Question For Atheists

[David Sklansky]

Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension. Sort of like the Sphere in Flatland. Some being that worked out the laws of physics and subatomic particles, muons, quarks, Higgs fields etc etc for us and then watched what happened. Like some of us do with those "Life" type games on our computer. Maybe a sixth dimensional high school student doing a science project. Can you accept that possibility and still be an atheist?

for me, yes.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension. </font>

I think anyone who considers this as *quite* possible shouldn't consider themselves an atheist. Off hand (and without much thought and zero study), I would make the line at less than 2%. I doubt anything I could learn in the near future would cause me to make it any higher than 10%. In other words, I think it is unlikely. Is 2%-10% considered quite possible? I suppose it could be, but then, I don't consider myself an atheist.

[David Sklansky]

The answer has nothing to do with how possible you think it is. You could even think it PROBABLE. The question was whether the theory I espoused is compatible with the definition of atheism.

[purnell]

It totally depends on what the word atheist means, doesn't it? We have had a hard time agreeing on this definition.

Could we correctly call your hypothetical kid "god"? I don't think so.

It was thinking about this kind of possibility that first led me to question the religion I was born into. I was maybe ten at the time, and I still don't have a satisfactory answer.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Some being that worked out the laws of physics and subatomic particles, muons, quarks, Higgs fields etc etc for us and then watched what happened. Like some of us do with those "Life" type games on our computer. Maybe a sixth dimensional high school student doing a science project.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, someone has the guts to tell the world the one true creation story. It's not a debate about first cause but merely a chance for first prize. Testify know that you have seen Sped.

For sure this creation story is at least as credible and probably more comforting than most.
I'll take it.
And while we're at it, I give the 6th dimensional kid a D-...I'm guessing that he was a mediocre student and there are better worlds the top students made where all people do is [censored] and eat ice cream.

g

[Lestat]

Then I would say yes you can still consider yourself an atheist, because your theory has little to do with a God. I don't think God and creator mean the same thing. I also think God and omnipotent must go together although I could be wrong, since I know little about linguistics.

It's very possible the unviverse was created by accident, or by something that doesn't understand what it had created or even KNOW that it created it! I don't see that acknowledging these possibilities necessarily interferes with an atheistic view.

I agree with that idea and certainly think I am an aethiest. Thats because I almost treat being a theist as requiring irrational thoughts. The way you have posed the question makes the option non-rediculous.

I think the other difference between an atheist that believes that is a possiblity, and a religious believer, is that the atheist wouldn't preach it as a certainty without more information.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
For sure this creation story is at least as credible and probably more comforting than most.
I'll take it.
And while we're at it, I give the 6th dimensional kid a D-...I'm guessing that he was a mediocre student and there are better worlds the top students made where all people do is [censored] and eat ice cream.

g

[/ QUOTE ]You are indeed a tought grader. D-!? you should see what some of the other universes looked like. But if you wish to grade it upon us, an unitended consequence that probably wasn't noticed by Sped or Sped's teacher fine and great. In order to understand the univese and Sped one must realise that the universe was created by Sped to help Spedkind figure out the question of "Why are we here?" Sped's creation answered back in many different tongues a resounding "Because you created us, duh". I give it a B- on irony alone, and much higher marks for other things. Now that the answer was given, Sped has been uncaring enough to let us continue on and answer some other questions we wish to know about Sped's creation, thus knowing Sped. It's really quite brillant cmopared to the universes that blew up, or have time flying in different directions or any number of different settings.

[Victor]

to me, atheism only maintains that there is no afterlife.

[IronUnkind]

By this definition, one could believe absolutely in a deity and still be considered an atheist -- this would include many religious Jews and even some Christians.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I can. It is omnipotency and prime cause I have an issue with. What you are suggesting as a cause is simply shifting the issue of god/no god, Which is what the god concept does also, but it does not allow further discusssion, for no other reason that this is how it is defined (smacking of circularity).

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that idea and certainly think I am an aethiest. Thats because I almost treat being a theist as requiring irrational thoughts. The way you have posed the question makes the option non-rediculous.

I think the other difference between an atheist that believes that is a possiblity, and a religious believer, is that the atheist wouldn't preach it as a certainty without more information.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems silly to me, if I get this right. If you aren't a theist because it requires irrational thoughts, why be an atheist? It requires irrational thoughts as well, because you're trying to explain something that you can't be qualified to explain, ie., the general form or purpose of the universe. I'd go so far to say that theists have a leg up on atheists, in that what they believe in could be proven, and that there might very well be actual evidence for it as well, although I wouldn't consider myself at all informed enough to say if there is or isn't. Atheism, on the other hand, can never be proven.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that idea and certainly think I am an aethiest. Thats because I almost treat being a theist as requiring irrational thoughts. The way you have posed the question makes the option non-rediculous.

I think the other difference between an atheist that believes that is a possiblity, and a religious believer, is that the atheist wouldn't preach it as a certainty without more information.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems silly to me, if I get this right. If you aren't a theist because it requires irrational thoughts, why be an atheist? It requires irrational thoughts as well, because you're trying to explain something that you can't be qualified to explain, ie., the general form or purpose of the universe. I'd go so far to say that theists have a leg up on atheists, in that what they believe in could be proven, and that there might very well be actual evidence for it as well, although I wouldn't consider myself at all informed enough to say if there is or isn't. Atheism, on the other hand, can never be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying that there is no solid evidence for the existence of god is not an irrational position. Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[kbfc]

Sure. At this point, though, it's not going to affect my life or decision making in any way whatsoever.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is irrational whether one calls it so or not.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is irrational whether one calls it so or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your point, RJT?

[ QUOTE ]

Saying that there is no solid evidence for the existence of god is not an irrational position. Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps my definition of atheism is different than yours. What you're describing to me is not atheism. To me, that's an agnostic position

Atheism, to me, and I do make assumptions about common usage, isn't that common religions aren't supported by evidence, it's that there ISN'T a god. I agree, from what I know about religion in general, I think it's weakly supported, but that doesn't mean there is no god, afterlife, superior beings, whatever.

An analogy that sort of works. Let's say you found a box lying on the street. Ignoring information you gather from the size and the weight of the box, you have no idea whats inside. You're theistic friend says there's money inside. That's irrational. You're atheist friend says it's empty. That's irrational. I'm not saying calling them out on that is irrational.

[kbfc]

An atheist (in my mold, at least) doesn't say there's nothing in the box. He basically says, "who knows and who cares? I see no evidence that the contents of this box have any bearing on my life."

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension. Sort of like the Sphere in Flatland. Some being that worked out the laws of physics and subatomic particles, muons, quarks, Higgs fields etc etc for us and then watched what happened. Like some of us do with those "Life" type games on our computer. Maybe a sixth dimensional high school student doing a science project. Can you accept that possibility and still be an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

And is it higher and higher dimensional high school students all the way down?

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
And is it higher and higher dimensional high school students all the way down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suppose it's only logical that at some point it becomes turtles....

[imported_luckyme]

Since no definition was provided, I used a common one for god - 1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

An a-theist would not believe either the above exist. Your scenario fits more into the "god is dead" view in that it refers only to an specific creation and hands-off thereafter. It's like when you throw pennies off a tall building, it doesn't matter what you do with them they will be at terminal velocity when they reach the ground and all knowledge of how hard you threw them, etc, is lost and irrelevant.

Short answer - yes, you'd still be an atheist because the kid isn't a 'god'.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
An analogy that sort of works. Let's say you found a box lying on the street. Ignoring information you gather from the size and the weight of the box, you have no idea whats inside. You're theistic friend says there's money inside. That's irrational. You're atheist friend says it's empty. That's irrational. I'm not saying calling them out on that is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's only an analogy but it seems too far off the mark even so. The atheist isn't claiming it's empty, he'd countering that there's not money inside. ( maybe you see the resemblance between your analogy and some theist comments on atheism that we read on this forum)

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[RJT]

Simply agreeing with you, while pointing out that you did not have to qualify the statement. Nothing better to write on a Saturday afternoon, while waiting for my home poker game to start at 7pm. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An analogy that sort of works. Let's say you found a box lying on the street. Ignoring information you gather from the size and the weight of the box, you have no idea whats inside. You're theistic friend says there's money inside. That's irrational. You're atheist friend says it's empty. That's irrational. I'm not saying calling them out on that is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's only an analogy but it seems too far off the mark even so. The atheist isn't claiming it's empty, he'd countering that there's not money inside. ( maybe you see the resemblance between your analogy and some theist comments on atheism that we read on this forum)

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

and chez is out drinking fine English beers with two (fellow?) geniuses and missing all the fun.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An analogy that sort of works. Let's say you found a box lying on the street. Ignoring information you gather from the size and the weight of the box, you have no idea whats inside. You're theistic friend says there's money inside. That's irrational. You're atheist friend says it's empty. That's irrational. I'm not saying calling them out on that is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's only an analogy but it seems too far off the mark even so. The atheist isn't claiming it's empty, he'd countering that there's not money inside. ( maybe you see the resemblance between your analogy and some theist comments on atheism that we read on this forum)

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

At first I agreed with you, because i thought a change in definition changed the point of the analogy. But, the point remains. If we changed the atheist to say, "There isn't money in the box," he's still making an unqualified statement. The point was to illustrate the fallacy that somehow this other person's irrational beliefs make my irrational beliefs rational, particularly dealing with atheists. That might've gotten muddled since I made my reply earlier in the thread. And, I'm not even trying to say that atheism or theism is stupid, it's just not where logic or traditional reason applies.

For definitions. Since we think of atheists differently, what word would you use to describe my version of an atheist? You're definition seems closer to an agnostic or a skeptic in my book. But, I could be wrong and I'm not expecting to convince anyone to use my particular version of an atheist.

Anyway, I've said irrational way too many times in one day, and this doesn't have anything much to do with the topic anyway, so I think i'll try and end my part in it around here.

The problem with the box analogy, is that a box by definition exists to contain something. I think the analogy would be better if you said: There is a rock... a theist says it contains money (has a purpose) and an atheist says this is simply a rock.

Cheers

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you still call yourself an athiest

[/ QUOTE ]

"Atheist" is a word I don't understand and would not apply to myself or anyone else, I am willing to accept others judgement as to whether they think I am an atheist or not however.

[ QUOTE ]
you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it, I suspect the real situations is much weirder and more complicated than we can possibly conceive.

It is however possible the universe was created. If the universe was created, it is also possible that the mechanism by which the universe was created had at some point an association with a pattern that corresponds at some level with those that cause the sensation of consciousness in humans.

If that makes me an agnostic so be it.

However I think it needs to pointed out to some people, that just because something might have created the universe, it does not follow that a biblical god exists, prayers are answered, life after death is possible and the belief of all or any religion are or is correct. This is true even if we decide to label whatever sequence of events might have created the universe (on or a subset thereof) God.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you accept that possibility and still be an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on your definition of atheist, and how well you apply logic to your definition. Personally its a word I avoid.

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And is it higher and higher dimensional high school students all the way down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suppose it's only logical that at some point it becomes turtles....

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be referring to the old uneducated version...

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
a box by definition exists to contain something.

[/ QUOTE ]

different dictionaries I 'spose. I have some squares of plastic, I glue them together to show my girlfriend what a cube is. Discovering I'm one side short I leave it on the coffee table. Mom comes along and says, " get this, this, this , thing.. off my table !!" She'd have called it a box but it wasn't made to contain anything.

You may see some similarity to the thought of others who see something that looks like it has a specific purpose and deduce that therefore it does.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

Hi luckyme,

Agreed with the cube/rather than the box, but then... the theist would say it contains $100 and the atheist would probably not, if it was justa cube left on a table! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The point I was making is that if in your analogy you imply a purpose, then of couse, the conclusion will be different... if in your analogy you imply a designer then again the conclusion may be different.


So I'll stay with a rock is simply a rock, a human being is simply a human being, and the designer, if it exists at all, is not intelligent, hence not godly.

Give me some evidence, and whatever I think (believe), I will change my mind.

[David Sklansky]

"And is it higher and higher dimensional high school students all the way down?"

Suppose there is a "circle" rather than a "line".

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
"And is it higher and higher dimensional high school students all the way down?"

Suppose there is a "circle" rather than a "line".

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you're trippin me out....hey, don't bogart that J.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists claim/think it is rather unlikely (impossible) that some omni-potent creature is ruling the universe. That doesn't say anything about non-omnipotent creatures.

It all depends on the definition of god I guess. If god stands for an omnipotent creature (and I assume it does), then one can still be an atheist.

It's like in the Wizard of Oz. The fake image was what people accepted as "the wizard". The guy behind the curtain who was really responsible for all of the "miracles", was just a "cheater".

[LockLow34]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. I define Atheism as 'living without a belief in any supernatural entity, being, or power.'

A non-omnipotent sixth dimensional being doesn't fall into that category. I believe it was Kaku who demonstrated that it is physically possible for up to 10 dimensions to exist within our universe so such an entity is not outside the realm of natural existence.

[ QUOTE ]
And is it higher and higher dimensional high school students all the way down?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does God have a God? If so, would UberGod consider TinyGod's creations to be part of his (UberGod) own creation?

If we created the Matrix, would any God accept those "conscious" beings as his own children? Would they be able to get into heaven?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Or an omnipotent being, for that matter.

I'm an atheist because I don't worship any gods. ("A" = without; "theos" = gods.) I happen to believe that no gods exist, but even if I thought a few did exist, I wouldn't worship them. Worship is morally irresponsible. So I'd still be an atheist.

I can accept the possibility that the Christian God exists, and still be an atheist. Not a "hard" atheist, but still an atheist.

If I knew that an extra-dimensional non-god being created our universe, then I would be an atheist.... unless the phrase "extra-dimensional non-god being" is self-contradictory according to your defintion of "god". To me, it's not.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist because I don't worship any gods. ("A" = without; "theos" = gods.) I happen to believe that no gods exist, but even if I thought a few possibly did exist, I wouldn't worship them. Worship is morally irresponsible. So I'd still be an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, I feel even more strongly about this. I think it is an odious and abject concept, the existence of a god. And assuming there was one, the only human moral position vis-a-vis it, would be to oppose it, in my opinion.

Yes, athiest means you believe in a God and you follow him closely. Merely admitting there's a greater being does not mean you're religious.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Worship is morally irresponsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, am I glad you showed up. I was having trouble being clear about why DS was drawing too wide of a circle with his -

"I think many religious peole didn't realize that atheists actually feel this way "

There are many routes to atheism, the stronger ones are not based on the lack of evidence for theism ( which is valid but merely a rebuttal approach) but are based on various philosophical grounds that make a belief in a deity impossible ( or in some cases it's existance totally irrelevant).

To be fair to DS, he was making a different point.

[somapopper]

Allow me to suppose for a second it's still a line. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

In this case atheism is compatable with the scenario, because at issue is the origin of the "general mish-mash" and not any universe or dimension. If you in a science expirement created a 2D dimension, I doubt this would force you to believe that you are in fact God.

The circle: I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about with this one. As far as I can figure, at some point to complete the circle, the following would have to be true:

universe A created universe B. universe B created universe A.

note: if universe A and B simultaneously created each other, you in effect only have one universe at the top of the chain.

I think this paradox is much like the pre big bang singularity in that it is unexplainable, but not inconsistent with an atheist's beliefs.

[IronUnkind]

So atheism is the belief that there may or may not be a god?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
He basically says, "who knows and who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you follow where the evidence leads as long as it doesn't interrupt your nap?

[ QUOTE ]
So atheism is the belief that there may or may not be a god?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Atheism is the belief that theists are full of sh!t.

[ QUOTE ]
So atheism is the belief that there may or may not be a god?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you follow where the evidence leads as long as it doesn't interrupt your nap?

[/ QUOTE ]


If you are really interested in knowing what atheism is all about you could check this link (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms) , or you can go back to sleep, dreaming of your god.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So atheism is the belief that there may or may not be a god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most athiests/agnostics agree that:
1) there is no reason to believe in god.
2) they cannot prove god doesn't exist.

There are some minor differences but that's the basic plan.

chez

[admiralfluff]

Can you still call yourself a poker player if you think it's possible that every time you sit down to play poker a higher dimensional being freezes our perceived dimension of time takes your place at the table to play and imprints your brain with false memories afterwards?

[IronUnkind]

You're about a week late (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=37 57855&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=3736958&amp;Words=crotch+IronU nkind&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true)

[IronUnkind]

In many cases, this is precisely true.

[IronUnkind]

I was asking a rhetorical question, but I appreciate your answer. My interest is in explicating the "minor differences" between the two positions. I find it problematic that the terms atheist and agnostic are being used interchangeably in these discussions. At least one poster has offered a definition of atheism that could technically accomodate theism -- very confusing.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I was asking a rhetorical question, but I appreciate your answer. My interest is in explicating the "minor differences" between the two positions. I find it problematic that the terms atheist and agnostic are being used interchangeably in these discussions. At least one poster has offered a definition of atheism that could technically accomodate theism -- very confusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 'definition' could include theists as well, I suppose I have to add 3) no belief in god.

Wiki has an agnostic theist.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is no consistent use of the terms agnostic/athiests and they are best avoided.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I agree wholeheartedly that there is no consistent use of the terms agnostic/athiests and they are best avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said for the term "Christian", too. I think it's best that you just define your terms, if it's unclear to the people involved in the discussion.

I think I'm going to start using the term "nontheist" to mean someone that lacks belief in god(s). It's less confusing, since "atheist" is such a junk word these days. And, people say they are "agnostic", when they are probably also a "nontheist".

I'm an agnostic nontheist skeptic. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an agnostic nontheist skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about that?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an agnostic nontheist skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ] Why would that label make you happy?

[bholdr]

as an atheist, but also a rationalist and a i do not feel that it is either required or wise to think ANYTHING is absolutely true/untrue/impossible/etc...

i think there MIGHT even be a god/creator/whatever...

BUT, and more to the point, i think that proposition is so astronomically inprobable and completly illogical that it's both foolish and immoral to believe it, or, more importanlty, act as if it were true.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a sixth dimensional high school student doing a science project. Can you accept that possibility and still be an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, you can't accept that possibility as likely and still be a reasonable person. atheists can be idiots, too.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm an agnostic nontheist skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm an agnostic nontheist skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ] Why would that label make you happy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it makes me moderately happy because it is an easy way to indicate to others my views on religion/god. It may save me time by being a bit more accurate up front.