Is there really such thing as an "Atheist"...

[DailyBlessings]

Correct, and it isn´t even meant to be. It is usually used in order to merely point out that a statement of absolutes doesn´t help answering practical problems. Practical problems are solved by consensus, not by appealing to hypothetical absolutes or by asserting that my ideas of absolutes are congruent with those possibly existing absolutes.

Consensus? Explain.

 

[quatona]

Consensus? Explain.

Agreement.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

My question is this...if an Atheist believes that energy or time is infinite, wouldn't that be their "God" so to speak....It might not be the christian trinity (which i don't believe in either)...but it's still acknowledges something that exists out of our time.

The atheist doesn't understand what is meant by the word "God" because all of those around him don't either. He can not believe in what appears to be the children's image of a magic man in the sky, but he is given no other sensible defintion. If he understood that real meaning as was meant by the Biblical authors, he would think only a moron could NOT believe in THAT.

Note that the Bible has no one arguing what a "god" is. Yet today everyone argues about the existence of such a thing without even questioning what one is.

It is all a question of defining the words so that the atheist and others can see the obviose truth of it. Until then he thinks that you are talking about something that he can clearly see is pure non-sense.


---

And what makes you think the Holy Trinity and the Athiest's concept of an infinite universe are different? Just because of the words that you will not define?

 

[NCStein]

My idea of an atheist is someone who doesnt care enough think beyond themselfs. This would be someone who has no paticular beliefe whatsoever and doesnt care to have one. There are people like this though.

What does any of this have to do with the rejection of god(s)? All you seem to be describing here is a general sense of nonchalance, selfishness, and possibly nihilism, none of which is a component of atheism.

I dont believe in god this is true but does this make me an athiest?

Yes, unless you're using your definition from above.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Agreement.

So every practical decision must be made by popular opinion? That would not bode well for science or philosophy.

 

[bob135]

So every practical decision must be made by popular opinion? That would not bode well for science or philosophy.

Not all consensus has to be popular opinion. You can have consensus among scientists, among philosophers, among evolutionary biologists, etc. So when looking for truth in a field, I would use some combination of my own experience and the testimony of experts in the field.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

..Show me someone who can bypass his perception and interpretation, and I will accept him as the messenger of what these absolutes are.

I can do that and so can you.

 

[quatona]

So every practical decision must be made by popular opinion? That would not bode well for science or philosophy.

Nonetheless, that´s the way it is, and until you show us how supposed absolute that are not agreed upon solve any practical problems this will remain so, I am afraid.
Except for philosophy, of course, which does not deal with practical problems, but with abstract concepts.

 

[quatona]

I can do that and so can you.

Well, if you say so.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Nonetheless, that´s the way it is, and until you show us how supposed absolute that are not agreed upon solve any practical problems this will remain so, I am afraid.
Except for philosophy, of course, which does not deal with practical problems, but with abstract concepts.

Okay, here's an exmaple:

"Gee, that volcano has been rumbling for a few days. Should we evacuate?"

"No, it either could or couldn't, there's no way to be sure, not even geologists agree whether it will erupt or not, and the economists all agree that evacuation would be costly."

No absolutes while the problem is still hypothetical in nature- when the volcano erupts a few days later and wipes Seattle off the map, then there is an absolute. One party was correct, the other was wrong and is at least partially responsible for the lost lives.

Neither refusal to answer a question, or answering by popular consensus (people have many reasons for believing what they do, not all of them benevolent or objective) solves problems effectively- one has to make a absolute decision based on available information before the question becomes an absolute reailty, and act on that. The outcome will determine whether their decision was right or wrong, but rarely conclude that it was neither.

 

[quatona]

Okay, here's an exmaple:

"Gee, that volcano has been rumbling for a few days. Should we evacuate?"

"No, it either could or couldn't, there's no way to be sure, not even geologists agree whether it will erupt or not, and the economists all agree that evacuation would be costly."

No absolutes while the problem is still hypothetical in nature- when the volcano erupts a few days later and wipes Seattle off the map, then there is an absolute. One party was correct, the other was wrong and is at least partially responsible for the lost lives.

Neither refusal to answer a question, or answering by popular consensus (people have many reasons for believing what they do, not all of them benevolent or objective) solves problems effectively- one has to make a absolute decision based on available information before the question becomes an absolute reailty, and act on that. The outcome will determine whether their decision was right or wrong, but rarely conclude that it was neither.

Well, if what you are trying to introduce as the idea of absolutes is merely that there is a physical reality that most everyone agrees upon (and in which certain events take place or don´t), then I would agree.
I´m not sure that this matches exactly the idea of "absolutes" that is usually discussed here.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Well, if what you are trying to introduce as the idea of absolutes is merely that there is a physical reality that most everyone agrees upon (and in which certain events take place or don´t), then I would agree.
I´m not sure that this matches exactly the idea of "absolutes" that is usually discussed here.

It goes beyond that, though. Physical reality reflects absolute truths, but it is not in itself the absolute.

 

[quatona]

It goes beyond that, though. Physical reality reflects absolute truths, but it is not in itself the absolute.

And therefore your example concerning the question and guesses whether a vulcano will erupt tomorrow or not seems to be completely besides the point you are actually argumenting for.
You use to completely different meanings of "absolute" (and one of them does not really refer to a common definition, at that), and ask me to accept that support for one of these concepts establishes the other concept as accurate, as well.
On another note, I was more interested in learning how a supposed but unknown and not agreed upon "absolute in itself" helps solving practical problems.

 

[DailyBlessings]

And therefore your example concerning the question and guesses whether a vulcano will erupt tomorrow or not seems to be completely besides the point you are actually argumenting for.

Not really- my point is that the person who refuses to ever make an absolute statement is completely useless in a practical situation. Not that the volcano itself is an absolute. It isn't.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

..When asked "is there a god?" or "what is the meaning of life?" or some other such question the only honest answer is "I think it is X, but hell if I really know!"

Things of physical volume are things bigger than a cubic foot, things smaller than a cubic foot, or things somewhere inbetween.

Is that an absolute fact?

How do you know?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Not really- my point is that the person who refuses to ever make an absolute statement is completely useless in a practical situation. Not that the volcano itself is an absolute. It isn't.

This usage of the word "absolute" is probably more often understood as "firm", definite, or unchanging.

The notion of an absolute truth refers typically to a concept that must ALWAYS be correct for all time in all situations.

 

[quatona]

Not really- my point is that the person who refuses to ever make an absolute statement is completely useless in a practical situation. Not that the volcano itself is an absolute. It isn't.

I´´m still not sure I understand what you mean when saying "absolute statement". A firm statement without any qualifications and doubts?
If so, how is the prediction of the vulcano erupting (or not) of any more practical use when it is made in this "absolute" way than in the "I think, but I´m not entirely sure" attitude? If the predicted will not happen, the "absolute" prediction will still be wrong, and as useless (even counterproductive) as the "relative" one. Whilst if the predicted is the outcome, the "relative" statement will turn out to have been as useful as the "absolute" one (unless of course you only find "absolute" statements considerable, and therefore have rejected it right away).
I don´t seem to get your point.

 

[azmurath]

I believe nothing is infinite, not time or space, but I do believe they are circular. If you travel far engouh along one of them, you will come back to the same place (or time)

 

[mikenet2006]

I believe nothing is infinite, not time or space, but I do believe they are circular. If you travel far engouh along one of them, you will come back to the same place (or time)

I dont see how that can be true.

 

[very_irreverand_Bill]

I've talked to several Atheists who say that they feel that there is no God or God-like diety or force....yet they all seem to comeback to the conclusion that there is something infinite...whether it be energy or time or whatever......

My question is this...if an Atheist believes that energy or time is infinite, wouldn't that be their "God" so to speak....It might not be the christian trinity (which i don't believe in either)...but it's still acknowledges something that exists out of our time.

Athiesm simply means "without a theistic god".

Theism is the belief in a theistic deity, or in many of them{in the case sof monotheism and polytheism}, or a sin the case of Pantheism{where the Universe itself is a sentient/personal divine force}.
Theism is distinguished as a system where whether you believe in one,two,3, many god{s}, or whether you believe the all that is -is God{oursleves included}-that there is something personal,intimate,loving,sentient,etc, about said deit{ies}.
As compared to the variuos forms of Deism, where said Creative forces are thought to be intelligent and perhaps sentient, but not personal,loving,intimate,etc.

Atheism is simply a non-belie fin theistic gods/divinities.
Which is why I personally, as a anthitheistic deist, think that "strong' deists whom would oppose even the concept of an intelligent,impersonal, first cause should call themselves "Adeists"{precliding a disbelief in and opposotion to the ide aof theistic or diestic takes}.
I believe atheists,agnostics,deists{and offshoots of this such as pandeism} should fall under the umbrella- "Nontheism/antitheism".

Athiesm, by definition does not neccaserily mean no belief in spirituality of any sorts,etc, this ois a common misconcpetion, It's as simple as it's name says -"witout belief in any theistic gods ot gods period/or personal,intimate,intelligent divine forces either".

{Quote/}My question is this...if an Atheist believes that energy or time is infinite, wouldn't that be their "God" so to speak{Unquote/}

No. Because they do not worship and revere it, they do not bow to it and believe it a intelligent force.
This is reason-based, not theistic faith-based. Most educated atheists, I would think, would probably say they cannot be 100% sure if energy/time is completely infinite, some would say that it's the something that came from nothing{which might drive some, not all, to agnosticism or even deism}, or they would say that as far as they can tell given their degree of education in the sciences-the evidences seem to indicate this of energy/time.

In Reason:
the very irreverand Bill