I provided clearly covers this, yet you imply it's not.

Please let me know what your stand is on what you believe so I can understand your motive.

Its not psychological conflict caused by having an incongruent position, its just an incongruent position (according to you, once again not arguing that), the conflict isn't where it needs to be, namely in the psyche of the person holding the views, simply holding incongruent views is not cognitive dissonance, and it certainly isn't the rationalization that enables such, its the psychological conflict that results from that, you're missing a step.

I'll ask you again for your point. Where do you stand on an atheist claiming to believe in spirit forces?

Though looking back through the thread you've shown a correct understanding that cognitive dissonance is the feeling caused by discordant views not the holding of the discordant views, so I'm curious why you didn't just say, "Yeah, I think you're reading my definition a little wonky, I agree cognitive dissonance is the feeling, the psychological conflict cased by conflicting views." Thats okay though, I think we all have those moments, I know I have my fair share (possibly more than my fair share, this may very well be one of them).

I will plead guilty to just jumping to the last page (and apologize for just latching onto one thrown out off the cuff definition), looking back you show an understanding of the definition of the term.

Though I daresay I don't agree (if I'm reading you right) that the theory of anti-matter is the result of scientists trying to soothe some sort of cognitive dissonance (though I suppose that's neither here nor there) if we did go with that the anti-matter theory would be as a result of the cognitive dissonance and not the cognitive dissonance itself, it being a view not a feeling. I'm not sure exactly how to parse the comment that: (anti-matter) being an attempt at bridging the gap of (the feeling caused by holding conflicting views) between what is finite and what is infinite... if you were trying to say it was an attempt to sooth the cognitive dissonance then that works as far as usage of cognitive dissonance (ignoring any other possible ways it might not work), if its to say anti-matter is a cognitive dissonance (or rather its theorization) in itself as noted above that doesn't work.

I'm not understanding the basis for your argument. You seem to want to argue definitions of cognitive dissonace rather than the claim that atheists can also believe in an afterlife, and therefore be spiritual. I would appreciate where you stand on this.

Thanks

Edited September 14, 2009 by thews