Question to athiests who say...

[Perfection]

I'd say theories are useful only as far as they predict things, adding to our knowledge about the world.

You're probably right here.

Maybe I should go to bed.

 

[Berzerker]

It didn't come from anything. It didn't even come.

Well, there's another theory...

It's an annoying definition game, atheists definitely do not believe it God, although many allow the logical possibility of God.

Andrei insisted I use the dictionary, but atheists go further than that. They deny God exists, that aint the same as not knowing but believing there aint no God. I believe in a prime mover (God) but I dont know for sure and wouldn't claim it as fact. Definitions are your friend, they help explain nuance

 

[Andrei_V]

There are two absolutes - God exists and God does not exist. Between these two are people who dont claim to know either way and may lean toward a belief or no belief.

Dude, you sound like Dawkins.

Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

TGD, pp 50-51

Let's say I fit into #6.

 

[Xyan]

Before the big bang.. hmm..

Everything goes in a cycle. The water cycle, the life cycle, the manufacturing cycle, etc...

Everything goes from birth to growth to decline to death and then to re-birth...

Every science experiements ultimately trace earthly phenomenon onto a sinusoidial curve.

Our cells in our body go through the cycle.
Our individual lives go through the cycle.
The stars in the sky goes through the cycle.

Is it hard to imagine the entire universe going through the cycle, even if that cycle that billions of light-years?

The big bang is a birth. Then it grows. Then it will decline. Then it will go into a latent state (death). Then... another big bang.

This is the buddhist's view. Creator-God? No. No such entity. Thank you.

 

[Berzerker]

That's in fact false for the vast majoirty of self-described atheists (myself included).

Then maybe y'all should describe yourselves as agnostic, thats what I did when I learned atheism denies the existence of God.

 

[Andrei_V]

Then maybe y'all should describe yourselves as agnostic

Then it would not be clear, whether we believe in God or not.

There is a category of theists that claim that faith is only possible due to the lack of knowledge. If you know for sure God exists, you cannot 'have faith' He does. They call themselves 'fideists'.

In other words, while I have nothing against labeling myself 'agnostic', I prefer 'atheist' to make things clear.

 

[fishjie]

Before the big bang.. hmm..

Everything goes in a cycle. The water cycle, the life cycle, the manufacturing cycle, etc...

Everything goes from birth to growth to decline to death and then to re-birth...

Every science experiements ultimately trace earthly phenomenon onto a sinusoidial curve.

Our cells in our body go through the cycle.
Our individual lives go through the cycle.
The stars in the sky goes through the cycle.

Is it hard to imagine the entire universe going through the cycle, even if that cycle that billions of light-years?

The big bang is a birth. Then it grows. Then it will decline. Then it will go into a latent state (death). Then... another big bang.

This is the buddhist's view. Creator-God? No. No such entity. Thank you.

i like this

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Many smart people arguing here. Too bad some of them have to redefine atheism to be able to attack it. Business as usual I see.

 

[mdwh]

That's in fact false for the vast majoirty of self-described atheists (myself included).

Seconded. I don't understand why many theists, and self-described agnostics, are so keen to tell us what we supposedly believe.

Andrei insisted I use the dictionary, but atheists go further than that. They deny God exists, that aint the same as not knowing but believing there aint no God. I believe in a prime mover (God) but I dont know for sure and wouldn't claim it as fact. Definitions are your friend, they help explain nuance

Perhaps some do, but not all. How about we debate what people say, rather than inventing an easy target?

If you admit you are a theist, but don't know for sure, why don't you acknowledge that most atheists probably admit they don't know?

Then maybe y'all should describe yourselves as agnostic, thats what I did when I learned atheism denies the existence of God.

So does that mean since you're an agnostic (you're not sure if God exists), you can't also be a theist?

Of course, you can. Just like you can be an agnostic atheist.

You need to find a dictionary for atheism - denial is just one definition, another is simply "disbelief".

I don't understand why rather than debating issues, people like to redefine terms to make an easy target. Perhaps I should redefine theist to mean "A person who believes in 7 day Creationism", to make an easier target for debate.

I personally don't describe primarily myself as agnostic because it is vague: it can mean someone who doesn't know, but also someone who claims we can never know about God. Also it is sometimes interpretted as apathy/not caring.

Even as far as not knowing, I feel that's of secondary importance - most important is that I don't believe, which is atheism, not agnosticism. If someone asks if I believe in pixies, I say a simply "No", I don't avoid the question and say "I don't know whether pixies exist".

 

[El_Machinae]

I really disbelieve in the notion of the Christian God.

There are components of said god that I'm agnostic about.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

Perfection, first, I'd like to apologize: I was in a bad mood yesterday, and your comments were sort of like the trigger for me to go into my berserk mode (sort of like one minute there's plain ol' Bruce Banner, then the next it's HULK....SMASH!!!!, or how the zener effect works in a diode... at X-.001V, there's nothing happening, but at X volts, the diode junction breaks down and current flows). Thankfully, the red haze of rage has subsided, and I'm able to think clearly now (well as clearly as anyone who thinks Nikola Tesla was one of the greatest geniuses of all-time can think).

I realize now that you didn't specifically say I was STUPID, only that I wasn't as smart as you were.

If you define Intelligence in such a manner: I = IQ (where IQ = base intelligence), then you're likely right.

I define Intelligence in this manner: I = (IQ+K+CS)LoM (I+ total intelligence, IQ= Base intelligence, K = total Knowledge, CS = Common Sense and LoM = Level of Maturity), which would mean that, from my point of view, I'd likely be right.

That brings me to something that someone else brought up, and that you seem to be forgetting: It is possible to critically and logically possible to come to different conclusions from the same set of results due to differing points of view, past experiences and other things that are not covered by pure, scientific logic.

You say that nothing could possibly exist before the Big Bang, and I say, where's your proof? Hyperdimensionally speaking, it is possible. Another example of the "certain point of view" thing is your response to my idea of what could be considered an afterlife without a God:

You say "it's just energy changing states" but I say, "Well, that could be considered a sort of afterlife, from a certain point of view."

That may be rather mind-bending logic, but if one can accept the idea that two paralell lines will eventually cross due to the "curvature of the universe" and the fact that, from a quantum standpoint everything in existance is real only about 50% of the time (due to the wave/particle nature of things, solid matter litterly blinks in and out of physical existence about a billion times a second, at leas according to one theory I've read), then as far as I'm concerned, such thinking isn't such a big stretch, nor is belief in God such a large leap of faith.

Of course, that's the truth from my point of view. (I could use this as a bridge to jump into a discussion on free will and ethics, but I'm rather tired of this whole thing, so I won't).

Of course, I'd like to pose a friendly challenge: I give a list of Christian philosophical books to read, which are written by some great Christian thinkers (Ravi Zacharaias, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterson, etc), and you give me an equal amount of books by atheistic philosophers of your choice and we both read them and then discuss the conclusions we came to.

Sound fair enough?

I have a feeling that if our philosophies in life weren't polar opposites, we'd probably get along great, what with our common interest in electronics and such.... BTW, I'm planning on seeing about creating a "Ask an Electronics Technician (or: What You Always Wanted to Know About Electronics, but Were too Busy Beating the Living @#$% out of the Worthless Piece of Crap to Bother Asking)" thread, and would like to know if you'd like to co-host....

 

[mdwh]

(I've found most atheists fit into 4 categories.... Category 2 are the ones that are atheists because they think they're the smartest carbon-based lifeforms in the universe and don't like the idea that any being could possibly be smarter Category 1 are the types that have more skeletons in their closet {both literally and figuratively} than the catacombs of venice and don't want there to be a God because then they know they'd be going to Hell for sure, Cat 3 is for those who think any kind of morals that might interfere with their fun are bad, so they don't believe in God because they want to do whatever they want, regardless of how morally wrong they are, providing that it isn't actually illegal to do such things. Cat 4 atheists are those who've had something really bad happen to them and they think {wrongly} that because that bad stuff happened, then God couldn't possibly exist.).

I like this system, look, it fits even better for theists:

Category 1 are the types that have more skeletons in their closet {both literally and figuratively} than the catacombs of venice and want there to be a God so they can be rewarded for eternity just for believing in him (related to fans of Pascal).

Category 2 are the ones that are theists because they think they're the smartest carbon-based lifeforms in the universe, and think they have knowledge of how everything started.

Category 3 is for those who think any kind of morals that might interfere with their fun are bad, so they believe in God because they want to do whatever they want, regardless of how morally wrong they are, and even if it is actually illegal to do such things, as they can just say "It's moral, because God says so", and "Help, you're repressing my religious beliefs" if it's made illegal.

Category 4 theists are those who've had something really bad happen to them, and they think {wrongly} that because that bad stuff happened, but there must have been a reason for it, then God must exist (also see Argument From Incomplete Devastation).

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

#1. I've done bad things, but at least I TRY not to, because it's WRONG! I've met Christians who were like that, but I pointed out where their thinking was wrong, according to the rules of their religion, and many realized what they were doing was wrong and subsequently cleaned up their act.

According to atheism, there is no right or wrong, good or bad... All that is made up for the good of society, therefore Stalin, Mao, etc were just as legitimate in what they did as Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson... After all, under the Atheist philosopy, "it's only wrong if it's illegal and you get caught." and if you're the one making the laws, then you can do no wrong. (plus all the people you kill were obviously weak, and unfit to pass their DNA along in accordance to Natural Selection, therefore you did them and the human race a favor). Any religion will have a set of rules and eternal consequences to NOT following those rules, whereas the basis of Atheism is that the only rules are Physics and Natural Selection, everything else is made up and "fake"

#2. Ah, I see you've heard of Jerry Falwel I've never claimed to be the smartest carbon-based lifeform in the universe... I know my limitations, and realize that I need God for answers to some of the tougher questions. I've met some arrogant Christians, but, again, I was able to (for the most part), correct them by pointing out the fact that Pride is a sin (and #1 of the Seven Big Ones, too), and that they should lose the attitude.

Atheism, on the other hand, believes that sin is an artificial concept, so they have the right to treat anybody how they want to (provided it isn't technically illegal), and therefore the number of arrogant atheists I've met has been proportionally higher than that of arrogant theists (Hi, Perfection :wave: )

3. Yes, You do have a point there... Some of them religions out there make Atheism look downright cosy compared to what they consider to be "moral" (like Rastafarianism.... How the HELL is getting blitzed out of your skull supposed to get you closer to God? All that accomplishes is killing brain cells....)

Category 4: Yes, I'll aggree with you there, but then again, I've usually been able to see some kind of reason behind disasters (although it may have been 10 years later when I realized what was going on "behind the scenes")

Of course, do keep in mind that I made that post under the influence of excessive sarcasm, and wasn't particularly serious (other than being seriously p---ed off at the time).

 

[Andrei_V]

I've met some arrogant Christians, but, again, I was able to (for the most part), correct them by pointing out the fact that Pride is a sin (and #1 of the Seven Big Ones, too), and that they should lose the attitude.

Atheism, on the other hand, believes that sin is an artificial concept, so they have the right to treat anybody how they want to (provided it isn't technically illegal), and therefore the number of arrogant atheists I've met has been proportionally higher than that of arrogant theists (Hi, Perfection :wave: )

Suppose I am living in the middle of a big city like Houston, TX. I work in a very liberal academic environment, 50% non-religious, the rest are people of different faiths, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. I don't feel any discrimination or any pressure on religious grounds at all. I don't think anybody else does.

Now I am leaving Houston and go to the country just outside the outer loop. The local population is nearly 100% Christian. The first thing they do, they ask me, what church do I go to. If I say, I am an atheist, and don't go to any church, many of them start looking at me as if I was a potential child rapist. But that's not that bad, provided I am just a visitor, and I am going back to Houston soon.

What would happen if I am not a visitor, but settle there and open a small business like a restaurant or something. It's not that hard to imagine, right? If I openly declare myself atheist, I won't have any customers at all.

Can anyone imagine something like that happens in a predominantly atheistic society, even in Soviet Russia? I mean, would atheists treat you like Grand Inquisitor just because you're a Christian? No bloody likely.

Is that any wonder we have all those 'angry atheists' around just like we had 'angry homosexuals' or 'angry Afro-Americans' before?

 

[Lotus49]

you know people can believe what they want to. but when they organize together into groups, it becomes a problem. if you look at the history of religion, you can see that it has ******** scientific progress, and caused a tremendous amount of suffering. the problem with religion is that it is an incredibly effective way of controlling people. the whole idea of faith is dangerous. it is taught not to question, not to think critically, and not to blindly believe what their church tells them to.

yes, yes atheists have done bad things, but they have done good things as well. that's the point. man can be good without religion, but man can do incredible evil with religion, in the name of religion. all because religion tells them not to question. mindless obedience is a trait that is favored.

this is how a religious group, such as the christian right wing, can effectively push their gay hating, environment destroying, anti evolution education on the country. this is how the middle east barbarians can gleefully decapitate people live, and get their followers to fly planes into buildings.

the dogmatic nature of religion is dangerous to the progress of society, so that is why it is a serious issue for many people.

I might be inclined to agree that personal, private faith is potentially more positive overall. Problem is; there's a lot of weak hands out there that can't stand on their own. They want to have faith, but they can't justify it, they struggle with it - w/o... 'assistance' I guess. Some plants can grow in the desert with very little water. Others need conditions to be perfect.

Anyway now that we're into a deep philosophical discussion, that's what atheism really is, isn't it... the struggle to believe / have faith in the supernatural. People were recently talking about different types of intelligence. I'm adamant that there is also a spiritual (6th sense if you will - or maybe call it insight) intelligence, which is more acute/sensitive in some than others... thus enabling them to tune into this allusive realm, and begin to scratch the paint at understanding it. Meanwhile others can't sense it; all they have is logical thought. Therefore they have a hard time committing to an idea(s) that cannot be concretely confirmed. Btw, I strongly believe this 'insight' is actually either present (and developed) or completely absent, by the desires of spirit within. I.e., if you want/seek it, you will find.

In any case, I'm thoroughly convinced it's all about trust. Faith and trust. That's the test at hand, here. I'm not saying I like the test. In fact I resent it. I resent that I should even need to be 'tested'. But fine - I go through the motions... let's knock this crap out.

But anyway, if you genuinely don't believe in anything regarding 'the hereafter', and to the best of the ability of all your resources you just can't come to have any faith at all... well then, that's almost a luxury isn't it? No consequences. No accountability. No worries. Heck, we should all be so lucky. Heck you're practically almost a 'god' in your own right, since there's nothing holding you on a leash.

But alas, I really, REALLY don't think that's the case. I think a lot of people WISH it were the case - thus they find ways to justify it. But to me it's just too obvious that this is all one big 'quality control' test, where ultimately each of us will be placed into the group we deserve. So for me, faith isn't even a choice; it's a simple fact. I fear nothing but God's wrath, but I don't fear Him personally, thus I've gotten close to Him. And when you do that, and then make a mistake or two... you're held to a higher standard, and you feel it when He shakes you.

It's not a whole lot different than the parent-child relationship. And I was one of the most insubordinate kids ever. I HATED being controlled. I wanted (and still do) to control my own destiny. But like I said before, the key element you have to learn - is trust. Trust, that He's looking out for your best interest, even though you can't see the grand plan.

^And that, is where most people aren't able to 'jump on board'. Instead they're deceived. But, I'm just not going to be denied. God has a plan, I've gotten wind of it, and I'm going to do my part to see that it comes to fruition. And if I do that, it will happen.

Pretty much the test is, what is the limit of your faith (i.e. how strong is it)? If you can be tested like Job, and still stand stong right to the oblivion of your very existence, then that's something special in God's eyes. Then He shows mercy, and rewards you accordingly. People can't understand this? Well, what is God? Strength, power, wisdom, etc. So, if you emulate these qualities, well then - common sense.

This is really kindergarten. Don't fail at this level. The shame would be unbearable.

 

[Berzerker]

Seconded. I don't understand why many theists, and self-described agnostics, are so keen to tell us what we supposedly believe.

Perhaps some do, but not all. How about we debate what people say, rather than inventing an easy target?

Talk about easy targets, nobody is telling you what you believe. But if you dont believe in God but aint sure, you're not an atheist. Atheists are sure just as Fundies are sure...

If you admit you are a theist, but don't know for sure, why don't you acknowledge that most atheists probably admit they don't know?

Because atheism rejects the notion of God? I'm agnostic because I dont know, but I believe more likely than not there is a conscious power so to speak behind the universe. Whether or not that makes me a theist is another matter (or are you telling me what I believe ).

So does that mean since you're an agnostic (you're not sure if God exists), you can't also be a theist?

Of course, you can. Just like you can be an agnostic atheist.

Thats a contradiction in terms, one doesn't know and the other does know.

You need to find a dictionary for atheism - denial is just one definition, another is simply "disbelief".

And in that context disbelief is a denial, the second definition re-enforces the first. The way you're reading dis-belief it would include all those people who dont believe but aint sure. That would make me a Fundie because I dont know but lean toward a prime mover.

I don't understand why rather than debating issues, people like to redefine terms to make an easy target. Perhaps I should redefine theist to mean "A person who believes in 7 day Creationism", to make an easier target for debate.

Well, why not? You've re-defined atheism to include agnostics...not me...

Even as far as not knowing, I feel that's of secondary importance - most important is that I don't believe, which is atheism, not agnosticism. If someone asks if I believe in pixies, I say a simply "No", I don't avoid the question and say "I don't know whether pixies exist".

Is that your answer to the question: is there a prime mover?

 

[Berzerker]

Then it would not be clear, whether we believe in God or not.

It aint clear when someone says they are an atheist but dont know if God exists. Well, its clear they dont understand the meaning of atheism.

In other words, while I have nothing against labeling myself 'agnostic', I prefer 'atheist' to make things clear.

So why did you raise a fuss?

 

[Berzerker]

Many smart people arguing here. Too bad some of them have to redefine atheism to be able to attack it. Business as usual I see.

assuming that refers to our debate over the meaning of the word, where has atheism been "attacked". We cant even discuss what the word means without "atheists" feeling persecuted?

 

[Lay_Lay]

A prime mover does not necessarily require omnipotence, omniscience, nor to be a diety. He/She/It could be an entity or force that, if it exists, is more powerful than me (in prime moving duties at least, not necessarily better than me in racquetball.)

If that prime mover created the universe by hand or if It instigated the big bang does not mean that It must be God. To assume that It must be a diety adds more to the theory than what is required to explain things. Since I don't know what It is or even if It exists, I choose not to add It to my belief. There is no evidence of It - only of what It may have had a part in creating.

Have you guys even considered that there may be a Being that is controlling the whole thing, but It is not God?

 

[Andrei_V]

So why did you raise a fuss?

I did?

I thought I just answered a question. It's not my fault if somebody does not understand the meaning of the word 'atheism'.

Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.