Ask an Atheist.

[Lord_Iggy]

I'd think everyone would jump away from the grenade, or kick it away immediately.

As an atheist, why do you think people like you equate atheism with liberalism?

Because many people associate religions such as Christianity and Islam with conservativism.

I'm an agnostic, living in a Christian culture. I don't specifically believe in a god, though I don't discard the possibility.

I'm quite content with being a moral, kind person without hope of an eternal reward for my actions.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was arguing that to an atheist, the distinction does not exist; which also means that we do not distinguish much between those who believe in ghosts and those who believe in gods.

I cannot answer your Satan question (a few posts back) because I doubt that we'd be describing the same Satan. I'd be tempted to call the concept a 'ghost' (good terminology, btw), but I can think of many types of people who would call him a (small 'g') god. Depends on what role you see for him in the mythology. If it helps, I would describe Cthulhu as a 'ghost' not 'god'.

See, I do think of people who believe in ghosts and people who believe in gods to be different. I put ghost-believers into the same category as UFO believers; they're taking evidence (which I choose to disbelieve) as potentially true and then describing a universe which contains these fantastic beliefs.

On the other hand, a person who believes in gods not only chooses to believe certain evidences (that the atheist disregards) but also describes a moral code and eternal consequences for their actions (the 'eternal consequences' being, like you said, a function of power - and thus much less important as a distinction). The authority for being responsible for codifying (fundamental) morality is separate from the ability to punish/reward regarding it. What I'm saying is that a theist brings philosophical consequences of their faith to the table, while a ghost-believer does not.

 

[mdwh]

I disagree. Atheism is not about disbelieving one specific "God", but disbelieving that specific deity along with all other supernatural bullfeathers. I would not consider someone who believes in some Greek mythological monster "athiest", for example.

I never said about disbelieving one specific God - yes, it's about disbelieving all deities.

But I don't see how "deity" can mean something like "ghost" or "existence of psychic abilities" or the afterlife or the loch ness monster at all.

Well, to an atheist, what's the difference between ghosts, deities, and other supernatural things?

Deities are sentient beings that exist separate to our Universe, and usually believed to have created it.

Ghosts are some phenomenon that some claim to have observed, which may or may not be sentient.

I can't see how they are possibly related, other than they are both things with little hard evidence.

Afterall, don't some of your call some portion of your god the "holy ghost"? What's the deal with that if gods are so different from ghosts?

Just because two things sometimes share the same name doesn't mean they are the same thing. That's just language. What are the other parts of the trinity? The father and the son - by this logic, there's no difference between gods, and fathers and sons!

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Question- is Deism the same as atheism? Functionally, they seem very similar, but I suppose you could make distinctions between different types of Deism.

 

[nihilistic]

On the other hand, a person who believes in gods not only chooses to believe certain evidences (that the atheist disregards) but also describes a moral code and eternal consequences for their actions (the 'eternal consequences' being, like you said, a function of power - and thus much less important as a distinction). The authority for being responsible for codifying (fundamental) morality is separate from the ability to punish/reward regarding it. What I'm saying is that a theist brings philosophical consequences of their faith to the table, while a ghost-believer does not.

Umm, not so from an atheist POV. You view fear/admire/pander your "god" for whatever philosophical reasons you believe he/she asked of you. the ghost believer may well have another set of procedures he/she established with his ghost buddies/enemies. Just one relationship may be a tad more sophisticated and nuanced than the other doesn't mean the two are fundamentally different.

See, I do think of people who believe in ghosts and people who believe in gods to be different. I put ghost-believers into the same category as UFO believers; they're taking evidence (which I choose to disbelieve) as potentially true and then describing a universe which contains these fantastic beliefs.

Deities are sentient beings that exist separate to our Universe, and usually believed to have created it.

Ghosts are some phenomenon that some claim to have observed, which may or may not be sentient.

I can't see how they are possibly related, other than they are both things with little hard evidence.

Now you are talking about phenomena, which you two attribute to "ghosts" seemingly without question. That already put you into the deist's camp. An atheist, upon witnessing a phenomenon he/she doesn't yet understand, say lightning, would not implicate either Zeus or a ghost. An atheist is in effect a materialist, and to a materialist the universe includes our phisical existence and everything that can potentially interact with it. Then, either such "deities" you talk about is meaningless or it is within the universe. As such, no difference between ghosts and deities exist, as they are both deistic explanations of phenomena.

 

[Truronian]

Agnostic with atheist leanings... atheism seems most likely.

 

[Perfection]

Next CFC OT thread: Ask a male

 

[El_Machinae]

An atheist is in effect a materialist

It seems that you make a materialist to be the same beastie as an atheist. While I think there's crossover, I don't think they're necessarily the same thing.

To spin the question; how does believing in (say) ghosts make one a theist (if a theist is the opposite of an atheist)?

 

[skadistic]

It seems that you make a materialist to be the same beastie as an atheist. While I think there's crossover, I don't think they're necessarily the same thing.

To spin the question; how does believing in (say) ghosts make one a theist (if a theist is the opposite of an atheist)?

Because believing in ghosts (an unverifiable occurance that has as much posibility and probability as some fairytail god) gives you the "belief" part wich I learned earlier in the thread is all you need for religion.

 

[mdwh]

Now you are talking about phenomena, which you two attribute to "ghosts" seemingly without question. That already put you into the deist's camp.

A deist believes in a god (who does not interfere with the Universe). Nothing to do with ghosts.

An atheist, upon witnessing a phenomenon he/she doesn't yet understand, say lightning, would not implicate either Zeus or a ghost. An atheist is in effect a materialist, and to a materialist the universe includes our phisical existence and everything that can potentially interact with it. Then, either such "deities" you talk about is meaningless or it is within the universe.

Since when do you speak for all atheists? You - and I, and most atheists - may have that view. But when I was younger, I didn't believe in God, but I did believe in ghosts as some phenomenon that we didn't yet understand. Yet you insist this means I believed in a deity, even though I didn't?

As such, no difference between ghosts and deities exist, as they are both deistic explanations of phenomena.

They are *different* phenomena. And "ghosts" aren't an explanation either, they are something which people claim to be. One explanation might be "they are souls of dead people", but (a) that explanation isn't anything to do with God, and (b) it is only one possible explanation.

Are the loch ness monster and telepathy gods too?

 

[mdwh]

Because believing in ghosts (an unverifiable occurance that has as much posibility and probability as some fairytail god) gives you the "belief" part wich I learned earlier in the thread is all you need for religion.

But religion isn't the same thing. You can be religious and an atheist (buddhism), or believe in a god without being religious (deism).

Show me a definition of atheism which states disbelief in anything supernatural.

 

[skadistic]

Theist belive in supernatural. Atheist have a total lack of theism.

 

[El_Machinae]

Strange; I would put yeti-hunters, ghost-hunters, and UFO-hunters in a different camp than religious folk.

And here I thought I had nothing to learn about atheists ...

 

[mdwh]

Theist belive in supernatural. Atheist have a total lack of theism.

Theists believe in a particular thing (a deity) that is supernatural. The set of people who are not theists are not people who don't believe in anything supernatural - that's basic logic.

Unless you mean that a theist is anyone who believes in anything supernatural - so someone who doesn't believe in God, but believes in ghosts, is now a theist? Show me a definition which says that people who believe in ghosts or anything supernatural are theists.

 

[skadistic]

Show me a definition which says that people who believe in ghosts or anything supernatural are theists.

Show me one that says a belief in ghosts isn't theistic. If religions don't need gods to be a religion then theisms don't need gods to be theisms. Are you saying that theisms would only aply if people worshiped these ghosts?

 

[nihilistic]

It seems that you make a materialist to be the same beastie as an atheist. While I think there's crossover, I don't think they're necessarily the same thing.

To spin the question; how does believing in (say) ghosts make one a theist (if a theist is the opposite of an atheist)?

Well, if one believe in supernatural stuff, then consequently, one is not an atheist.

A deist believes in a god (who does not interfere with the Universe). Nothing to do with ghosts.

If said god does not interfere with universe, then such a claim is bullfeathers. It might as well be a turkey or an orangutan or a bunch of roaches. If it ceases to interact with our universe then any claim about it can neither be sustained nor refuted. It simply isn't any longer a pertinent subject for discussion.

Since when do you speak for all atheists? You - and I, and most atheists - may have that view. But when I was younger, I didn't believe in God, but I did believe in ghosts as some phenomenon that we didn't yet understand. Yet you insist this means I believed in a deity, even though I didn't?

It's the definition man. If you believe in ghosts, you are by definition not an atheist regardless if you consider yourself to be one. There are no substantial distinction between ghosts and deities.

They are *different* phenomena. And "ghosts" aren't an explanation either, they are something which people claim to be. One explanation might be "they are souls of dead people", but (a) that explanation isn't anything to do with God, and (b) it is only one possible explanation.

No. They are explanations. You might see a mirage in the desert; you might hear Casper whisper to you after you take some LSD, you see "strange" things that may be just hot air, you do not see "a ghost". The "ghost" part, is an explanation which you accepted to describe the phenomena.

Are the loch ness monster and telepathy gods too?

Depends. If you think the Loch Ness monster is some kind of dinosaur which may have escaped extinction and telepathy has a physical explanation, then however far-fetched, that is not a deistic position. If you think te Loch Ness monster is a Herculean monster and telepathy works like black magic, then I don't see the difference between that and a deist. Of course, you can simply look at the availble scientific evidence and conclude that both Loch Ness monster and telepathy are hoaxes.

 

[Love]

Depends. If you think the Loch Ness monster is some kind of dinosaur which may have escaped extinction and telepathy has a physical explanation, then however far-fetched, that is not a deistic position. If you think te Loch Ness monster is a Herculean monster and telepathy works like black magic, then I don't see the difference between that and a deist. Of course, you can simply look at the availble scientific evidence and conclude that both Loch Ness monster and telepathy are hoaxes.

But please, the loch ness monster is just a log stupid

 

[mdwh]

Show me one that says a belief in ghosts isn't theistic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism
http://www.answers.com/theism&r=67

and similarly:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67

All talk about gods/deities, nothing about the supernatural in general. Now your turn.

If religions don't need gods to be a religion then theisms don't need gods to be theisms.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

Are you saying that theisms would only aply if people worshiped these ghosts?

No, theism is belief in god, not ghosts.

If people worshipped ghosts and built a system of belief about it, then it would be a non-theistic religion.

 

[mdwh]

If said god does not interfere with universe, then such a claim is bullfeathers. It might as well be a turkey or an orangutan or a bunch of roaches. If it ceases to interact with our universe then any claim about it can neither be sustained nor refuted. It simply isn't any longer a pertinent subject for discussion.

Sure, but such people exist.

It's the definition man. If you believe in ghosts, you are by definition not an atheist regardless if you consider yourself to be one. There are no substantial distinction between ghosts and deities.

Of course there is! People do not believe ghosts to be "supreme beings". I can't see how one could equate the two.

Depends. If you think the Loch Ness monster is some kind of dinosaur which may have escaped extinction and telepathy has a physical explanation, then however far-fetched, that is not a deistic position.

Except that many if not most people who believe in things like psychic powers believe that they are part of this world - that they may have a physical explanation (albeit one that we do not know).

So to conclude, if someone believes that telepathy is caused by a deity, then obviously they are not atheists. But most people who believe in telepathy do not hold that position.

If you think te Loch Ness monster is a Herculean monster and telepathy works like black magic

What do you mean by "works like black magic" - what about people who do believe in magic, but don't believe this is caused in anyway by a deity? Are you telling that they believe in a deity, even when they don't?

 

[skadistic]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism
http://www.answers.com/theism&r=67

and similarly:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67

All talk about gods/deities, nothing about the supernatural in general. Now your turn.So gods aren't supernatual? And Iasked for a definition that distinctly said " a belief in ghosts isn't theistic."

No, that doesn't follow at all.

No, theism is belief in god, not ghosts.

If people worshipped ghosts and built a system of belief about it, then it would be a non-theistic religion.No if they worshpid those ghosts those ghosts would be gods, hence the worship part.

___________________________________________________________________