Question For Atheists

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[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...