Do atheists have a belief or not?

Dec 2013
28,491
17,632
Everything is going to be OK
I, along with two other people, experienced nothing short of dissolving into the One. It seems hard to fathom, and even now I struggle to put it into words, but it was genuine and nothing can explain the fact that we all experienced the same phenomenon. It was like we had melded minds.
.

Deleted
 
Feb 2014
2,167
959
Oregon
Atheists, by definition, hold one position...the lack of belief in a god. Other positions may be driven by the same skepticism that drives our position in belief of a god, in other words we don’t believe without sufficient evidence. If you want me to believe in “energy forces” or “spiritualism” then I require the same level of evidence that convinces me that the city of Hong Kong exists.
I have no need to make you think the same as I do. Atheist may be right and I don't think they are as harmful as religious folks can be, so I am not motivated to argue with them, but I love talking about things that interest me. I would like to know what you think of the explanation of Tesla and 3, 6 and 9? Historically math has been part of metaphysical thinking and that leads to science, so it isn't like having a spiritual notion is devoid of math and science.

LOL does the God you do not believe in, have a definition or is God a word that can mean anything? Can God be a hologram? Can the Tao of physics define the God you do not believe in?
 
Likes: imaginethat
Oct 2010
61,883
23,785
Colorado
Atheists, by definition, hold one position...the lack of belief in a god. Other positions may be driven by the same skepticism that drives our position in belief of a god, in other words we don’t believe without sufficient evidence. If you want me to believe in “energy forces” or “spiritualism” then I require the same level of evidence that convinces me that the city of Hong Kong exists.
The best analogy I've seen regarding the views of theists and atheists: conveying the information you have decided essential to belief in realities "larger" than 3D+t would be like trying to describe what color is to a colorblind person.

Atheists create a reality in which proof of the "supernatural" is not possible. That's how you've "collapsed the wave function."
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
11,731
7,030
massachusetts
I don't know what happened. I only know it did happen. We were all on LSD but at the same time we were all pretty experienced plus we only dropped a little bit and at the same time it was beyond a hallucination. An observer would have seen us three sitting there.
So would you say the experience was of the natural world or do you require a supernatural explanation?
 
Feb 2014
2,167
959
Oregon
I don't know what happened. I only know it did happen. We were all on LSD but at the same time we were all pretty experienced plus we only dropped a little bit and at the same time it was beyond a hallucination. An observer would have seen us three sitting there.
Isn't peyote known for people having the same extrasensory experience at the same time? How might this be different or the same as my experience of deceased people communicating with me? I am not sure there is a difference because both are a shared consciousness but how this happens is unknown. Sort of like how acupuncture works, was unknown until a detailed study of the nervous system made an explanation acceptable to the Western mind. In the West, we have denied many truths simply because we lacked knowledge of how things work.

What we believe and do not believe is very much about the cultural taboos put on the western mind.
 
Likes: imaginethat
Feb 2014
2,167
959
Oregon
So would you say the experience was of the natural world or do you require a supernatural explanation?
I know you didn't ask me the question, but I want to say the universe is ordered and there is no supernatural force, only a lack of knowledge of how things happen. Western medicine rejected acupuncture until we found a good explanation for how it works. Before this, acupuncture in the West held the status of supernatural or pseudoscience. The Chinese were not wrong. We were wrong and I think some other Western arguments are also based on a lack of knowledge and prejudices.

Christians are very proud of opposing superstition although the belief is fully dependent on a belief of the supernatural. It is their superstition that becomes a prejudice against superstition. When the superstition is really a failure to understand how things work. There are shells in the stone blocks of Egypt's pyramids and Christians like to think this proves the biblical account of a flood, a supernatural explanation. Geologists explain the desert of Egypt is the result of sliding plates lifting Northern Africa above sea level. To not know is to be superstitious. That has repercussions when someone has an unexplained experience. When someone has an unexplained experience we need to stop at "I do not know". Westerns don't stop at "I do not know," but have to label everything that can't be explained today as superstition. How is that for a paradox? Christians are determining what athiest think, not science.
 
Last edited:
Likes: imaginethat
Feb 2014
2,167
959
Oregon
The best analogy I've seen regarding the views of theists and atheists: conveying the information you have decided essential to belief in realities "larger" than 3D+t would be like trying to describe what color is to a colorblind person.

Atheists create a reality in which proof of the "supernatural" is not possible. That's how you've "collapsed the wave function."
I don't think the thinking error is restricted to atheist but is a problem with Western culture and it is Christianity, not science, that shaped Western culture. Science played a big role in our progress, but not in shaping our cultural heritage that is largely our cultural subconscious. So Christians and atheist know all the answers and all things are only true or false. o_O

To be scientific, when there is a lack of evidence the conclusion is "I don't know". Right now we do not have the evidence to scientifically explain Peter the Roman's experience. I am sure the atheist think they are being scientific but they aren't because they insist they know something without good evidence. Such as labeling Peter the Roman's experience supernatural and we all know the supernatural is false, so Perter the Roman could not have experienced what he believes he experienced. o_O What is the problem with accepting we do not know somethings? And if we don't get out of this rut, we never will know.
 
Last edited:
Likes: right to left
Dec 2016
3,158
1,553
Canada
Atheists, by definition, hold one position...the lack of belief in a god. Other positions may be driven by the same skepticism that drives our position in belief of a god, in other words we don’t believe without sufficient evidence. If you want me to believe in “energy forces” or “spiritualism” then I require the same level of evidence that convinces me that the city of Hong Kong exists.
And that describes a non-belief, BUT how do you construct a worldview by framing it on what you don't believe? Most people who say they believe in God can't usually define exactly what they mean by God, or whether God is immanent and part of the fabric of the universe OR some sort of creative force that exists separate from the universe.

The insistence on physicalism and that science will explain all that is worth knowing in the future is also a faith-based belief! Do you understand the fundamental nature of our universe? Do subatomic particles have basic, rudimentary conscious properties, as proposed by a panpsychist interpretation of nature? Or is matter just lifeless and inert? If so, how do complex collections of matter, like a human brain with 50 to 100 billion neurons become conscious entities? Let me know when you got everything figured out; because I don't believe we can explain God away without having a lot greater understanding this universe and how it works.
 
Likes: imaginethat
Dec 2016
3,158
1,553
Canada
I don't think the thinking error is restricted to atheist but is a problem with Western culture and it is Christianity, not science, that shaped Western culture. Science played a big role in our progress, but not in shaping our cultural heritage that is largely our cultural subconscious. So Christians and atheist know all the answers and all things are only true or false. o_O

To be scientific, when there is a lack of evidence the conclusion is "I don't know". Right now we do not have the evidence to scientifically explain Peter the Roman's experience. I am sure the atheist think they are being scientific but they aren't because they insist they know something without good evidence. Such as labeling Peter the Roman's experience supernatural and we all know the supernatural is false, so Perter the Roman could not have experienced what he believes he experienced. o_O What is the problem with accepting we do not know somethings? And if we don't get out of this rut, we never will know.
Very few people are comfortable with leaving blank spaces and saying they don't know or have a ready made answer to these questions. Right from the beginning of human culture, mythologies have been created to explain the unknown, today we have scientists doing it for us instead of mystics or priests. Only difference is they have to revise the answers when contrary evidence is presented. Young children demand teleological or purpose-driven explanations for new things. If they don't get a satisfactory explanation, they'll just make up their own! Some people never grow out of that stage and carry on through life acting like they got everything figured out!

Why Are Rocks Pointy? Children's Preference for Teleological Explanations of the Natural World
 
Oct 2010
61,883
23,785
Colorado
I don't think the thinking error is restricted to atheist but is a problem with Western culture and it is Christianity, not science, that shaped Western culture. Science played a big role in our progress, but not in shaping our cultural heritage that is largely our cultural subconscious. So Christians and atheist know all the answers and all things are only true or false. o_O

To be scientific, when there is a lack of evidence the conclusion is "I don't know". Right now we do not have the evidence to scientifically explain Peter the Roman's experience. I am sure the atheist think they are being scientific but they aren't because they insist they know something without good evidence. Such as labeling Peter the Roman's experience supernatural and we all know the supernatural is false, so Perter the Roman could not have experienced what he believes he experienced. o_O What is the problem with accepting we do not know somethings? And if we don't get out of this rut, we never will know.
Most people in the West aren't comfortable with mystery. Discomfort with mystery is a double-edged sword. It drives people to explore and know the knowable, but it also drives the claim to know the unknowable.
 
Likes: Athena

Similar Discussions