Okay, sure. Rather I mean: I feel like I’m passed the introductory material. Like I’m coming in as a sophomore, say. But—I could be totally wrong! We’ll see.
And, if we’re pedantic about things pretty similar to atheism, I might not be an atheist. I’m not up to speed on all the terms. What do you call:
I don’t ‘believe’ anything, I have degrees of thinking information might be accurate but I talk as though I believe the best model I have; physics provides a model of the universe which I accept to a high degree and I think it’s very likely accurate as an abstraction (the finer points are up for debate); I make and accept no claims about things that can’t be covered by that model such as extra-universal entities or the reason we exist at all; I consider the elegance of a model as working to its merit as well as its accuracy so invoking supernatural or arbitrary forces where there’s an alternative makes an explanation very implausible to me; I see no reason to invoke anything other than physics anywhere between the “big bang” step and my perception of the present so my currently preferred explanation excludes anything supernatural in any form.
My test was whether my gods-related beliefs would get me flamed on r/atheism. I don’t think my beliefs would pass the ideological turing test for atheism.
I used to think the god hypothesis was not just wrong, but incoherent. How could there be a being above and outside physics? How could god break the laws of physics? Of course now I take the simulation argument much more seriously, and even superintelligences within the universe can probably do pretty neat things.
I still think non-reductionism is incoherent; “a level above ours” makes sense, “supernatural” does not.
This isn’t really a major update, though. I’m just not going to refer to myself as an atheist any more, because my beliefs permit a lot more.
Okay, sure. Rather I mean: I feel like I’m passed the introductory material. Like I’m coming in as a sophomore, say. But—I could be totally wrong! We’ll see.
I’ve definitely got counter-rational behaviors ingrained; I’m constantly fighting my brain.
And, if we’re pedantic about things pretty similar to atheism, I might not be an atheist. I’m not up to speed on all the terms. What do you call:
I was calling that atheism.
In that sense, then, I’m an atheist.
My test was whether my gods-related beliefs would get me flamed on r/atheism. I don’t think my beliefs would pass the ideological turing test for atheism.
I used to think the god hypothesis was not just wrong, but incoherent. How could there be a being above and outside physics? How could god break the laws of physics? Of course now I take the simulation argument much more seriously, and even superintelligences within the universe can probably do pretty neat things.
I still think non-reductionism is incoherent; “a level above ours” makes sense, “supernatural” does not.
This isn’t really a major update, though. I’m just not going to refer to myself as an atheist any more, because my beliefs permit a lot more.
Seems like agnosticism to me, or atheism in a broader sense. The narrow atheism is a belief in zero gods.