Atheistic Beliefs?

drkpower

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm slightly confused. Are you saying that a large proportion of scientific minds believe in a higher power? If you are, then I don't agree.

Or, are you saying that a large proportion of scientific minds don't believe in a higher power? If you are, then I agree.

My point is that a majority of the worlds population do and always have believed in a higher power and that a substantial number (i dont want to necessarily quantify it as a majority) of the great scientific/philospophical minds believe(d) in a higher power (examples include Einstein, Newton, Mendel).

Obviously this is proof of nothing but in a debate that is age old and pretty much unanswerable, it is evidence, powerful circumstantial evidence i would say, for the "God exists" argument.

cocoa

drkpower wrote: »

My point is that a majority of the worlds population do and always have believed in a higher power and that a substantial number (i dont want to necessarily quantify it as a majority) of the great scientific/philospophical minds believe(d) in a higher power (examples include Einstein, Newton, Mendel).

Obviously this is proof of nothing but in a debate that is age old and pretty much unanswerable, it is evidence, powerful circumstantial evidence i would say, for the "God exists" argument.

Seriously though, what does this show? Are you claiming that smart people have believed and do believe it, and smart people are often right, therefore god exists? Are you claiming many people believe it, there must be some kind of sense of him, tapping into the human mind (or soul if you prefer) instilling this believe, therefore god exists?

Personally I still say the idea that it's part of human nature is still a more logical cause of the behaviour...

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

examples include Einstein, Newton, Mendel

Wait wait wait... Hold on hold on hold on.... Einstein?!

drkpower

cocoa wrote: »

But it's not an analogy, it's exactly the same thing. I think you give people too much credit, to suggest that basing wars on things etc, might cause them to check their credentials any better.

Also, decisions like wars etc. are made by a minority, thus it is based on the belief of a minority. So saying that wars were waged based on the belief of a minority doesn't really lend any strength to the argument.

i am questioning your analogy that a belief in God is comparable to a belief in superstitions - people do not base major decisions on superstitions and it is obviously not a valid analogy

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

i am questioning your analogy that a belief in God is comparable to a belief in superstitions - people do not base major decisions on superstitions and it is obviously not a valid analogy

Don't you understand that he wasn't making an analogy?

drkpower

cocoa wrote: »

Seriously though, what does this show? Are you claiming that smart people have believed and do believe it, and smart people are often right, therefore god exists? Are you claiming many people believe it, there must be some kind of sense of him, tapping into the human mind (or soul if you prefer) instilling this believe, therefore god exists?

????
Did i say any of that?
No; Read first before replying!

cocoa

drkpower wrote: »

????
Did i say any of that?
No; Read first before replying!

You mentioned a majority people believing in god, I wondered why this might be evidence for god existing and suggested a few possibilities, I was not claiming you said them. In any case, can you answer the question, what does a majority of people believing in a god show? And more importantly, how?

drkpower

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Don't you understand that he wasn't making an analogy?

This is what he said:
Originally Posted by pH
So then what about (non religious) superstitions? You think it incredible that the majority of the world's population have been delusional about lucky omens, rabbits feet, broken mirrors, spilt salt and ladders? Or are you suggesting that all these need to be taken seriously too?

If its not an anlaogy, i dont know what is...

drkpower

cocoa wrote: »

You mentioned a majority people believing in god, I wondered why this might be evidence for god existing and suggested a few possibilities, I was not claiming you said them. In any case, can you answer the question, what does a majority of people believing in a god show? And more importantly, how?

I already did - See my post at 1815
It is evidence, part of the factual matrix of this whole issue - i dont say it proves everything but i do say it cannot be easily dismissed

cocoa

drkpower wrote: »

I already did - See my post at 1815
It is evidence, part of the factual matrix of this whole issue - i dont say it proves everything but i do say it cannot be easily dismissed

But what's the next logical step? You have give your slant on why a majority of people believe in god. Unless you're simply going for the straightforward, 'because there is one'...

And why can't it be dismissed as human nature?

tismenotyou

wow you guys are hard to keep up with !!

i recently watched a doc/film called "religous" !!

believer or non i think some of you may find it interesting ..

you can find it at www.watch-movies.net it lasts about 90mins

take a look ..

sorry my bad !! edited due to wrong site address

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

That's an issue for those who hold moral relavitism as a viewpoint though. If you are saying that these things are wrong surely you are saying that these things are universally wrong, and that there is a universal morality system binding on these people?

Well I believe there is a universal morality. For instance, human nature and shared vulnerability to suffering all lead to common moral codes. In the general case, what is good and bad for our species in order for it to thrive and, in turn, more likely be happy.

Húrin wrote: »

Objective morality depends on God for its existence. Without God nothing is objectively wrong.

I'd have to disagree. Objective morality is usually claimed to be the province of religion, however I believe objective morality is a morality based on reality instead of subjective beliefs. If I understand objective as you use it (un influenced by emotion or personal predjuices).

There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules from an outside agent (deity) which we must accept as a matter of duty.

drkpower

cocoa wrote: »

But what's the next logical step? You have give your slant on why a majority of people believe in god. Unless you're simply going for the straightforward, 'because there is one'...

Fair point. There are many possibilities and reasons, some of which have been mentioned already and many have real validity - the most convincing of which is that society needs to understand who we are and why we are here. But many of these question have been answered over the last few centuries and yet the belief in a higher power remanins very high - to be honest, its difficult to explain, its almost a paradox - but i suppose it comes down to this, i struggle to understand how so many (very clever, intelligent) people belive in something that has very little factual/scientific evidence for it and that gives me serious pause for thought.

Now, dont get me wrong, i am a confirmed agnostic but I am irritated by the certainty many people have in their belief that there is no God and that it is borderline lunacy to believe in a higher power

cocoa

drkpower wrote: »

Fair point. There are many possibilities and reasons, some of which have been mentioned already and many have real validity - the most convincing of which is that society needs to understand who we are and why we are here. But many of these question have been answered over the last few centuries and yet the belief in a higher power remanins very high - to be honest, its difficult to explain, its almost a paradox - but i suppose it comes down to this, i struggle to understand how so many (very clever, intelligent) people belive in something that has very little factual/scientific evidence for it and that gives me serious pause for thought.

Now, dont get me wrong, i am a confirmed agnostic but I am irritated by the certainty many people have in their belief that there is no God and that it is borderline lunacy to believe in a higher power

Hmm, I still don't really agree. I don't think a majority believing in something is a reason for giving it any more credence. Personally I'd like to think I'd treat it the same way if only 2 people believed.

Oh, and confirmed agnostic here too. As far as I'm concerned, we have no way of knowing one way or the other and I'd never say there definitely is no god. I just take issue with the idea of believers being evidence of existence.

eoin5

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But the question is do they believe in gods, which quite a number of Buddhists do, which hardly makes it an atheist religion.

After reading a bit I see some Bhuddist gods are theistic, the devas. Thanks Rev, You learn something new everyday

DinoBot

eoin5 wrote: »

After reading a bit I see some Bhuddist gods are theistic, the devas. Thanks Rev, You learn something new everyday

I'm no expert but I think the concept of god is very different. Most devas are simply enlightened humans. We all will become devas if we reach enlightenment.

I don't think Buddhism believes in a creator in the same way as Christians do.

philologos

studiorat: Do you believe the universal laws that you are talking about are innate or that humans have created these universal laws after time on earth? I don't see how the second could really work since it is basically conceding that the things you have described may have been perfectly moral in a different age.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

studiorat: Do you believe the universal laws that you are talking about are innate or that humans have created these universal laws after time on earth? I don't see how the second could really work since it is basically conceding that the things you have described may have been perfectly moral in a different age.

I wouldn't say believe. Both probably, I think that there are certain innate morals throughout human kind. The most obvious being the thou shall not kill one. These morals would have a evolution if you will, I hesitate to use the term memes. What first began as altruistic reciprocation (you scratch my back...) the gradual acceptance of truths of what is good and bad has developed into a "universalistic" morality, in contrast with "tribal" morality. As the idea of right and wrong developed so it encompassed more and more situations. The introduction of a religious aspect served to cement these truths and create a commonality in larger groups regarding acceptance of these common truths.

However I think personal our behavior is determined to a large extent by the situation. And then again maybe morality has no foundation other than its self.

I'd argue that morals may indeed be different in a different age.

Húrin

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Did you see my post on the previous page ?

Yes. It proves my point that you know that there is an objective morality. The example you provided violates it. What does it matter if a Muslim thinks that it is the right thing to do? It doesn't make it so.

Universal morality is indicated by our conscience and confirmed by scriptures, not refuted by it.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

But for some reason your wife is horrified and tries to leave you, she does not understand this is the punishment the holy book lays down. So you kill her too - she has dare to leave her rightful place as proscribed by the holy book. By your standards, morals and faith this is entirely the right thing to do.

cocoa wrote: »

deluding themselves is far too strong. Personally, I think it's almost like it's in our DNA. Believing in a greater being is a useful tool for sentient lifeforms, for maintaining order and fear, for controlling each other.

Doesn't this fly in the face of the hypotheses that religion causes division and war, and that atheism would be an aid to a more peaceful world? Sorry if you agree with neither of these.

I think the fact that many people believe shows it's an inherent part of human nature, not that it might be true.

I think that the fact that spirituality is an inherent part of human nature is a good reason to think there might be something to it.

pH wrote: »

So then what about (non religious) superstitions? You think it incredible that the majority of the world's population have been delusional about lucky omens, rabbits feet, broken mirrors, spilt salt and ladders?

No, they haven't. Superstitions tend to be strongly ethnocentric.

studiorat wrote: »

Well I believe there is a universal morality. For instance, human nature and shared vulnerability to suffering all lead to common moral codes. In the general case, what is good and bad for our species in order for it to thrive and, in turn, more likely be happy.

No, social Darwinism is not compatible with universal morality.

I'd have to disagree. Objective morality is usually claimed to be the province of religion, however I believe objective morality is a morality based on reality instead of subjective beliefs. If I understand objective as you use it (un influenced by emotion or personal predjuices).

God is reality, as far as I am concerned. Sneering remarks that I'm basing my morality on a fiction are not helpful. Objective morality is morality that is not subject to one society's or individual human's definition. It is universally true for us all and is not based on what is socially or individually advantageous.

There is no reason why we should assume that the only justified moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules from an outside agent (deity) which we must accept as a matter of duty.

When we find those rules in us in the form of conscience, that's a good reason to accept them. Any argument from evolution is merrely descriptive; it describes what we thought in the past. However, accepting that our morality has a divine author allows it to take a prescriptive position. We can't credibly ignore it that way.

eoin5

DinoBot wrote: »

I'm no expert but I think the concept of god is very different. Most devas are simply enlightened humans. We all will become devas if we reach enlightenment.

I don't think Buddhism believes in a creator in the same way as Christians do.

I'm trying to figure out Buddhism in terms of theism. What makes a theistic religion to me is either a belief in a devine interventionist creator god as in mono-theistic religions like christianity or belief in more than one god that holds sway or intervene in life in some way as in Hinduism or in many Pagan religions.

What Buddhism isnt is monotheistic, there is no mention of a creator god. It fits loosely into polytheism if you are willing to call some of the Buddhist higher spiritual beings interventionist gods. From what I've read the Devas can interact with humans.

Before today I used to think of Buddhism as a largely atheistic religion. It doesnt seem possible to unconditionally classify Buddhism as either theistic or atheistic.

Asiaprod

I thought I would take a stab at explaining my own understanding and position on the place of God(s) in my belief system and why I call myself an Atheistic Buddhist. Bear in mind that they are my own thoughts and do not represent the thoughts of all the different schools.

Traditional Buddhism taught that either there are no gods or, if there are, they aren’t worth bothering with — but people being people, gods have been added to Buddhist practice over the centuries. They aren’t creator gods like we find in Western religion, but they are considered to be gods nonetheless i.e, entities that reside in a plane of existence that is removed from the earthly plain and is subject to its own laws and physics. These God(s) are said to enjoy the fruits of good karma in a paradise until their karma runs out and they are reborn in a lower realm to start all over again. And that is a key point, these Gods must be reborn as humans to attain enlightenment. Enlightenment has never been clearly defined as it is considered to be beyond the abilities of earthly mortals to describe or understand it.

In Sanskrit the word Nirvana translates at atheism and means disbelief in a creator god. It does not require disbelief in anything else that might be a "god," but for many anything less than a creator isn't a genuine god in the first place. Hindu philosophy rejects the existence of a creator god, making them explicitly atheistic from a Hindu perspective. This doesn't make them naturalistic, but it does make them as atheistic as any belief system, philosophy, or religion from the perspective of religious theists in the West. Buddhism, which is regarded by many to be an atheistic religion, is no different. Its scriptures or writings either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods as any source of morality, or that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, the scriptures or writings do accept the existence of supernatural beings which some might described as gods. Some Buddhists today do believe in the existence of such beings and are considered theists. Others dismiss these beings and are considered atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is an easy position to maintain. There is no almighty God in Buddhism, there is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a Judgement Day. Therefore, Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance/dependence to a supernatural being.

The Buddha himself rejected metaphysical speculation as a matter of principle, and his teachings (we prefer the term Guidelines) focused entirely on practical ways to end suffering. But he did not explicitly rule out the existence of God(s), in short, he was not concerned with God(s). According to history, shortly after his death a devotional element formed within Buddhism. Buildings were erected to contain his relics and pilgrimmages were made to places where he had walked. The next development saw the acceptance of past and future Buddhas, a variety of celestial Buddhas or Bodhisatvas if you like. They came to be revered and looked to for assistance on the path to enlightenment. An example of this would be the highly devotional Pure Land Buddhism; Pure Land Buddhists revere and call on the name of the Amitabha Buddha to grant them entrance to a paradisiacal "Pure Land" after death. As Buddhism spread into other cultures with existing religious beliefs, local deities and religious practices were incorporated into the Buddhist system (kind of like evolution in action). Another example of this evolution would be Tibetan Buddhism and its cosmology which features a vast number of divine beings with their own families and consorts. These beings are considered as symbolic representations of the psychic life by some or accepted as realities by other. There are six realms of existence in the Tibetan cosmology, one of which is the realm of the gods. And once again, these gods enjoy the fruits of good karma in a paradise until their karma runs out and they are reborn in a lower realm. In fact, gods must be reborn as humans to attain enlightenment.

I am of the Nichiren Shoshu school of Buddhism and have practiced this Buddhism for 24 years. We do not accept the concept of God(s). We do however accept the existence of for want of a better term celestial Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. The role played by these entities is that of teachers, guides or protecters in our own search for enlightenment. We don't pray to them as creator gods like we find in Western religion, we accord them respect and seek to lean from them. The spiritual way this help might manifest itself could be during meditation (our format is chanting, same as the Tibetan and other schools) when we may get a flash of insight into an issue or aspect of ourselves that we are struggling to understand. In this action (Chanting), during the prayer aspect we symbolically call upon them for protection and guidance in our search, but we never ever consider them to be Gods in any shape of form that will change our destiny. We alone are responsible for changing this aspect of our life. There is no get out of jail free card. They started like we did, as humans, and evolved in their practice to a different plane of conciseness. In view of the above I describe my faith in Buddhism as atheistic in the sense that I deny the existence of an eternal creator God, while also recognizing that there are theistic or devotional elements. Another spiritual aspect that I and many I know incorporate into out faith is the use of the Iching as a method of understanding the external forces at play in our life.

Sorry if this is not as accurate, hole proof or clinically provable as others might like it to be, and for its length. As always, personal faith, experience and results play a big part in what i believe. What I hope it does do is roughly explain why a Buddhist can with a very clear conscience declare to be Atheistic, Theistic or a combination of both.

cocoa

Húrin wrote: »

Doesn't this fly in the face of the hypotheses that religion causes division and war, and that atheism would be an aid to a more peaceful world? Sorry if you agree with neither of these.

I don't really think so. Can't it be a useful natural technique on a low level? Also, I don't really think religion causes division and war, I think it helps control people and may well be useful when trying to make people fight harder. I think people cause wars and divisions.

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the fact that spirituality is an inherent part of human nature is a good reason to think there might be something to it.

I'll have to disagree with you there. To my mind, spirituality is part of human nature, therefore it is a useful trait which has survived through the years. Saying 'there might be something to it' seems very general to me, are you inferring that the human race has some way of sensing a higher being, and this manifests itself in spirituality being part of human nature? Let me put it another way, do you think people would act very differently if there was no higher being?

MackDeToaster

Húrin wrote: »

Yes. It proves my point that you know that there is an objective morality.

Er, no it doesn't. The idea was to place yourself in the Muslim's shoes. From that viewpoint what he did was exactly the right thing to do. From my subjective viewpoint it is disgusting, but that's irrelevant here - if I was him I'd kill them too.

Húrin wrote: »

The example you provided violates it. What does it matter if a Muslim thinks that it is the right thing to do? It doesn't make it so.

Universal morality is indicated by our conscience and confirmed by scriptures, not refuted by it.

As above, where is the universal morality of the Muslim in this example ? It shows that for a Muslim it is the right thing to do, it's his morality (and has been confirmed by his scriptures). You've just agreed that it violates it, i.e. there is no universal morality, then promptly gone ahead and claimed the opposite. How can you reconcile these two contradictory claims?

studiorat

Húrin wrote: »

God is reality, as far as I am concerned. Sneering remarks that I'm basing my morality on a fiction are not helpful. Objective morality is morality that is not subject to one society's or individual human's definition. It is universally true for us all and is not based on what is socially or individually advantageous.

I only stated that your belief is subjective, not fictious. So you may hold on to your pretendy indignation.
I disagree with your view on what is objective morality and the compatibility of evolutionary morality.

Black Swan

One of the reasons for this thread... Claiming to be atheist only states what you do not believe, but does not state what you believe; i.e., in terms of what you believe or accept or use to view the world or universe (or whatever you want to call it). The word "believe" was used in a broad sense, not in the narrow context of theism, and suggests that some things you accept without direct experience to confirm its validity (e.g., you believe it to be true because it is consistent with your cognitive perception of the world, even though you have not personally tested it).

It was assumed that persons who claim to be atheist would not be identical in the way they view the world, but rather that they would be individuals that may exhibit differences in perception? I thought it might be interesting to view what was believed by persons who claim to be atheists?

This topic seems to be related to the field of epistemology, or the discipline that attempts to address "How do we know what we know?" Theists seek their answers from an all knowing God (or from those that claim to be informed by that God), while atheists reject the theist premise and seek their explanations from other sources; e.g., objective theory, rational thought, scientific method, etc.)?

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

I think that the fact that spirituality is an inherent part of human nature is a good reason to think there might be something to it.

To be honest, I would approach it from a different side. You claim the reason why humans are drawn to the spiritual is because god exists. I'd say the reason people believe a god exists is because they are drawn to the spiritual, that god is merely a product of humans wanting to believe that there is something more, not a cause.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

To be honest, I would approach it from a different side. You claim the reason why humans are drawn to the spiritual is because god exists. I'd say the reason people believe a god exists is because they are drawn to the spiritual, that god is merely a product of humans wanting to believe that there is something more, not a cause.

"God" in its expanded sense is just a word for the spiritual. So yes, I think that humans are spiritual creatures, because there is something to spirituality. We intuitively know that there is more to reality than just blind physical matter and energy.

cocoa

Húrin wrote: »

"God" in its expanded sense is just a word for the spiritual. So yes, I think that humans are spiritual creatures, because there is something to spirituality. We intuitively know that there is more to reality than just blind physical matter and energy.

But there is more to life than blind physical matter and energy. It's nice of you to describe it so plainly, but it's actually quite amazing what physical matter does, especially when you go anywhere near quantum. The idea of mystery and wonder is very natural, the natural world is amazing! There's quite enough incredible things to wonder about, right in front of us, without going the extra step and saying 'you know what else, it was all made by a higher power! cool huh?'.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

We intuitively know that there is more to reality than just blind physical matter and energy.

I would suggest we intuitively want there to be more to reality than just blind physical matter and energy.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

I would suggest we intuitively want there to be more to reality than just blind physical matter and energy.

In the same way that we want there to be something to satisfy hunger. :rolleyes:

No seriously, what does that intuition tell you? I'm not citing that as proof, but it's a strong indicator. It doesn't make the essentially faith-based naturalist case any more persuasive.