Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

As an atheist I believe in that duality and balance. However the concept of a personification of that duality in the form of celestial entities are something I do not believe in. These are concepts that were made up to explain those dualities. Gods and demons are just ancient fiction for me.

I don't believe in a personified entity judging me either. So then how do you (we) think our good and evil intentions and actions are judged and weighed in the balance you spoke of? In lieu of a personified entity, how about a discarnate entity? Or perhaps a universal consciousness is more to your taste?

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm also an atheist, but I don't believe that concept, I believe that there is nothing in the universe which caters to anything or anybody. There is no balance because good and evil are just man made concepts. We invented them to ease ourselves of the fear that we are just a speck of dust in the big and scary universe and we can't control anything in it.

Good and evil are man made concepts I agree, however dark/light, black/white, life/death etc. are not. One cannot exist without the other.

 

[alp]

Which one are we talking about?

 

[Dobermann92]

Good and evil are man made concepts I agree, however dark/light, black/white, life/death etc. are not. One cannot exist without the other.

It isn't that simple. For example some of the stars still emitting light even after their "death". Black and white is just the two end of the spectrum of the visible light, but they aren't true endpoints. Finally, there is a big moral question what we count as alive, because of the rapid improvements in robotics. Those cannot "die" if kept in well shape. Even if you were somewhat right it doesn't prove that some force is balancing everything.

Which one are we talking about?

All gods, they are the same: unprovable, invisible, powerless non-existent entities.

 

[TexRex]

Good and evil are man made concepts I agree, however dark/light, black/white, life/death etc. are not. One cannot exist without the other.

"You can't have a light without a dark to stick it in."

 

[alp]

All gods, they are the same: unprovable, invisible, powerless non-existent entities.

It was a rhetorical question .

 

[Outspacer]

Good and evil are man made concepts I agree, however dark/light, black/white, life/death etc. are not. One cannot exist without the other.

Dark, black and death are each the absence of a thing, not opposite things. They do not exist!

 

[Famine]

As an atheist I believe in that duality and balance.

Hopefully what you mean here is "I am an atheist and I believe in that duality and balance.".

Atheism isn't defined by belief. It's defined by the absence of belief. All that you need to qualify as an atheist is not having a belief in a deity (as opposed to believing in no deities, which is a belief).

You can believe in other things, like karma and fate, or whatever, if you like, but it's not part of being an atheist - so it's not appropriate to say "as an atheist I believe in [these things]".

 

[Imari]

Good and evil are man made concepts I agree, however dark/light, black/white, life/death etc. are not. One cannot exist without the other.

In as much as the idea of anything existing is meaningless unless contrasted against that thing not existing. Congratulations on establishing the duality of existence and non-existence.

 

[Dotini]

Dualism is the religious belief that the bad god equals the good god. Dualism is a small minority of world regions. Most religions think the good god kicks the bad god's ass.

 

[PocketZeven]

Dark, black and death are each the absence of a thing, not opposite things. They do not exist!

That is the duality. You cant have nothing, without something. You cant have absence, without presence.

In as much as the idea of anything existing is meaningless unless contrasted against that thing not existing. Congratulations on establishing the duality of existence and non-existence.

I am not sure if that was a sarcastic, but every religion were built around that duality. I was just explaining as an atheist, what I do believe in.

edit:

Hopefully what you mean here is "I am an atheist and I believe in that duality and balance.".

Atheism isn't defined by belief. It's defined by the absence of belief. All that you need to qualify as an atheist is not having a belief in a deity (as opposed to believing in no deities, which is a belief).

You can believe in other things, like karma and fate, or whatever, if you like, but it's not part of being an atheist - so it's not appropriate to say "as an atheist I believe in [these things]".

atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I dont believe in deities. I am however also not an agnostic, so what am I then? The definition I have learned is that atheism is specific not believing in deities and not "absence of belief". Are you sure you are correct about your definition? Again apologies for my bad grammar and thank you for your correction on the grammar.

 

[Famine]

I was just explaining as an atheist, what I do believe in.

Again, I hope you mean that you were explaining what you do believe in apart from not believing in any deities. Atheists are not defined by what they believe in, and you certainly can't say that atheists, as a group, believe in any given thing.

 

[PocketZeven]

Again, I hope you mean that you were explaining what you do believe in apart from not believing in any deities. Atheists are not defined by what they believe in, and you certainly can't say that atheists, as a group, believe in any given thing.

See above edit. Atheism isnt the absence of belief in general, it is the absence of belief in deities.

I am an atheist and I believe in a lot of things. (except deities)

 

[Famine]

See above edit. Atheism isnt the absence of belief in general, it is the absence of belief in deities.

Atheism is indeed the absence of belief in deities:

All that you need to qualify as an atheist is not having a belief in a deity (as opposed to believing in no deities, which is a belief).

It's not characterised by any other beliefs, or lack of them, or any other characteristic.

Thus you can't say "As an atheist, I believe in..." or "... is what I believe in, as an atheist", because that's saying atheists as a group believe in the thing that you believe and there's no belief that defines atheism. You can say that you're an atheist and you believe in [thing], but you can't link the two.

 

[PocketZeven]

Atheism is indeed the absence of belief in deities:

It's not characterised by any other beliefs, or lack of them, or any other characteristic.

Thus you can't say "As an atheist, I believe in..." or "... is what I believe in, as an atheist", because that's saying atheists as a group believe in the thing that you believe and there's no belief that defines atheism. You can say that you're an atheist and you believe in [thing], but you can't link the two.

I corrected it in my previous post and I recognized your comment, that I made a grammatical mistake.

 

[Outspacer]

That is the duality. You cant have nothing, without something. You cant have absence, without presence.

It is again a man-made concept though. It is patently true that you can have (factual) dark on its own, without even the concept of light. It's only because we inhabit a world of day/night (light/dark) that we need a word for it, but rather different for creatures on the deep sea floor.

'Death' is not actually an opposite - it isn't taken to mean 'not living', rather 'no longer living'. I wasn't dead before I was born! But if you take it to mean 'not living' (i.e. for duality) then that state could exist on its own, and did before life sparked up.

The duality only arises from our quest to understand, and, as an aside, language to communicate ideas. We might not be able to comprehend 'nothing' without some reference, but 'nothing' doesn't care about that!

 

[Imari]

I am not sure if that was a sarcastic, but every religion were built around that duality. I was just explaining as an atheist, what I do believe in.

Everything is built around that duality, that there are things that exist and things that do not. Without existence, there is nothing. Without non-existence, there is no distinction between things. This is not peculiar to religions, or even to humans.

Your "belief" is about as fundamental and bare basics as you can get while remaining a thinking organism. You might as well have said "I think, therefore I believe I am". You don't believe in something that is axiomatic to your worldview, you simply accept it as necessary.

 

[Daz555]

The original post "do you believe in god?"

Which one? There are a lot to choose from - a couple of thousand at least.

 

[Dobermann92]

The original post "do you believe in god?"

Which one? There are a lot to choose from - a couple of thousand at least.

My favourites are the Norse gods, I wish they were real....How cool those stories are, unfortunately most of the Vikings converted into christianity so very few people believe in it nowadays.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is again a man-made concept though. It is patently true that you can have (factual) dark on its own, without even the concept of light. It's only because we inhabit a world of day/night (light/dark) that we need a word for it, but rather different for creatures on the deep sea floor.

'Death' is not actually an opposite - it isn't taken to mean 'not living', rather 'no longer living'. I wasn't dead before I was born! But if you take it to mean 'not living' (i.e. for duality) then that state could exist on its own, and did before life sparked up.

The duality only arises from our quest to understand, and, as an aside, language to communicate ideas. We might not be able to comprehend 'nothing' without some reference, but 'nothing' doesn't care about that!

Everything is built around that duality, that there are things that exist and things that do not. Without existence, there is nothing. Without non-existence, there is no distinction between things. This is not peculiar to religions, or even to humans.

Your "belief" is about as fundamental and bare basics as you can get while remaining a thinking organism. You might as well have said "I think, therefore I believe I am". You don't believe in something that is axiomatic to your worldview, you simply accept it as necessary.

I was just sharing my personal belief. I don’t believe in any deities etc., but I do believe that life and everything related to it is about balance. To clarify I do believe in the concept of yin and yang. Perhaps that doesn’t make me a full blown atheist.

 

[UKMikey]

My favourites are the Norse gods, I wish they were real....How cool those stories are, unfortunately most of the Vikings converted into christianity so very few people believe in it nowadays.

That's a shame as having Thor around would help with clearing up international conflicts and humanitarian disasters, even if most of them would be caused by his brother Loki.

 

[Danoff]

I wasn't dead before I was born!

Yes you were. First you need to define what "I" is. Then you need to define what "dead" is. And then you'll see that you were in fact dead before you were born. Or if you think otherwise, give the thought experiment a shot. Differentiate dead after being alive to dead before being alive in a non-arbitrary way.

The difference between things which happened in the past and things which happen in the future may not be as substantial as you think.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The original post "do you believe in god?"

Which one? There are a lot to choose from - a couple of thousand at least.

I suspect your conclusion is the same no matter what the answer to that is?

 

[Outspacer]

I was just sharing my personal belief. I don’t believe in any deities etc., but I do believe that life and everything related to it is about balance. To clarify I do believe in the concept of yin and yang. Perhaps that doesn’t make me a full blown atheist.

Well that's OK now you've clarified that it's your belief, because it was the factual way you first stated it that triggered me to respond:

Good and evil are man made concepts I agree, however dark/light, black/white, life/death etc. are not. One cannot exist without the other.

As a belief, we could say say you are "a bit spiritual" if you really want a label I honestly don't mean that in a mocking way at all.

Yes you were. First you need to define what "I" is. Then you need to define what "dead" is. And then you'll see that you were in fact dead before you were born. Or if you think otherwise, give the thought experiment a shot. Differentiate dead after being alive to dead before being alive in a non-arbitrary way.

The difference between things which happened in the past and things which happen in the future may not be as substantial as you think.

Did you even read the rest of the paragraph you selectively quoted from?!

 

[Danoff]

Did you even read the rest of the paragraph you selectively quoted from?!

Yes.

 

[Outspacer]

Yes.

So you understand then that it was part of a response to the idea of life and death being a duality. And that in that one paragraph I use "taken to mean" and "if you take to mean", as well as scare quotes on 'death', as indicators that a word/concept needs definition. And that in the last sentence I (briefly, because it didn't need labouring for the point I was making) raise your point that there's not really any difference between 'dead' before life and 'dead' after life. And that the first part was deliberately using for contrast what one might say is the more common-speak definition of death, that is to say, a state arrived at through dying.

Therefore, with that context, "I wasn't dead before I was born!" is correct, since I've already made it sufficiently clear that I'm using that common-speak definition of dead at that point.

Let's face it, it is a convenient definition for general use. If we are going to define it as "not living" then TBH we might as well just say "not
living" to avoid confusion. As I did.

 

[Danoff]

So you understand then that it was part of a response to the idea of life and death being a duality. And that in that one paragraph I use "taken to mean" and "if you take to mean", as well as scare quotes on 'death', as indicators that a word/concept needs definition. And that in the last sentence I (briefly, because it didn't need labouring for the point I was making) raise your point that there's not really any difference between 'dead' before life and 'dead' after life. And that the first part was deliberately using for contrast what one might say is the more common-speak definition of death, that is to say, a state arrived at through dying.

Therefore, with that context, "I wasn't dead before I was born!" is correct, since I've already made it sufficiently clear that I'm using that common-speak definition of dead at that point.

Let's face it, it is a convenient definition for general use. If we are going to define it as "not living" then TBH we might as well just say "not
living" to avoid confusion. As I did.

In the "common speak" we refer to the dead rocks of space. Even in everyday speech there is no need for "dead" to be a concept unique to "after alive". But beyond that, you haven't been careful to define what "I" is, and how the concept of death relates to that "I". Few people would consider you to be dead if you lose your arm, so the concept of "I" for example does not appear to relate to the body. Perhaps not even a single cell in your entire body. So the idea of death as it pertains to your cells is not particularly relevant to the concept of "I wasn't dead before I was born". The "I" we're talking about is undoubtedly your consciousness, and the death of your consciousness is entirely to do with whether the thoughts that you purport as yourself are being generated. In that respect, I'm not sure "you" were even alive until your thought processes reached a certain level of maturity. Can you really say, with conviction, that you're the person that used your name and your DNA at age 4? I'm not entirely sure I can. That kid might have some similarities with me, but I'm not sure that they're meaningful.

From that perspective, "you" will probably die before "you" die. And "you" were born after "you" were born. What does it mean for "your" thoughts to exist after "your" thoughts have existed vs. before?

 

[Outspacer]

In the "common speak" we refer to the dead rocks of space. Even in everyday speech there is no need for "dead" to be a concept unique to "after alive". But beyond that, you haven't been careful to define what "I" is, and how the concept of death relates to that "I". Few people would consider you to be dead if you lose your arm, so the concept of "I" for example does not appear to relate to the body. Perhaps not even a single cell in your entire body. So the idea of death as it pertains to your cells is not particularly relevant to the concept of "I wasn't dead before I was born". The "I" we're talking about is undoubtedly your consciousness, and the death of your consciousness is entirely to do with whether the thoughts that you purport as yourself are being generated. In that respect, I'm not sure "you" were even alive until your thought processes reached a certain level of maturity. Can you really say, with conviction, that you're the person that used your name and your DNA at age 4? I'm not entirely sure I can. That kid might have some similarities with me, but I'm not sure that they're meaningful.

From that perspective, "you" will probably die before "you" die. And "you" were born after "you" were born. What does it mean for "your" thoughts to exist after "your" thoughts have existed vs. before?

How would any of that been relevant in my post about duality? I mean, they could be interesting points, but they are certainly tangential. I referred to two possible meanings of 'dead' in my post, and then went on to clarify in response to you... what I said then was "in the more common-speak definition..." not "the [only] common-speak definition". So it's not much of a retort to give me a less common usage of dead rocks, and incorrect to say that I claimed it uniquely to mean "after alive" - just happens that for the sentence you first picked on, that was the definition I was using at that point.

But OK, let's riff around dead rocks for a moment. I could say that pairing might come about to evoke some emotion, as in, it's a literary device rather than literal. A whole slew of words have been re-used to talk about astronomy - birth of stars in nurseries etc. To talk of dead rocks allows us to imagine their glorious life inside a star before it went super nova. Or something. Not much surprise that we use existing words again in a different context, and with a fair bit of artistic license.

To quickly recap: I made a post which I think was a reasonable counter to the idea that there are many dualities, light/dark, life/death. Reading it back there's nothing I'd care to edit or add; it made the point I wanted to make. One short sentence caught your eye... and you want me to defend my use of 'I'?

 

[Famine]

How would any of that been relevant in my post about duality? I mean, they could be interesting points, but they are certainly tangential. I referred to two possible meanings of 'dead' in my post, and then went on to clarify in response to you... what I said then was "in the more common-speak definition..." not "the [only] common-speak definition". So it's not much of a retort to give me a less common usage of dead rocks, and incorrect to say that I claimed it uniquely to mean "after alive" - just happens that for the sentence you first picked on, that was the definition I was using at that point.

What would be a "common-speak" term for things that are not yet alive? Are there different "common-speak" terms for something that is not yet alive (like a planet, or an embryo) and someone who is not yet alive (such as when you're referring to a period before someone was alive in the past progressive tense)?

 

[Danoff]

How would any of that been relevant in my post about duality?

It's actually more relevant to your claim that you weren't dead before you were alive.

"in the more common-speak definition..." not "the [only] common-speak definition". So it's not much of a retort to give me a less common usage of dead rocks, and incorrect to say that I claimed it uniquely to mean "after alive" - just happens that for the sentence you first picked on, that was the definition I was using at that point.

I'm far less interested in whether you can find wriggle room in your language than I am in having the discussion about whether your state before living is equivalent or not equivalent to your state after living... in meaningful capacities that is.

But OK, let's riff around dead rocks for a moment. I could say that pairing might come about to evoke some emotion, as in, it's a literary device rather than literal. A whole slew of words have been re-used to talk about astronomy - birth of stars in nurseries etc. To talk of dead rocks allows us to imagine their glorious life inside a star before it went super nova. Or something. Not much surprise that we use existing words again in a different context, and with a fair bit of artistic license.

The "birth" of a star is not meant to refer to actual living organisms. It's meant to anthropomorphize the phases of stars as they progress through time. When we talk about dead rocks, we're not using a literary technique to discuss the cycle of existence of a rock, we're talking about whether or not it contains living organisms. "Dead" and "lifeless" are used to refer to certain inhospitable landscapes on Earth as well (although usually it's not technically accurate).

To quickly recap: I made a post which I think was a reasonable counter to the idea that there are many dualities, light/dark, life/death. Reading it back there's nothing I'd care to edit or add; it made the point I wanted to make. One short sentence caught your eye...

...and that's the part I care about. I didn't quote the part about duality. I quoted the part about whether you're dead before you're alive.

and you want me to defend my use of 'I'?

Yup! It's pretty important here. If you're your cells, the answer is different than if you're your thoughts.