I am a Realist

[Sinbad43]

Atheism is usually defined as "the absence of belief in the existence of deities or the rejection of the belief that any deities exist."

Atheist is a negative frame of reference, suggesting that something that would or should be present is missing; similar to identifying women or couples who do not have children "childless". Accepting "atheist" as a definition of fundamental intellectual perspective is inherently defensive. Discussions tend to begin with the suggestion that we need to explain why we do not accept the prevailing beliefs; that we have the burden of proof for the absence of theism .

I prefer to think of myself as a Realist - my views are grounded on observable, verified or verifiable fact, and scientifically established evidence.

Theists accept the existence of deities based on "faith" without any factual or scientific evidence, driven by often intense social pressure. The absence of verifiable facts are dismissed or ignored. The corpus of religion is a collection of myths and mysticism, often supported by vivid (and sometimes beautiful) art, music and architecture, but not resting upon any factual basis for "faith.'

[LearnedHand]

1. I sort of think about it as being profoundly indifferent to the existence of gods

I have zero need for gods. The universe is completely and sufficiently magical without needing gods to come up with it.

[Faux pas]

2. Imagine believing in

things that you can see, hear, taste, touch, smell and proven by science! I like it

[-misanthroptimist]

3. You've pretty much got it, imo.

The existence of god(s) is a claim. Like any claim it must be adequately supported by observable and repeatable evidence. In the absence of such evidence, game over. God(s) can be dismissed.

Often, the disingenuous technique of "what if we find evidence" is used to try to bargain one down to agnosticism*. But that may be dismissed. All scientific knowledge is accepted with "what if" already in mind. For example, what if we found some evidence that the Theory of Evolution was fundamentally wrong in some way? The answer is we would accommodate the new evidence by changing the Theory, or discard the Theory in favor of a better explanation.

Science does not, and cannot, provide eternal truths. It provides the best conclusion based on the available evidence. Anything in science may be changed at any moment upon the availability of new evidence.

*Decided not to deal with the agnosticism issue for now.

[elleng]

4. Ditto

This I beieve:

Dawn

Sunset

[anciano]

5. Excellent post, well written.

I'm agnostic. I also agree that our views should be grounded on observable phenomena. But due to the sheer complexity and precision of the creation that I do observe, it would seem to necessarily be the result of some sort of "intelligent design", although beyond the comprehension of mortal understanding or the need for any mortal understanding in the first place.
Although he was a Deist, I like the idea that Thomas Paine offered that creation reveals to us all that is necessary for us as mortals to know.

[Think. Again.]

6. Well said...

...I consider myself Agnostic also simply because I do not know if there are gods, and I also do not know that there are not gods.

[cachukis]

7. Many years ago I puzzled over moral, immoral

Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2024, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

and amoral.
In the absence of any proof of god, I chose to examine the reality of human responses to ethos. Moral is to do unto others... Immoral is to do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you, and amoral is go forward as a singular, regardless of impact.
I clarified so much of it with the conclusion of the last person on earth when he/she discovered, nobody cared.
All questions are answered by your choice to be moral, immoral or amoral.
God is not really in the equation except if you want. Not really needed in spite of your wants.
Question about whether you support democracy. Answer with: it is a choice to allow for another view, your view is worthless, or I'll decide when I have to.

[WmChris]

8. Realist is a good discriptor

As to the actual embodiment of a singular god as professed by many religions, I don't know if such an entity exists. I doubt that even if it does, it plays games with people, rewarding or punishing them for their belief or non-belief, or whether they attend services or believe exactly what the appointed spokespersons of the particular belief system conveys as the absolute truth. Although most other than the extremist groups adhere to what I believe to be reasonable guidelines for living in a reasonable society.

[Eko]

9. An old friend of mine who is very religious told me that "something can't come from nothing"

When were talking about the "big bang" theory. I then asked him where did "God" come from, of course he said "God is Eternal" and I replied back then he came from nothing right? All he could say is repeat that he is eternal. He wont talk to me anymore. Cant say I miss him.