TED Conversations

Mathew Naismith

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Atheism is the disbelief in any God or deities but does that include a creative energy form we perceive or call a God?

Atheism shouldn’t be confused with agnosticism as agnosticism relates to doubting the existence of God because we can’t prove if a God exists or not but atheism just doesn’t doubt the existence of Gods & deities but refutes their existence period without evidence to the contrary.

I suppose I’m agnostic however I do believe we have come from an intelligent creative energy form of some kind, unless proven to the contrary that’s what I think at this time in my life & of course I could be wrong like anyone else.

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2013: Hi Mathew,
    I relate to your position. It would seem obvious from the extreme organisation of planet earth would indicate some form of design or foreknowledge. I guess each Atheist would need to answer for him/her self. What made the difference to me was the answer to the question, "Does the bible accurately relate the history of planet earth?". For me it does, & that from before much of it had happened. I understand this is not a universal experience, but that is the difference between the believer & non-believer.

    :-)
    • thumb
      Apr 16 2013: G'day Peter

      I think atheists would & could believe in a creative energy form if it wasn't labelled a God or divine entity as it wouldn't go against their beliefs. I know I lot of atheists don't like anyone saying that it's a belief they have but it is as they believe God or divine entities don't exist, to believe denotes a belief.

      It seems a little silly to me for an atheist to disbelieve in one intelligent creative conscious form created everything but they will believe that matter & anti-matter created everything even though we don't know where this matter & anti-matter came from in the first place but of course we know that matter & anti-matter exist but we don't know yet scientifically that one intelligent creative consciousness exists but I believe science as it evolves will one day answer such a question.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Apr 29 2013: Good to see we've solved the problem of atheism.

    I'm sure most of my friends would call me an atheist, because I don't use the concept of gods for anything other than historical, social, or psychological discussions. As a subject of discussion, however, belief in gods is actually very interesting to me, though I'm constantly surprised at the number of people that seem to believe in only one god. That seems very limiting.

    I've spent much of my life working in the natural sciences, and it seems to me that neither science nor any other discipline will ever "prove" either the existence or non-existence of gods, Richard Dawkins' folly notwithstanding. If gods are (or "If God is") transubstantial, immaterial beings, it would seem that a scientific program to determine their existence would need to be able to measure the transubstantial and immaterial, a tall order that I don't see coming down the pike. So we seem to be left with believing or not believing, as each individual chooses.

    I - the atheist - am not at all opposed to a belief in God, to the degree that the belief aids someone who has a need for a being that gives comfort in pain and who will hear their difficulties. That can be of great help to many, and I don't see a problem with it. I do have a problem with the fact that organized religions have divided mankind into camps that are willing and anxious to kill one another for their gods. People seem to have forgotten that Belief means just that - belief. Not fact, not truth, but belief. It should always be held with a measure of uncertainty and doubt, and it never justifies harming those who believe differently.

    To those who see a grand intelligence as the logical answer to "What made the universe?" I would say that logic would further demand that we ask, "What made this grand intelligence?" Etc, etc. The churches answer, "It's a mystery." Perhaps that's the only answer we can manage: It's a mystery.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2013: This can be of some help and relevance in this thread:

    http://www.atheistcensus.com/

    Most respondents of this survey define themselves as secularists that is - opposing the theocratic character, philosophy or focus at e.g. schools, courts or other state-dependent entities.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2013: Based on definition, everyone who did not subscribe to the national or state god was considered an atheist in that time. Yet the definition of God has always remained fluid. Today's atheists choose to disbelieve the current definition of God as a male deity. And although it can't be proved that such a deity doesn't exist, neither can it be proved that the current definition is in any way more correct than all preceding definitions.

    Fundamentalists choose to explain God by that which cannot be explained. If the inception of the big-bang cannot be explained, then they take this as evidence that God must exist. But such a view tells us nothing about God, nor does it in any way validate the current definition.

    I had an experience while meditating on God. In the experience, I was instructed to stop looking for what is not there and start looking to what is. If I wanted to know who the creator was, I had to look at what was doing the creating. The idea of God as a male deity has since dissolved in my way of thinking and has transformed itself into quantum energy fields. They are everywhere. They are invisible. They are the alpha and the omega. They are perfect. They are the source from which all knowledge is based. They have the very qualities that the ancient ones used to describe God. But they don't substantiate the current definition, which is anchored in fundamentalist views.
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2013: I think the problem is how do you define God.
    I do believe in something beyond my comprehension and impersonal, that in some way designed the universe and the laws. This is just a believe and I can not actually prove this because as I said, this something is beyond my comprehension.
    Is this God? Well, that is my conception of God. This is how I define the God that I believe exists or existed. Then I am not an atheist.

    When someone asked me, whether I believe in a God who loves me, whom I can talk to, who will punish me if I don't behave, then the answer is no, and I am an atheist.

    Either way, I am irreligious. Sometimes I claimed to be a deist to avoid explaining too much, and I came from a country where atheism is not accepted.
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2013: G'day Fellow TED Followers

    I'm not going to be hear myself in 9d's time so I wish to thank everyone for there input in this, not quite the response I thought I would get however.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Apr 16 2013: Despite our general aversion to labels, we must recognize that words are all we have. Concise, clear communication (exchange of information) depends upon words. We really can't each make-up our own meaning for terms. Therefore, I offer the following for your consideration:DISTINCTIVES OF BELIEFS WITHIN ATHEISM3 Types: (Source: MIT course 24.00 Problems in Philosophy Fall 2010). 1) Rational Atheism: There is a rational basis (sound reasons) for not believing in God.2) Arational Atheism: There is no rational basis for not believing in God, but do not believe anyway.3) Irrational Atheism: There is a rational basis for believing God exists, but do not believe anyway.2 Levels (a): (Flew, Antony in The Presumption of Atheism.)1. Positive Atheism: Positively asserts the non-existence of God.2. Negative Atheism: Chooses to be non-Theist due to absence of evidence for Theism.2 Levels (b): (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance-2007 Definitions of the Term “Atheism”)1. Strong or Hard or Positive Atheism: Strongly asserts the impossibility of the existence of any deity(s).2. Weak or Soft or Negative Atheism: Does not insist deity(s) cannot exist, but rejects Theism due to absence of proof.DEFINITIONS:Atheism: ~Disbelief in the existence of god or gods. Oxford Concise English Dictionary.~A disbelief in the existence of deity. Merriam-Webster Dictionary.~Rejection of belief in God or gods. World English Dictionary.~From Gk. atheos without God. Online Etymology Dictionary.~Denial that there is a God. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.~The belief that there is no God. (Webster’s New World Dictionary).~The belief that there is no God. (The World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary).
    • thumb
      Apr 16 2013: G'day Edward

      Thanks for that Edward that was quite informative, they seem to be saying the same exact thing so there couldn't be any confusion in what being an atheist means. My question is Edward could an atheist believe in a creative energy form as apposed to a God or divine being? Atheists believe matter & anti-matter created the universe but they have no idea where this matter & anti-matter came from in the first place. What I find funny is some of these atheist blindly believe matter & anti-matter were just there & some how collided with no apparent force to make them do so in the first place.

      It is funny a lot of new age spiritualists don't like labels , that would be fine if we weren't human but we are & labels define who & what we are especially before becoming spiritual which few of us will as there is a huge difference to one being spiritually aware to one being an actual spiritualist.

      I believe myself that everything is of the spiritual but a lot of spiritually aware people define what they won't to be spiritual not what is which has nothing to do with this oneness that they also talk about in the same breath. If we didn't label a spiritually aware person from an actual spiritualist everyone would be calling themselves incorrectly a spiritualist which is happening today but their not.

      Something even more funnier is these people have problems with labelling, the ego & judgment which infer conflict, true spirituality has no conflicts at all with anything as it's all accepting.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2013: Hello Matthew (again!)
    Another great question of yours!
    I do understand this question, for I have often felt that the universe is special in some way.
    In the way the universe is inter connected. In the way Einstiens theory of relativity can just fit on a inch of square paper. It is amazing how we can find order in such a random universe, the universe doesn't have to be this way. Look up golden ratio : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
    Very interesting!
    • thumb
      Apr 16 2013: G'day Bernard

      In actual fact my friend you impelled me to ask such a question.

      Very interesting link Bernard not that I’m very mathematically literate but I really didn’t think of it this way before, it makes so much sense of course.

      The universe is indeed connected but I won’t go as far as saying it’s one like a few spiritually aware people believe, one slight variant in vibrational frequency from one to another puts paid to this however everything has come from the same source like with matter & anti-matter which gives it a oneness feel about it. We are all creators in our own right with different modes of thought which give us holistic & individualistic realities to experience by. If we all had the same exact mode of thought this reality would be somewhat different I believe.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2013: It seems that there have been many ways of conceptualizing atheism over hundreds of years and that some writers prefer not to consider a yes/no definition but rather think in terms of a continuum of belief. Within many religious labels- whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist or presumably others, some people in the grouping don't think others should share that label with them.

    My view is that your relationship with your belief system is individual and that a person can call himself whatever he thinks fits.

    I would have thought that if you believe you come from an "intelligent creative energy form we perceive or call a God," that wouldn't correspond to what most people would think of atheism.
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: Agree Fritzie...our relationship with our beliefs is individual, and a person can call him/herself whatever s/he chooses. I like to call myself an explorer. I've never liked labels very much....seems limiting to me:>)
    • thumb
      Apr 16 2013: G'day Fritzie

      Our belief system is our mode of thought so who can say if one mode of thought is wrong or right over another, has one mode of thought got the right to say to another mode of thought your wrong? Is a person who live their lives by consumerist materialism right or wrong over a Buddhists mode of thought even though consumerist materialism is destroying our environment at an alarming rate? Not in my mind because it's just another mode of thought people like living by, this is our free will.

      If you didn't call this creative energy form a God but just realised this is where everything was created from without libelling it like matter & anti-matter wouldn't that give an atheist grounds to believe, they believe in matter & anti-matter created the universe why not another creative energy form or type that might have created matter & anti-matter in the first place without labelling it a God? I think they could believe in this.

      Love
      Mathew