I don't understand how anyone can be an atheist.
Agnostic, yes, but to say you are absolutely sure that something doesn't exist when you still have time in your life to find out otherwise seems like they are just shutting a door, not applying any kind of "reason."
@ceejaedevine I can’t speak for all atheists, but you seem to be using a definition of atheism that a many of us wouldn’t agree with. I identify with atheism because I don’t believe in any god, not because I’m “absolutely sure” that none exist. I simply don’t hold a belief that any gods exist.
I also identify with agnostic as a modifier to my atheism because while I don’t believe in any gods, I also don’t know that there are no gods (depending on your definition of “know”, but you mentioned certainty so I’m fine going with that).
I’m assuming you’d consider yourself a theist (please correct me if I’m wrong), someone who holds a belief in a god or gods. If so, You must obviously consider yourself an agnostic theist, right? After all, you have time left in your life to find out that your personal experiences may have mislead you. Shutting the door to that possibility doesn’t sound like an application of reason to me.
Hoping I can try again to explain why I don't believe that I would include "agnostic" as part of my POV.
I attribute the term God to the kinds of events I am experiencing, that I have researched, and that I have become aware that other people are experiencing.
No one knows what the force I have been experiencing is capable of, i.e. like did the same force create the universe, but I am okay with that.
Carl Jung says it well here >
@ceejaedevine Just to get this out of the way, Saying “I don’t need to believe… I know” misunderstands what knowledge is; a subset of belief. You can’t know something without also believing it. (I know I’m nitpicking his rhetoric, but I think it’s pretty important in these conversations)
That said, I don’t think that really clarifies anything for me. Jung’s definition of God just seems to be a name for the aggregate mysteries in the world and his experience.
I also experience things that I don’t understand and often attribute meaning or agency to patterns and coincidences I notice around me. However, it seems that those responses on my part are fairly reasonably explained by psychology, evolution, etc.. Wherever there are gaps in understanding, I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge those gaps and hope to have an answer one day. If I wanted to, I could refer to those gaps as God and everything that Jung says in that quote could apply to me without issue, even though I don’t believe in a being external to my mind that I call God.
It seems like you believe in an actual being that you call God though, right? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how what you said justifies that.
I believe that Jung recognized a force that was acting on his life. I have, as well.
The force amplified words in my mind in one event. It pushed me to move in a number of others. It held me in place, as well. As those forces occurred, profound events resulted. So I have before and afters. Not just randomly occurring coincidence.
To me, that force can't be anything other than God. I believe that is what Jung is referring to.
Right, but that’s kind of my point. Your “recognition” of a unified force doesn’t mean anything. Humans are wrong about things like this all the time.
Is it possible that the events in my life (and yours) are caused by some God? Potentially, and I’m open to that provided that there is some demonstration of that God existing and doing the things you say they do, none of which you have given here. You’ve just continually asserted “these things happened and it couldn’t be anything else”. On the other hand, at least some if not most/all of those experiences you (and I) have had contained subjective, psychological aspects that act as potential explanations. If I were to adopt your way of thinking, I’d be just as justified in saying “I know those things were coincidence + psychology, it couldn’t be anything else” because I have personal experience of being wrong about the meaning behind some events in my life. Personally, I think both of those positions are unjustified, but one of them posits an entirely ad hoc, mysterious ontology to appeal to while the other tries to use things we know exist (brains/minds) to explain the phenomena. It seems more reasonable to me to go the second route, but I’m still open to the first should new information come to me.
I started responding to you because you were saying that it is unreasonable to “shut the door” on the possibility of God. But as far as I can tell, you’ve said nothing to justify shutting the door to the possibilities _other_ than God, but you’ve done just that.
Ceejae Devine
Breadless Norseman