Atheism and random beliefs

Mostly here out of curiosity but I was wondering what beliefs, if any, do you as a atheists believe in? I speak mostly in terms of things of mysticism or elements of faith or things not yet proven but possibly could be.

Examples, do you believe in:

-Afterlife
-Ultimate Purpose
-Aliens
-Collective Consciousness
-Inter-dimensional beings
-Ghosts
-Cthulu (Joke)
-Fate (It was meant to be)
-Freewill

I know that atheism isn't necessarily a world view that can never deviate from the atheist position of their being no God/s and that's it and can be a bit open and include beliefs such as the afterlife.

 

Uhmm I believe in Aliens 10000000% and ghosts, 75%

oh and just so you know, not the big headed grey aliens flying around earth in saucers, I'm talking about other species even microbial life millions of light years away or even Mars or Venuses atmosphere.

 

lol ok

why ghosts 75% ? -_-

 

no

It'd be nice, but I consider it wishful thinking. Living day to day is enough purpose for me.

not little green men in spaceships, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there were life forms somewhere else. I doubt we'll find them anytime soon though.. its a big universe.

*highly skeptical*

no.. if I believed in ghosts I would believe in spirits. If I believed in spirits, (or souls, or whatever) I would highly doubt the idea that there is no supernatural being controlling all this.. but, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that there are ghosts.

I am offended. Neg rep coming your way..

nope.. this also would imply a greater plan, and there is no reason at all for people to believe in this other than to give themselves an undeserved feeling of self-importance.

Depends on what you mean. I recently read an interesting study about how violent criminals/pedophiles/other people have identifiable trends in their brains that cause them to have violent tendencies.

but as for a divine puppet master? No.

 

Collective unconsciousness -- yes
Psychic abilities/greater intuition than we have discovered -- yes, but nothing kooky or extreme
Freewill -- most likely, but I think it's extremely limited if it is real

and one OP didn't mention:
Genetic memory -- totally; can't wait till it's discovered




Also, on aliens -- I think it's crazier to believe there isn't life elsewhere in the universe

 

When I die I die.

Life's objectively pointless. I'm just an organism, and like trillions of others when I die everything I do is ephemeral.

That way I know I shouldn't focus on the point so much, and just focus on creating a point in my life. Having love and hapiness and spreading that to other people is fulfilling now, while I'm lucky enough to be here.

I'd say mathematically, there are Aliens. Tons of 'em. They're also far enough away we may never engineer a way to see much more exciting then extra earth bacteria.

No.

Huh? No.

No.

If someone else is deciding my life, they are kind of a pervert.

Yes there's free will.

I know that atheism isn't necessarily a world view that can never deviate from the atheist position of their being no God/s and that's it and can be a bit open and include beliefs such as the afterlife.[/QUOTE]

 

Afterlife: no
Ultimate Purpose: no ultimate purpose, just the purposes we choose.
Aliens: I'm fairly convinced that life exists on other planets.
Collective Consciousness: Nope
Inter Dimensional Beings: Essentially no, but DMT suggests otherwise.
Ghosts: As in the spirits of dead people? Then no.
Fate: No
Free will: No

 

I believe in what we currently have adequate evidence to support.

I am open to and will consider all possibilities, but this does not mean that I forget the fact that some possibilities are far more likely to be real than others, or that some sound plain silly. I have an incredibly open mind and love few things more than evaluating various possibilities and seeing how they hold up against what is currently known or against logic and reason. I am even imaginative and regularly enjoy imagining what the world would be like if such things did exist.

But to believe in something for which there is no evidence? I feel that would, the vast majority of the time, prove unwise. Believing in something is an active position...it is a position in which it is assumed some evaluation has taken place beforehand and a decision has been reached, a decision which says "I think this is real".

My position about unknowns is that they are just that...unknowns. I will try to know them through sensible methods which are the most likely to gain accurate results...but I will not stick a label on them based on what my intuition, imagination or desire alone say.

Similarly, if something is disproven, I can stop believing in it.

Out of the examples you gave, aliens are the most likely (as someone else has pointed out, mathematically they are incredibly likely. If asked to judge, I would say that they most probably exist simewhere in the universe, even in large numbers in multiple locations). The others are either entirely unsupported or actually go against what is currently known, so I have no reason to believe in them.

 

-Afterlife: negative.

-Ultimate Purpose: ?? what does that even mean? and see below for 'fate'.

-Aliens: i think it is very likely there is other life on other planets in the universe. on those terms, yes. but on terms of belief, no. i don't believe anything.

-Collective Consciousness: ??

-Inter-dimensional beings: define 'interdimensional beings'.

-Ghosts: negative.

-Fate (It was meant to be): negative.

-Freewill: free will obviously exists. it is not a belief system.

i don't use such an act as 'believing' at all. i don't believe. that is why i am an atheist.

 

What non-doing does the Pagan apply? I wonder.

 

Music! : D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4mDhD0Ohss"]Dub Rush - Silence - YouTube

 

You may, of course, believe that free will exists, but that it does is far from obvious. Also, it is most certainly a belief. You believe that free will exists, and I believe that it doesn't.

 

it has nothing to do with belief. i exercise my free will every day. i know it exists. i don't need belief for this. the whole argument that we have no free will has been invented by people, who, in my opinion, should find something better to do to alleviate their boredom. the negation of free will is completely ridiculous.

 

I agree with you that we have free will, but just to butt in like an ass and speak for the other side I think they are referring to the notion that everything we do is simply the logical cause and effect of our genetics and life experiences, meaning that we never really have choices, just inevitable reactions based on the sum total of who and what we are.

 

well yes, some things are determined by our genetics and physiology, maybe some other things by experience. but not everything. there are choices in life. and just like there are things we can't change about ourselves no matter how much we'd want, there are other things that are flexible and not rigidly set in stone (genes, cells, etc). to negate that is ridiculous.

 

Yeah, I agree it's ridiculous. Sometimes I think certain attempts at deconstructing human behavior border on the absurd - such as denying free will. I would argue certain less intelligent animals possess a degree of free will as well.

I do wonder, however, since the concept of free will is sort of ethereal and intangible can we be 100% certain of it to say its existence is fact? I mean, if someone asks me about it I'll certainly say it is one, but I do occasionally entertain the notion that I might be wrong.

 

i wouldn't say it's that intangible. and argument like this is bordering on nihilism. with sufficient imagination you could argue that nothing at all exists. you could make a case point and ask others to prove that a certain thing indeed exists. and when people provide proof you dismiss that proof à la 'how do you know that is real?', 'how do you know your perception is real?' etc etc. it's nonsense. a mind game in essence, if a fascinating one. if you go into a night club and see a bar stool there in front of the bar then the person who tells you the bar stool doesn't exist is the one who has to prove his claim, not you. you see, it's all a game. the reality of a situation is turned around to make it look like you have to prove reality. absurd, no? of course, again, one can argue reality doesn't really exist but then you'd also have to drive around town ignoring the rest of the traffic and see how far you'll get.

 

Well I say it's intangible because it isn't something you can touch or hold. I also don't think existentialism is an absurdity either, although I do admit discussing it tends to be useless. We have to agree on certain things in order to have any kind of reasonable conversation, and one of the first things is that things often exist as our senses perceive them. Free will isn't necessarily something that can be perceived with our senses - we simply see a person or thing performing action or inaction and we attribute it as an effect of free will.

That's where I think you make a mistake in your analysis - driving around in a car and observing traffic laws is something that is, to use my buzzword for this conversation, tangible. You jump in a car, turn the ignition, etc. Same with a bar stool. I mean debating free will isn't really at all the same as existentialism in the sense you describe. The question of whether or not and to what degree we really have control over who and what we are is certainly more abstract and perhaps deserving of our attention then mulling over if what we are seeing is real or if we're stuck in the Matrix.

Although as I said before and I shall repeat, I do think free will is something we as humans possess. We are sort of delving into minutiae here and perhaps derailing the thread a bit.

 

it may be something you can't touch, doesn't mean it's any less real. to me, its existence is as obvious as a car's or a bar stool's. thus the analogy.

 

intangible does not mean not real. intangible is what that analogy describes.
there are second and third orders of intangibility however.
first order can still be observed indirectly with measurements and the technologies to make those measurements and extract meaning from the data they produce.
second order is not measurable nor detectable by technological means, but can still sometimes, if a bit ambiguously, be very indirectly observed to seem to have some effect.
third order can only be described as the complete unknown and possibly unknowable.