I consider myself as someone who follows beliefs based on objective reality only. Yes, we all have some sort of beliefs. We have beliefs about what happened before, what is happening now, and what may happen in the future.
I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality, and those that are illusory. Some say that all of our beliefs are illusory, but I don't follow that philosophy. Beliefs are either based on objective reality, or they are illusory.
All religions, gods, and so on are illusory beliefs.
I define myself as what I am, and not in relation to the beliefs that others have. I am an objective reality believer. To call myself an atheist, just says that I am not religious. This is a negation, and I describe myself in terms of what I am.
Does this resonate with any here?
Jeff
I understand every thing you are saying and have several issues. The main issue is your definition of atheism. Are you defining atheism as just saying you are not religious? That is a problem.
Why is this a problem?
hmm personally, I don't take the supposition of any religion, or any supernatural 'forces', seriously enough to bother to negate myself with them.
In positive terms, I can answer "Are you defining atheism as just saying you are not religious?" as a definition that some people ascribe to. To go down that road, would require that all illusory beliefs be answered with some sort of negative term to describe those that don't ascribe to it.
As to cosmology, what was 'here' before, what is now, and what will follow, I have my own grounding in it, that involves the idea that in the most basic terms, that describes all, is all that was, all that is, and all that will come, is, at a most basic level, information.
But that is, also, an illusory belief.
Or is it? anyhoo for me this is the most basic understanding of the universe(s). Still thinking about it though.
I don't pretend to understand very well about such things as the Bell Continuum, String Theory, quantum mechanics, SRT, and so on.
Actually, a physicist once told me that anyone who says they fully understand quantum mechanics, does not fully understand quantum mechanics...
Other than that, we may never be able, in our native forms, to understand it all fully.
In some sort of future altered form? hmmm we'll see... hehe add that to the 'Big 8' BP
We can start to get into the realm of "Critique of pure reason", logic being absolutley objective, scientific conjecture, hypothosis, theory and fact being based on the 'most likely' description with a given statistical confidence it is correct until it is proven wrong, and so on, and on, and on...
ahhh this is getting off the path of illusory beliefs, and objective reality.
maybe.
Edited by JJN, 10 October 2011 - 02:40 AM.