Being an atheist doesn't mean you cant be spiritual and believe in a spiritual world or realm. — David Solman

Quite so. Though most, nearly all, Atheists are Materialists, believing that the physical world is all of reality, being an Atheist doesn't definitionally require being a Materialist. There are probably non-Materialist Atheists at these forums.

(But, though not all Atheists are Materialists, all Materialists are Atheists.)

I call a Materialist Atheist an "Orthodox Atheist".

I'm not a believer in any religion in the world

Though I'm a Theist,that doesn't mean that I belong to a denomination. Anyway, not only are there many denominations of official organizational church Theism, but of course there are also various Theist religions that regard eachother as entirely different religions,

I don't belong to a Theist organization or a church. I wouldn't say that being a Theist means belonging to a church or a denomination.

Nor did any religion, its representatives, or anyone else, convince me in that matter. I haven't adopted anyone's religion.

I also call myself a Vedantist, though my metaphysics differs from those of the 3 usual Vedanta versions. (But they greatly differ from eahother in that regard as well.)

I say that I'm a Vedantist because my metaphysics shares the conclusions and consequences of the 3 main Vedanta versions' metaphysicses, and because the ancient Indians' writings seem very competent and right. They seem to have been well qualified regarding what they wrote about.

...but i do believe that our existence is far more than a physical existence. i believe we are able to go beyond our physical body and that there may be some kind of life after death.

There may very likely be. Even if we just go to sleep, Shakespeare pointed out that there could be dreams. Of course he wasn't referring only to the dreams in ordinary sleep, but, more generally, to any experience or perception when unconscious.

Of course we never experience "oblivion", a time when there's no experience. Only our survivors will experience that time after our complete shutdown and body-dissolution..

And our ordinary night-time dreams show that being unconscious needn't mean being without experiences of perceptions. In fact, wouldn't it be expected that the absence of waking consciousness will arrive before the complete end of experience and perception--as we know it regularly does in ordinary sleep?

it is possible to believe in these concepts without referring to God in any religion.

I rarely refer to the name "God". Usually only when replying to others who use that term.But I think you'd agree that Reality isn't known, knowable or discussable. I don't think metaphysics describes Reality, any more than physics does. There's Reality beyond metaphysics, and it isn't knowable.

I rarely talk about God, using that term, but it's my impression that there's good intent behind what is. I say I'm a Theist because I encounter expression of that impression from Theists of all kinds.including the doctrine-believing ones, and the non-doctrinaire ones too.

Of course not using the word "God" isn't quite the same as criticizing others who speak of what we don't understand. There's no need to be so sure we know it all, and be so quick to criticize those who don't share out beliefs (...and yes, Atheists and Materialists do have beliefs).

Though I don't agree with them, I don't criticize Biblical-Literalists or Atheists or their beliefs. I find that both of those groups tend often to not share that tolerance. That intolerance, that need to criticize, is alien and inexplicable to me.

Michael Ossipoff

But, as for sets of them, the fact that we can divide them into sets as we choose--Doesn't that mean that there are infinitely many sets of them, equal to the number of combinations that can be formed from those infinitely-many abstract logical facts? — Michael Ossipoff

But as I say, who gets to choose? A "subset" might be a mathematical abstraction, but it seems faintly silly to assign a universe or whatever to each one. Surely any mathematical underpinning of existence isn't based on Venn diagrams??!!

But as I say, who gets to choose? A "subset" might be a mathematical abstraction, but it seems faintly silly to assign a universe or whatever to each one. Surely any mathematical underpinning of existence isn't based on Venn diagrams??!! — Jake Tarragon

Of course someone can refer to the "Universe" of all abstract facts.

But I'm not talking of arbitrarily dividing it into subsets.

There are systems of inter-referring abstract facts. Our physical universe is one such. (I always emphasize that there's no reason to believe that it's other than that).

The whole universe of all abstract facts is not an inter-referring system.

For any particular system of inter-referring abstract facts, all the other abstract facts that aren't part of that system are irrelevant to it.

All the distinct systems of inter-referring abstract facts are irrelevant to eachother, and isolated from eachother. They don't need eachother and aren't real in eachother's context. None of them needs anything outside itself. None of them has or needs reality, existence, meaning or relevance outside itself.

...and doesn't even need a medium in which to exist or be.

Michael Ossipoff

All the distinct systems of inter-referring abstract facts are irrelevant to eachother, — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, providing they are indeed distinct. I think we agree that this is debatable...

All the distinct systems of inter-referring abstract facts are irrelevant to eachother, — Michael Ossipoff


Yes, providing they are indeed distinct. I think we agree that this is debatable... — Jake Tarragon

No, I say they're distinct, because they're unrelated to eachother, and completely independent of, and irrelevant to, and inaccessible to, eachother, with no connection of any kind to eachother..

Though they have something in common, because they're all abstract facts, and members of the same set of similar things, they don't share a continuum. They aren't parts of the same universe together. Just because they're a set, doesn't mean that they're a universe. A universe has a common continuum.

In what way aren't they distinct from eachother?

Michael Ossipoff

...and that's why I don't agree with Tegmark referring to the set of possibility-worlds as a type-IV "multiverse".

Michael Ossipoff

I emphasize that there's no continuum or medium that contains, and is shared in common by, all the abstract facts and systems of inter-referring abstract facts.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, because there are infinitely many systems of inter-referring abstract facts, including life-experience possibility-stories, then, for any particular life-experience possibility-story, and for any particular part of it, there must also be infinitely many other life-experience possibility-stories that share that part in common with that story.

That's why I suggested that my metaphysics implies reincarnation. So I shouldn't say that different life-experience possibility-stories are necessarily entirely unrelated and inaccessible from eachother.

But they don't need a global continuum or a medium.

Michael Ossipoff

No, I say they're distinct, because they're unrelated to eachother, and completely independent of, and irrelevant to, and inaccessible to, eachother, with no connection of any kind to eachother. — Michael Ossipoff

Russell and Whitehead came very close to deducing all of matematics from logic only (Principia Mathematica). Perhaps mathematical facts are not so independent as you might think?

"No, I say they're distinct, because they're unrelated to eachother, and completely independent of, and irrelevant to, and inaccessible to, eachother, with no connection of any kind to eachother." — Michael Ossipoff

Russell and Whitehead came very close to deducing all of mathematics from logic only (Principia Mathematica). Perhaps mathematical facts are not so independent as you might think? — Jake Tarragon

Mathematics from logic doesn't sound surprising to me. I've been regarding mathematics as a logical subject. A mathematical theorem is an abstract if-then fact whose "if " premise includes (but needn't be limited to) a system of axioms (geometric or algebraic).

And some mathematical systems, algebraic structures, like the system of the real numbers and its axioms, or more generally, the groups, fields, rings, & lattices, etc., could be regarded as a big inter-related system (but not a world or universe).

Because mathematics is a logic subject, I have no doubt that the same mathematics obtains in every possibility-world, and in every life-experience possibility-story.

Michael Ossipoff

Because mathematics is a logic subject, I have no doubt that the same mathematics obtains in every possibility-world, and in every life-experience possibility-story — Michael Ossipoff

I think we are trapped/guided (delete as inappropriate) by logic as humans, but what if logic is illusory? Is it possible to talk about such a thing (as logic being illusory) even?

"Because mathematics is a logic subject, I have no doubt that the same mathematics obtains in every possibility-world, and in every life-experience possibility-story" — Michael Ossipoff


I think we are trapped/guided (delete as inappropriate) by logic as humans, but what if logic is illusory? Is it possible to talk about such a thing (as logic being illusory) even? — Jake Tarragon

I'd say it isn't.

A proposition can't be true and false.

If all Slithytoves are brillig, and all Jabberwockeys are Slithytoves, then all Jaberwockeys are brillig.

If the additive associative axiom is true, then 2+2=4

(by a reasonable, obvious definition of 1, 2, 3 & 4 in terms of the multiplicative identity and addition).

Each of those abstract facts is valid with or without minds, or any larger context or medium.

Sure, only sentient beings can discuss those logical facts. But we can also discuss them with regard to a hypothetical universe in which there's no life. We can say "If, in that world, there were Slithytoves, Jabberwockeys, and the quality of being 'brillig'..." or "If, in that world, there were four objects to count in various ways, and someone to do the counting..."

A proposition can;t be true and false, and so we don't live in a willy-nilly-self-inconsistent impossibility-world. That's why I say that logic has authority over experience,

I think it's important to emphasize that isolation and independence of an abstract fact, or an inter-referring system of abstract facts. ...complete independence from any external context, or global rule, or medium in which to be.

The metaphysics that I propose is an Anti-Realism, about an experience-based possibility-story, for each of us.

For each of us, that life-experience possibility-story is a complex system of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals. It's as valid as any other. It's one of infinitely-many systems of inter-referring abstract-facts....and individual abstract facts too.

But its abstract facts aren't really different from all the other abstract facts, which, likewise have their local validity, quite independent of anything else.

So that's why I claim that absolute Anti-Realism is out of the question.

Michael Ossipoff

Quite so. Though most, nearly all, Atheists are Materialists, believing that the physical world is all of reality, being an Atheist doesn't definitionally require being a Materialist. There are probably non-Materialist Atheists at these forums. — Michael Ossipoff

I must disagree here. Not everyone is so theoretical! Some people just don't go to church, don't pray, don't expect help from secret sources. They won't show up on argumentative forums. They don't care enough. Most people do not pick some "ism" to wear and defend. We are the strange ones. We are the word-mongering intellectually vain theological poets.

I'd say it isn't.

A proposition can't be true and false. — Michael Ossipoff

Sure, but perhaps a more likely "refutation" of logic could be constructed from denying the existence of truth and falsity in the first place..... maybe the quantum world will turn out to be like that, and utterly incomprehensible to us.

Rationality defined as being wedded to the evidence of data from a supposed objective world out there, is itself a metaphysics, There are self-proclaimed atheists who actually follow Kant's metaphysics of a concept-creating mind attempting to represent a world of objects. They consider theism to be the belief in a god who actively intervenes in the world, not recognizing that for Kant, God is just the condition of possiblity of the truths that humans can assymptotically reach.
Then there's the Hegelian version of theology, which sees the divine in progress itself, the belief that although cultural values are contingent and relative, there is an inexorable march of dialectical progress that leads. Marx's idea is a kind of secular theological version of this notion,
I think you only begin to really shatter the metaphysics of truth when you follow authors like Nietzsche, who recognize truth as ideology, and ideology as subjective valuation, and valuation as affective.
So your vocabulary of objective rationality dependent on evidence from a physical world, implying metaphysical assumptions which underle the various theologies I mentioned, becomes challenged when the subject-object, mind-world, consciusness-material dualisms are dissolved.

Each of those abstract facts is valid with or without minds, or any larger context or medium. — Michael Ossipoff

This doesn't make sense to me, or not if facts are made of language.

A proposition can;t be true and false, and so we don't live in a willy-nilly-self-inconsistent impossibility-world. That's why I say that logic has authority over experience, — Michael Ossipoff

God is love. Is that a proposition? Is a metaphor a proposition? How is such a statement intended? What does 'God' mean? What is love? Is 'God is love' meaningless just because it doesn't fit some attraction 'fantasy' of meaning that makes the metaphysician's job easier?

So your vocabulary of objective rationality dependent on evidence from a physical world, implying metaphysical assumptions which underle the various theologies I mentioned, becomes challenged when the subject-object, mind-world, consciusness-material dualisms are dissolved. — Joshs

Exactly. The taken-for-granted method is the blindspot.

Personally, while I see the attraction of Theism (it neatly brings closure to rationality), I stick to agnostic rationalism. We just don't know enough, I just don't know enough, to be sure either way.

IOW the Theist argument is persuasive in abstracto, but it depends on so many steps that are themselves open to question, that involve heavy abstraction, that it makes more sense to me to move forward slowly and carefully from where we are, in terms of probabilities and likelihoods, and not "leap ahead" so to speak.

And if God exists, I don't think He'd begrudge me this caution - all-too-human fairytales about God to the contrary.

A question on the meaning of existence

Thinking means existing, but existence does not mean thinking. Perhaps existence also means the possibility of being thought, conceivability, or the potential to think (panpsychism rules).

Where there is thought a thinker is entailed because without a thinker there is no thought and no meaningful existence.

"Quite so. Though most, nearly all, Atheists are Materialists, believing that the physical world is all of reality, being an Atheist doesn't definitionally require being a Materialist. There are probably non-Materialist Atheists at these forums." — Michael Ossipoff


I must disagree here. Not everyone is so theoretical! Some people just don't go to church, don't pray, don't expect help from secret sources.
— ff0

What secret sources? Let me in on the secret.

Why am I the last to hear about it? Must be because I'm fairly new to these forums :D

Secret--Do you mean like the Kabbalah? You couldn't mean Theism, because Theists don't make a secret of their religion. (Maybe some of them did, in Roman times. Maybe some of them even do here, in a relatively Atheist environment.)

I must admit that it would be ok with me if the door-to-door denominations decided to adopt a new policy of being secretive about their beliefs.

And what did you mean by "expect help". Critical aggressive Atheists like to attribute to all Theists the attributes of some Biblical Literalists that they've heard or heard of.

Most people do not pick some "ism" to wear and defend.

If you're referring to Theism, I just like to sometimes say something when I hear aggressive Atheists attacking those who don't share their beliefs. We discuss positions here, usually philosophical positions, but sometimes religious positions. In our language, whether we like it or not, there is a suffix, "-ism", to denote a position about something. It makes for more concise discussion, and avoids having to render the meaning by phrase.

And, when answering about a topic or issue, yes sometimes I clarify my position on it.

You said you don't believe that most people are Materialists. No, everyone who believes whatever they're taught in school is a Materialist. Talk to most anyone, other than sincere Theists, and you'll hear Materialism.

Michael Ossipoff

Most people do not pick some "ism" to wear and defend. We are the strange ones. We are the word-mongering intellectually vain theological poets. — ff0

I can relate to this. I'm a science student. But studying science doesn't answer the big questions. It doesn't do what the religion I once tried to follow tried to do. So I've picked up various philosophy books. I won't bore you with the details. Suffice it to say that philosophers seem better at tearing things down than building them up, at least to me. Some of their positive beliefs are enviable. I sometimes wish I could believe them. But I can't. For me these positive beliefs seem (for lack of a better word) like rationalizations.

On the other hand, my science studies seem ultimately to boil down to moving stuff around, calculating where it must have been, where it will be, etc. I like it for being relatively trustworthy and definite, but I can't muster a religious feeling toward this kind of pragmatic knowledge.

What secret sources? Let me in on the secret. — Michael Ossipoff

I can't speak for ff0, but I think 'secret sources' is a pretty good phrase for what religious people imply that they have access to. It's not just theism. It's ghosts, horoscopes, new age energies, all kinds of things. It's the stuff that's invisible to ordinary experience and to science. Some of this stuff sounds so good that I'd like for it to be true. But so far my experience doesn't validate any of this stuff. At best, certain outlandish statements turn out to be (for me) metaphorically true.

It's possible that I close myself off to certain experiences, I guess. But this being-closed-off is the way I find myself. We don't choose our beliefs, it seems to me. Or we don't choose our big picture beliefs. I would have to have vivid conversations with the dead or with a godlike entity to really believe that the world is radically different than I think it is, for instance. I don't think a mere sequence of words could accomplish that.

There are many variations of materialism, and many variations of theism, and many variations of something that lies between the two. What these terms connote doesnt fit neatly into simple categories
There is also a whole community of phenomenological and post-phenomenological thought that turns the materialist-theist binary on its head.

There are many variations of materialism — Joshs

It's difficult to converse without specific, explicit definitions. So, if there are many Materialisms, then Materialism advocates need to clarify which Materialism they're advocating.

, and many variations of theism

Most definitely. ...which is why aggressive Atheists don't really know what they're loudly and aggressively denying.

Atheism is a peculiar belief, a denial whose subject isn't specified, and is unknown to that belief's adherents, who seem to equate all Theism with Biblical Literalism.

, and many variations of something that lies between the two. What these terms connote doesn't fit neatly into simple categories

...so definitions should be specific and consistent.

There is also a whole community of phenomenological and post-phenomenological thought that turns the materialist-theist binary on its head.

...by changing the definition of Materialism (that this physical world and its physical things are the only or fundamental reality, or that all of reality consists of this physical world)?

Sure, there are various wordings of Materialism's definition, but most of them seem to not contradict eachother, and seem to be about the same belief.

No doubt, by changing definitions, all sorts of "binaries" can be turned on their heads.

For example, maybe you could re-define Materialism to replace "reality" in the above definition, with metaphysical reality.

And of course there are a lot of Theists who say that their anthropomorphically-conceived God created a physical world that's largely, basically or usually the same objectively existent Materialist physical world that Materialists believe in.

I'm not saying that I object to definition-changes, or positions that don't recognize usually-accepted dichotomies. Yes, some dichotomies are artificial and unnecessary.

Michael Ossipoff

So, here Iam, torn between being open to possibilities (theism) and being rational (shaping my world view with reason). What should I do? — TheMadFool

I'm of the opinion that if there is a conflict between an assertion and rational thought, then rational thought wins, and I believe that theism is poorly represented as irrational.

Where our understanding is less detailed, we still use some sort of handle to cope. Could be called magic, and there's nothing wrong with that generalization.

The atheist POV is reasonable because rationally speaking it's a mistake to go beyond the evidence. Our senses can't perceive x and so it is reasonable to believe x doesn't exist — TheMadFool

I completely disagree. Rationally speaking, it's extremely unreasonable to believe that something doesn't exist simply because we are not aware of its existence. Based on how many times and how vastly in scope our "knowledge" of the world has changed, it's insane for us to think that what we are aware of at this point in time is all that is real. That has literally never been true.

I'm of the opinion that if there is a conflict between an assertion and rational thought, then rational thought wins, and I believe that theism is poorly represented as irrational. — AngleWyrm

I'm challenging this rule of thumb. Rationality seems confined to what can be, well, sensed, [i[measured[/i]. In short, rationality is empirical and science is at the forefront of such a worldview. But look a few centuries ago micro-organisms and radio waves were undetectable to us. If one is to stay true to the empirical viewpoint we must believe that bacteria or radio are nonexistent. However, as science advanced we developed tools to detect the microscopic and the invisible and now we listen to the radio and take antibiotics. All I'm asking is that we learn something from this historical fact. We simply can't deny the supernatural because we can't sense/detect it with our instruments. Perhaps we need better or newer instruments?!

I completely disagree. Rationally speaking, it's extremely unreasonable to believe that something doesn't exist simply because we are not aware of its existence. Based on how many times and how vastly in scope our "knowledge" of the world has changed, it's insane for us to think that what we are aware of at this point in time is all that is real. That has literally never been true. — JustSomeGuy

I second that.

rationality is empirical and science is at the forefront of such a worldview. But look a few centuries ago micro-organisms and radio waves were undetectable to us. If one is to stay true to the empirical viewpoint we must believe that bacteria or radio are nonexistent. — TheMadFool

That which cannot (yet) be measured is difficult to even think about. A good example is rolling a pair of dice. The assertion that the outcome set is a sum between 2~12 is often met with a meta-game. What about when the cat jumps on the table and knocks a die under the couch? How often does an event external to the playfield become part of the play?

Scientific analysis of such a process might even be impossible: Consider the researcher who breaks their pencil, goes off to get another and is waylaid in conversation along the way.