I'm definitely not an atheist tho.
I find/believe:
- theistic religions and their people are gullible and dangerously irrational (Christians, Jews, Muslims, ...);
- religions openly more philosophical are objectively great (Taoism, Buddhism, ...)
- atheism is mostly being willingly ignorant and closed-minded and feeling superior for it
- scepticism and accepting to not know things is the actually reasonable answer
Simple illustration: the origin of the universe.
The irrationally religious will directly talk about their God.
The irrationally atheist will talk about the Big Bang until you ask "what about before that" and they'll either explode or murder you.
The sceptic or agnostic will accept there was the Big Bang, and that there's possibly something before or more meta that we don't know about (yet).
sceptic or agnostic: I prefer sceptic, as it leaves a place for the (yet). But whatever, both are okay.
@Benjamin well that looks a lot like scepticism :p
@CobaltVelvet I don't believe in the existence of any higher power and I don't believe that one COULD exist. I think that if you redefine some terms, then I could agree with your position, but using normally defined terms, I am not sure.
@Benjamin well, let's start with an easy theory: we're in a simulation. We can't prove we aren't. And the entities controlling it are, by most definitions, gods to is.
@CobaltVelvet See this is where our definitions depart from each other, in my mind they aren't gods unless they can not be explained within their own system.
@Benjamin well usually "cannot be explained" is very similar to "we don't understand it yet".
I don't think anything is impossible to explain, so I just define a God with what most religions require to consider something a God.
My only actual belief here is that the possibility of a God of any kind relative to us is not excluded and we could come up with an unlimited number of theories about it that work with current physics.
I mean just try to understand modern physics for a year or two.
If after that you're still convinced there can't be anything more, I'll be very sorry for you.
@CobaltVelvet i think would be more like, doesn't believe in any existing religion, and agnostic is there isn't enough evidence, the likely hood that eg Christianity is true, is comparable to the likelihood its not.
like its imposable to prove a lot of things aren't true, it doesn't mean we have to be undecided on any random idea unevidenced someone comes up with.
@CobaltVelvet oh fukc missed out "atheist" should be "i think atheist would be more like, doesn't believe in any existing religion, "
@radicalgraffiti actually yes, we have to :p
we can just put ideas aside as unlikely, but declaring them impossible isn't very truthful either
but I get your point
@CobaltVelvet well in theory maybe we should, but no one has time for that
it took me a long time to accept that atheist was the most accurate description of my ideas about religion, because of basically the same logic as you.
id never heard of sceptic and agnostic was unacceptable for giving to much credence to religion, so for ages i had no label for it at all
@CobaltVelvet I didn't understand most modern physics when I was a physics major 30 years ago!
@filkerdave @CobaltVelvet I thought I understood modern physics back when I was a physics major 28 years ago when I was more confident.
Quantum mechanics leaves a LOT of room for wonder, as long as you're willing to leave your intuition at the door.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/tensor-networks-and-entanglement-20150428
Quote: John Wheeler first described [space-time geometry at the smallest scales] as a bubbly, frothy foam six decades ago.
My intuition never would have said "small is foam"
@nethope @CobaltVelvet You were clearly a better physics major than I was. I mean, I got classical stuff just fine, even thermogoddamics, but when they started getting into the quantum level I knew I was never going on to grad school.
@filkerdave Now that you mention it, I think my love of reading did it. As an undergrad, I befriended a grad student (protip: don't tell me "no one would ever speak to" because I will go do that) who set me to read all Feynman as well as JJ Sakurai's text on Quantum Mechanics. That clicked! My QM profs were abominable, but I gained enough intuition to get him started on his Masters project.
OTOH, I had a fantastic Thermo prof, loved the class, and barely remember it now.
@CobaltVelvet you presuppose the possibility of the supernatural realm in most of this thread. Take most any physics theory and prove it and it is now 'natural' - aka actually existing in the realm of physics. It *can't* be super-natural. It's all just taking things from the "not yet understood" column and moving it to the "understood" column. None of this precludes atheism, which is by definition a lack of belief in deity.
@dixongexpat well the difference really is between "lack of belief in" and "belief in the inexistence of", which is close to modern atheism
@CobaltVelvet there is such a thing as 'modern atheism'? What does that even mean? It seems as if you are taking the words and actions of a subset of atheists and applying it to the definition of the word itself. Atheists are about as scattered in their beliefs as anyone else, save the one unifying lack of belief. 99% of the planet doesn't believe in Santa Claus...
@dixongexpat i'm not saying the not yet understood exists, but that it *may* exist until we find a theory that makes it even less likely, and we are in no position to deny it entirely
@CobaltVelvet I'll always allow for the possibility though I will also always contend the probability is so low as to be negligible. I'd also posit that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to those who are not aware of the technology.
@CobaltVelvet The apathetic agnostic will say "iunno" and then go back to watching cat videos on YouTube
@nonphatic that's a lifestyle i can get behind tho
@CobaltVelvet @nonphatic Welp that's the one. The physics as we know it does not require nor forbid the existence of Something Else. And tbh, I really don't care, for if this Something Else exists it does not seem to care about us little humans.
@CobaltVelvet there are actually two axes here:
Theist vs. Atheist
Gnostic vs. Agnostic (knowing vs. not knowing)
You can be one of four things, gnostic/agnostic theist, or gnostic/agnostic atheist
Always ignore anyone that purports to be gnostic; it's an impossible and irrational position. A gnostic atheist (one who is certain there is no God) is just as obnoxious as a gnostic theist.
@CobaltVelvet What's interesting is that if you get familiar with philosophy/theology, Jewish and Christian descriptions of God basically devolve to the entirety of creation; they acknowledge that using positive descriptors (e.g., God is graceful, benevolent, green, whatever) make no sense; one can only describe God by what it is not (God is not cruel, red, human, gendered, etc.)
Basically, personified depictions of God are inconsistent with a lot of Judaism and Christianity itself.
@CobaltVelvet I am atheist and I won't explode or murder you, I will explain to you some of the leading theories, but end with "research is ongoing and we don't really know definitively."