Thanks for reaching out!
My replies below:
Hey man, being an atheist myself, having mostly atheist friends and family - allow me challange you on a few points:
it’s impossible to be one. Why? Because people don’t know everything about the universe.
========> Verification is impossible. Because of our phanerons and the fact we are totally limited in terms of the empirical data required to be certain.
This point could be valid if you judged all non-empirical-fact-based belief systems to have the same inherit flaw. Including every single type of theism. Man does not know everything but he has every right to have beliefs, even baseless ridiculous ones.
===========> I agree but oftentimes it seems that atheists who hold these beliefs deny it until you corner them with rationale and want to lash out and insult theists.
Also - one may argue that atheism is based, all of the atheists I know have never seen any proof for the kind of God that is described by the various types of theisms, they also have never seen any proof of the giant flying spaghetti monster - so they won't believe that either, even if they stumble on a book which is said to have been written by the spaghetti itself.
======>Yes but if you saw 'God' your phaneron, because of its strengthened memories that get reinforced over time and take over your reality, would possibly lead you to dismiss it. In any case, as reality is in our own heads and an interpretation of a 'possible' material world around us, it essentially could still be in your head even if you allowed it credence.
also making sure they define that higher power within ultra tight parameters to suit their belief system (i.e. ‘fairy in the sky’)
How else could you articles a sentence in which you try to explain what it is that you do not believe in? You have to be specific about what you don't believe.
======>Regarding the spaghetti monster / fairies in the sky - if someone truly believed this, you may consider it insane but again, it would be with your own phaneron. As we are all in our own phaneron, that could very well be a reality in someone else's mind. It could be the real reality of an amazing genius who sees things at a higher resolution than your own if we were indeed observing a separate material world. Otherwise it is not that insane in any case because as before mentioned it's not your reality for you to consider insane but instead the need for your own phaneron to confirm and reinforce its own memories. How can one open up a conversation with a theist by saying they believe in a fairy in the sky or in flying spaghetti monsters in any case? It seems a little condescending and non productive from a conversation basis - to my own possible phaneron (and amazing supermind that can see spaghetti monsters may think otherwise).
In my definition of the term an atheist doesn't need to be believe that there's nothing after death, and no God watching our every step. But rather to not accept the theist view point. I've met very few people that believed with conviction that life is a meaningless mistake and all, but they were in an odd time in their life and it wasn't a perspective they held for long. I believe the technical term for people who hold no conviction for the nature of life and existence (rather than belief in the fatalistic absent of greater powers regardless of their nature) is non-theist. Is that you're point though? That we mistakenly call non-theists - atheists?
========> My point is that we are ALL theists. Because of our phaneron.
And why does the atheist more indoctrinated than the theist?
========> They aren't - but every bit the same - humans should not assume high ground over eachother unless violence is involved and violence is required (this should be a much rarer phenomenon than we see today'
What's multitheism? Do you mean polytheism?
=====> Yes I do mean polytheism? I should have checked - thanks for clarifying that. I have many theories about what 'God' could be.
======> P.S. I have had many discussions with decent atheists around this since I wrote this post. I have also discovered that there are many very broken and traumatised individuals that use atheism as a shield - I suspect this is no different to theists. An opening manoeuvre for conversation.
I get solipsism and respect the foundations of it, but when we talk about an entity that is responsible for creating the "possible" material world and our ability to "interpret" it then there is no place for interpretations, if you need solipsism to defend the existence of God, I interpret it as a rhetorical surrender. Can you see why?
Again, we are talking about God, the afterlife and meaning and duties of this life, there is no place in my opinion for any such nonchalance. If we talked about colors for example, than it would be fair to conclude that red is mostly red but not always, not for everyone. But regarding God, I'd put solipsism and the beauty of a diverse spectrum of subjective opinions - aside, away.
Please if you may - define this concept. I understand it as the whole effect and existance of a concept, whatever concept that is, in a single, some person's mind. Is that it?
I'm pretty sure that polytheism is the belief in many gods, as opposed to monotheism - the belief in a singular. I've never heard of a term for holding many theories about God. Although I have heard that the ability to consciously hold contradictory beliefs is a merit of geniuses. 😀
I get solipsism and respect the foundations of it, but when we talk about an entity that is responsible for creating the "possible" material world and our ability to "interpret" it then there is no place for interpretations, if you need solipsism to defend the existence of God, I interpret it as a rhetorical surrender. Can you see why?
======> Everything is an interpretation until we have the adequate epistemology to say otherwise. There is no place for certainty - I don't see this as rhetorical surrender - rather as keeping an open mind and understanding the limitations, not only of ourselves - but the information we are drip fed by powerful institutions.
Again, we are talking about God, the afterlife and meaning and duties of this life, there is no place in my opinion for any such nonchalance. If we talked about colors for example, than it would be fair to conclude that red is mostly red but not always, not for everyone. But regarding God, I'd put solipsism and the beauty of a diverse spectrum of subjective opinions - aside, away.
=======> You are welcome to do that but essentially, I do not have to accept it. As above, even from the point of interpretation, the epistemological data is not available for certainty. This works for or against any argument you or I may have.
=======>Please if you may - define this concept. I understand it as the whole effect and existance of a concept, whatever concept that is, in a single, some person's mind. Is that it?
You have this correct as far as my point of view - I don't believe otherwise but am happy to be convinced - however how can you convince me unless you have the ability to see things in a higher resolution than your eyes?
I'm pretty sure that polytheism is the belief in many gods, as opposed to monotheism - the belief in a singular. I've never heard of a term for holding many theories about God. Although I have heard that the ability to consciously hold contradictory beliefs is a merit of geniuses.
========> I am no genius - but I have many questions unanswered and concrete proof that powerful institutions and organisations rule the world, and concrete proof that they lie regularly.
P.S. How do you do those neat and tidy quote indents?
Just like that, make sure there's an extra like between the quote and anything else, so it doesn't get messed up..
Line below quotation with extra line in between.
Surely. And I guess that in your opinion there's no such thing as adequate epistemology to say that a "classical" God doesn't exist. But here is a much better definition of an atheist: a person who regards the existing epistemology as more than enough to raise a healthy denial of an idea that was useful in times where epistemology wasn't even a thing. Or something along these lines.
Ok, but do you see why anyone could consider your reduction of God to a solipsistic blip to be exactly that?
That's an excellent point, in essence the entire discussion around the existence of God could be regarded to be ultimately futile, but notice that it wasn't God who convinced all of these people to believe in him - and it wasn't him convincing all those atheists and agnostics to "drop" their faith, either. So philosophy speaking you're right, I can't convince you with perfect epistemology, but practically - I totally can because we constantly do convince each other off things with much less than adequate epistemology.
This isn't my goal in the conversation of course, I'm just saying..
For example, I can tell you about how the story of a creator is a consequence of our biology and the symbolic framework that it enforces on our psyche, I'd try to explain how God myths were created separately yet so similarly throughout the world and thus render the phaneron of God to be biological necessity.
I take off my hat for you, really. That was a great discussion. Thank you.
I see what you mean, but isn't it the only way? Even the news cannot deliver the facts without misrepresenting some aspect of the subject in some way according to someone. Even our brain, creating every phaneron, is "giving" "us" "his" best guess of what would be most "useful". And governments need to keep much of the information in secret anyway to allow some stability and safety to the people.
I enjoyed our discussion and will reflect on all you said. Stay classy