Guest Valk0010 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 I suck at this question cause I don't know alot about it. I don't believe in any god. However I don't feel that I have the ability to say that the natural world is all that exists. This does not mean I entertain batshit crazy stuff. I agree with the idea that things like history and science are methodologically natural. I don't believe in god part due to failure of its logic and part to its failures that can be perceived through normally methodologically natural means. But I am getting more interested in I guess, Atheism as a subject and what that entails more then just lack of belief in god. I also wonder if atheism is contingent on materalism. I am not sure if it is. But I am curious what others thing. I don't think god is a scientific hypothesis because you can't test it with the scientific method and you can't really experiment with the concept from the aspect of say the creation of the universe? Your answering a mystery with a undefinable. You also can't disprove it cause you just rewrite what you tried to prove at a drop of the hat since god is undefinable. Its not falsifiable as well. And how can you even test the idea? If could be a god who doesn't do miracles for all you know. See why I think god is not a scientific hypothesis. But then how could this square with philosophical naturalism? I am just wondering what this question or how this works in your life or how you understand reality? Sorry if this seems disjointed. EDIT: I managed to make a gaff on words, so I flipped them around so they are correct.
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 A theistic God can certainly be part of an initial scientific hypothesis, but it's not likely to pass many reproducible, falsifiable tests with much scrutiny--certainly no mathematical proofs. Naturalism certainly assumes non-theism, call it what you will. It's a non-supernatural term, so...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Ehh I fucked up, I meant to say, more or less, do you have to be a philisophical naturalist to be a atheist.
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 A theistic God can certainly be part of an initial scientific hypothesis, but it's not likely to pass many reproducible, falsifiable tests with much scrutiny--certainly no mathematical proofs. Naturalism certainly assumes non-theism, call it what you will. It's a non-supernatural term, so... I hope you caught my edit and I think we agree but are describing it differently.
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 ...do you have to be a philisophical naturalist to be a atheist. Hmmm.... You can be a deist, but that's still technically atheistic. As far as polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, etc.... Well....they all have theism in the description, don't they?
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 You can be a non-theistic naturalist and still believe in higher intelligence, other dimensions, and visiting aliens. It's still not clear to me from your OP what you are interested in. If you believe in the supernatural, you're not a naturalist...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 ...do you have to be a philisophical naturalist to be a atheist. Hmmm.... You can be a deist, but that's still technically atheistic. As far as polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, etc.... Well....they all have theism in the description, don't they? Well why I am asking this, is because, if I can't say the natural world is all there is, so I am wondering if that is a necessity to use the word atheist and not be opening yourself up to error.
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 You can be a non-theistic naturalist and still believe in higher intelligence, other dimensions, and visiting aliens. It's still not clear to me from your OP what you are interested in. If you believe in the supernatural, you're not a naturalist... I don't believe in the supernatural, but there is a difference in saying you don't believe in the supernatural and you know for 100 percent certainity that the natural world is all there is.
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 Though atheism is commonly considered from a strong atheistic/anti-theistic perspective, it is actually compatible with agnosticism. You don't have to be sure that there is no God/gods or supernatural to be an atheist. Dawkins is an atheist and agnostic. He is only 99.?% certain, based on his own understanding of the odds that a theistic god does not exist. These terms don't actually seem to be helpful in today's religious climate.
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 Dawkins may only claims 95% or 97% certainty--I forget...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 And naturalism is actually a bigger stretch than atheism, since and atheist may still believe in the supernatural.
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Though atheism is commonly considered from a strong atheistic/anti-theistic perspective, it is actually compatible with agnosticism. You don't have to be sure that there is no God/gods or supernatural to be an atheist. Dawkins is an atheist and agnostic. He is only 99.?% certain, based on his own understanding of the odds that a theistic god does not exist. These terms don't actually seem to be helpful in today's religious climate. They aren't for me really. I am an atheist in only that I don't believe in god. But I am agnostic to most things regarding, supernatural stuff.
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 I'm fairly confident that, technically, most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists. The term "atheist" just tends to be more offensive to most religious folk, since they don't understand the terms. I think it wise to be humble and agnostic about everything, especially areas in which you have not yet reached a PhD level understanding.
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 And naturalism is actually a bigger stretch than atheism, since and atheist may still believe in the supernatural. Well I guess my question is sort of a nonquestion, thanks for clarifying that for me.
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted July 28, 2012 Moderator Posted July 28, 2012 I did not intend to discredit your question, Valk. You have demonstrated wisdom in your questioning, IMHO.
Kaiser01 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 If the supper natural exist then in a way it is natural, and it is certainly natural if it intervenes in our world. I dont think you must be a philosophical naturalist to be an atheist however i think based on our understanding it is the only conclusion holding any sort of meaning as a world view.
Recommended Posts