No supernatural, no gods.

[Jarhyn]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

 

[Wiploc]

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.
Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

My definition is different since I am what they term as 'strong atheist'.

I'm a strong atheist too: I believe there are no gods.

I deny the possibility of existence of God,

Ah, a gnostic strong atheist.

soul and all related fiction, I do not believe in any supernatural.

I'm almost with you. I believe that souls and the supernatural do not exist.

"All related fiction," is too broad and fuzzy a topic for me to bother forming an opinion about.

If Russell rejected causality, that was his view, mine is different. Unless it is proved that causality is not involved in universe, I will not accept that idea.
Also, as I am a Hindu believing in non-duality (Advaita), I do not even accept the existence of universe and all things in it. That is according to Advaita, an illusion.

Huh. I don't know what to make of that.

Everything I know about the Hindu religion is from Lord of Light (Zelazny).

In any case, nothing you've said here justifies your claim that atheists have to believe in causality.

 

[aupmanyav]

And why do you not think that's an arbitrary, artificial distinction?

I do not think the differentiation is arbitrary. What happens in these two conditions is different. We know inflation, but not BB.

 

[Elixir]

Everything I know about the Hindu religion is from Lord of Light (Zelazny).

That book alone is proof of gods. Roger Zelazny is obviously a god, writing that most excellent book at such a young age.

 

[aupmanyav]

Wiploc said:
Ah, a gnostic atheist.
"All related fiction," is too broad and fuzzy a topic for me to bother forming an opinion about.
Huh. I don't know what to make of that.
Everything I know about the Hindu religion is from Lord of Light (Zelazny).
In any case, nothing you've said here justifies your claim that atheists have to believe in causality.

Aup.: Will check about 'gnostic atheism'.
Related fiction is End of days, judgment, heaven, hell, deliverance.
It seems Zelenzy left out a few things. Did he write about 'maya', illusion?
I did not say that. I said it is my opinion that causality has to be considered in all cases, unless it is proved that something is causeless.

 

[Politesse]

Aup.: Will check about 'gnostic atheism'.
Related fiction is End of days, judgment, heaven, hell, deliverance.
It seems Zelenzy left out a few things. Did he write about 'maya', illusion?
I did not say that. I said it is my opinion that causality has to be considered in all cases, unless it is proved that something is causeless.

To my recollection, it's a science fiction novel set in a vaguely Orientalist setting, not a study of Hinduism. The motivations and the philosophy of the "gods" in the novel, who are actually superpowered cyborgs, are of the usual sort that you find in Western novels. It's sort of like saying that your sole knowledge of Christianity comes from reading Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia.

 

[Wiploc]

Aup.: Will check about 'gnostic atheism'.

A gnostic (uncapitalized) is someone who knows whether gods exist.

It seems Zelenzy left out a few things. Did he write about 'maya', illusion?

He did, yes. But the book isn't intended to be educational. It's a novel about space travelers. When their ship crashes, they build up a Hindu-themed civilization.

I did not say that. I said it is my opinion that causality has to be considered in all cases, unless it is proved that something is causeless.

You said, "If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted." That claim is not true. It cannot be defended.

 

[Wiploc]

Everything I know about the Hindu religion is from Lord of Light (Zelazny).

That book alone is proof of gods. Roger Zelazny is obviously a god, writing that most excellent book at such a young age.

It's a great book, one of my favorites. Highly recommended.

 

[Elixir]

Aup.: Will check about 'gnostic atheism'.

A gnostic (uncapitalized) is someone who knows whether gods exist.

It seems Zelenzy left out a few things. Did he write about 'maya', illusion?

He did, yes. But the book isn't intended to be educational. It's a novel about space travelers. When their ship crashes, they build up a Hindu-themed civilization.

I did not say that. I said it is my opinion that causality has to be considered in all cases, unless it is proved that something is causeless.

You said, "If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted." That claim is not true. It cannot be defended.

 

[aupmanyav]

A gnostic (uncapitalized) is someone who knows whether gods exist.: Yeah, I know. God and souls do not exist.
He did, yes. But the book isn't intended to be educational. It's a novel about space travelers. When their ship crashes, they build up a Hindu-themed civilization.:
That is OK. Some novels are fun. But religions require more intensive study.
You said, "If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted." That claim is not true. It cannot be defended.: I did say that, but that was a tongue in cheek remark, though it is my view. Sure, all atheist do not have the same view except non-belief in God. Some even accept existence of souls.

 

[Jarhyn]

A gnostic (uncapitalized) is someone who knows whether gods exist.: Yeah, I know. God and souls do not exist.
He did, yes. But the book isn't intended to be educational. It's a novel about space travelers. When their ship crashes, they build up a Hindu-themed civilization.:
That is OK. Some novels are fun. But religions require more intensive study.
You said, "If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted." That claim is not true. It cannot be defended.: I did say that, but that was a tongue in cheek remark, though it is my view. Sure, all atheist do not have the same view except non-belief in God. Some even accept existence of souls.

The issue here is that you are wrong. We can ot possibly know there is no god for the same reason a program in a computer cannot possibly know it is a program in a computer.

Once denizens of a system are standing and staring at quanta, discrete things that are always exactly what they are with no way to change from that. The attempt to look outside yields an opaque wall that can only be understood when and if something violates the fundamental laws of that system (such as side-channel memory editing FNAR).

The other thing this yields though is, in the absence of wanton memory editing, that the system is not meaningfully "their creation" until it is pulled off of strict causal rail and has cross-causality with the containing system, even if it is a simulation that is instantiated by an entity in a containing system...

Thus, you cannot disprove the existence of God, and without "identifiable violation of physical law FNAR" you cannot even begin to claim one exists. Or in other words "only God can prove there is a God, and none has, so none should be assumed.

It is, however, an assumption that there is none, and the quality of the belief that there is not, cannot possibly be, better than that.

 

[aupmanyav]

The issue here is that you are wrong. We can not possibly know there is no god for the same reason a program in a computer cannot possibly know it is a program in a computer.

Brain has the capacity to do that, and science is there to help.
The problem is that theists have their heads full of prejudice. They do not allow any other thought to enter their brain.
That is why they are not able to see what is obvious.
Science tells us a lot (if not all) about creation of the universe and emergence of life on earth.
The processes do not require existence of God. And even after creation of universe and emergence of life, there is no evidence of any God interfering in human affairs. No evidence that there were sons/prophets/messenger/manifestations/mahdis sent by any God.
One just needs to start at the start. There was space/energy. All that came about was from that only.
The question as to why there was space/energy is being considered at the moment.

 

[DBT]

We know there is insufficient evidence to support a justified conviction in the existence of a God or gods. If these things exist, they are either undetectable by us, or they hide their existence from us

 

[Jarhyn]

Brain has the capacity to do that

No, it doesn't.

The brain doesn't even have the capacity to completely prove to the solipsist that the actual universe exists outside of the individual.

Theists DO have their heads full of prejudice and assumption.

I'm not a theist though.

The thing is, theists declare certain things they want to say about hypothetical deities as true of all hypothetical deities, without making any direct observations.

The wise non-theist instead only declares things to be true about systemic relationships following direct observation.

DBT actually gets the cookie this time, in fact.

 

[aupmanyav]

The brain doesn't even have the capacity to completely prove to the solipsist that the actual universe exists outside of the individual.

That is because the soliscist has neither studied Quantum Mechanics nor Advaita Hinduism.
According to Advaita Hinduism, the perceived universe is only an illusion. Nothing exists in the universe other than space/energy, wave/plarticles.
That is why Advaita considers two kinds of truth: Pragmatic (Vyavaharika) and Absolute (Paramarthika).
Like in radiations, we see only a small band; like in sound we hear a small band; similarly while perceiving also, we can see only the small band.
Everything else is not observable, but it is knowable with the help of experiments and analysis.

 

[Jarhyn]

The brain doesn't even have the capacity to completely prove to the solipsist that the actual universe exists outside of the individual.

That is because the soliscist has neither studied Quantum Mechanics nor Advaita Hinduism.
According to Advaita Hinduism, the perceived universe is only an illusion. Nothing exists in the universe other than space/energy, wave/plarticles.
That is why Advaita considers two kinds of truth: Pragmatic (Vyavaharika) and Absolute (Paramarthika).
Like in radiations, we see only a small band; like in sound we hear a small band; similarly while perceiving also, we can see only the small band.
Everything else is not observable, but it is knowable with the help of experiments and analysis.

No, it is because the solipsist has a point. Indeed nothing can establish the absolute existence of the outside universe but belief. It is in many ways the only belief that is necessary to be a good person: that other people share the same fundamental forms of existence and experience you do.

There are many suggestions that this is true, but no absolute requirements that it be so.

To be wise, we must at least be capable of accepting that our understanding of the universe is based on at least some axiomatic beliefs, which while they have lots of circumstantial evidence, lack, and are forever doomed to lack, hard proof.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No, it is because the solipsist has a point. Indeed nothing can establish the absolute existence of the outside universe but belief.

Really? Tell me, then, exactly where this alleged "outside universe" begins and ends.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it is because the solipsist has a point. Indeed nothing can establish the absolute existence of the outside universe but belief.

Really? Tell me, then, exactly where this alleged "outside universe" begins and ends.

I just said nothing can establish it's existence to the person that does not believe they are a contained entity in a universe.

The outside universe we believe in is the one science and physics recognizes.

It is the difference between "there's just me, I'm god, and everyone and everything else is a figment of an imagination that has no describable basis or structure beyond mysteriously being there", and "there is a world of stuff, and I am part of that stuff in the world, it makes me, I am made of only a small part of it, and I am bound to it's core behavioral modes of operation, which exist beyond describable basis beyond mysteriously just being there."

Since solipsism posts exactly the same basis as universalism, it cannot be absolutely proven which basis is true.

Creationism posts one step further than universalism, and says the universe is inside another bigger hyperverse/multiverse/universe, in the same way that my stupid little game is inside this one. It poses an unobservable and unnecessary entity. That's why creationism goes a step too far, especially without evidence of a side-channel universe hacking event.

 

[Elixir]

No, it is because the solipsist has a point. Indeed nothing can establish the absolute existence of the outside universe but belief.

Really? Tell me, then, exactly where this alleged "outside universe" begins and ends.

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing birth and death?

 

[aupmanyav]

Solipsism syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yoga Vasishtha: This view is incorrect, because the world cannot be the content of an individual’s mind. If it were so, an individual would have created and destroyed the world according to his whims.

Solipsism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org