psychoslice
Veteran Member
Are you talking to me ?, if so, no, it doesn't scare me at all, but when I was a Christian for over eighteen years, then yes that did scare me.Why is this funny to you? It scares you, or something?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?
- Thread starter Segev Moran
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
And what evidence do you have of your mighty god ?.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Hardly. It may be unimaginative or indicate questionable premises, among other possibilities.
But it can't be dishonest unless you somehow know that the speaker has access to solid evidence that somehow evaded most everyone else. You should avoid making such accusations so recklessly.
How would you know that? You don't seem to even understand what the conclusion was.
Then to even attempt to say anything about whether there is a god is always dishonest.
That is an entirely absurd, unreasonable definition of "honesty".
Do you realize that to even produce that number you had to violate your own parameters of honesty?
That is, if one accepts your premise that...
And that is an unnecessary, arbitrary restriction. I just don't know why it would make sense. Let alone why it would be universally required, as you seem to expect.
True enough. And of no relevance here.
Perhaps more than just those two, since we are working from such an ill-defined concept ("god") as a starting place.
Artificial, unsustainable claim.
Also objectively wrong, too, at least until humanity as a whole eventually reaches an agreement on what should be understood by "god".
Last edited:
That is why we can never agree on this matter. Your categorization only works for subject matters that are well defined. "God" is not remotely one of those.
Superficially, sure.
On a slightly deeper level, it breaks apart, though.
Because the concept of "god" is so ill-defined, atheism is usually caused also by some degree of lack of interest in using the concept of "god" or even of lack of awareness of such a concept.
To put it in another way, "atheism" it is not so much a lack of belief as it is a lack of willingness or means to sustain such a belief.
I suppose some atheists can actually make sense of belief in God/god/gods and yet don't hold that belief anyway, but I don't think that is necessary, typical or even very common. Atheism does not require understanding theism and it certainly does not require having the means to choose theism.
To draw a parallel, a believer in free market does not need to be capable of making sense of communism. Likewise, an atheist does not need the ability to hold a functional concept of deity - or even any deity concept at all.
Conversely, theism requises some measure of ability to make sense of such a concept of deity and then of convincing oneself that he or she actually believes in the existence of something that fulfills that definition. There is a necessary component of willingness to believe there.
Because that willingness can't always exist, all societies have a percentage of atheists even if they go out of their way to convince them to lie about it.
Last edited:
You are conflating weak atheism with strong atheism.
This is a debate that doesn't go away.
I would consider myself an atheist based on saying "there is no god" (as a materialist who would say the existence of god is by definition impossible irrespective of proof) but the "lack of belief" weak or agnostic atheists are more numerous on the forums and therefore win these discussions largely by default.
Edit: the quote below is an accurate description of what atheism "feels" like to me. I dont pretend this is a wholly rational position because I dont believe reason is wholly pure or objective or rational. Its made by humans and so has human limitations and biases. There is always a subjective element in a persons argument based on their experiences.
Last edited:
But all that means is that you're in the category that hasn't defined "god."
Oh, I have defined deities very often and never found it much worth the trouble. It is all so arbitrary and useless.
But that is not really the point. Weak and strong atheisms both exist and make sense regardless of your lack of acceptance of the distinction, and certainly regardless of whatever my personal stance happens to be.
Last edited:
But I can claim the exact same proofs as you for Shiva... Scripture and personal experience.
So how can we decide we are right based on those reasons alone?
That last sentence is confusing because I never said my cat was explicitly an atheist, just that, technically, okay yes literally, my cat is an atheist. But that is implicit in that it's implied that my cat is an atheist because cats can't conceptualize of a god (wait for the incoming cats think they are gods jokes).
I'm actually agreeing that saying you lack a belief is an explicit stance, I just don't think it's really "lacking" a belief but asserting a disbelief when you do. So it doesn't really mean anything different from saying you don't believe in god, you disbelieve ect. It all means the same thing. Rather I think people use the words "lack belief" due to the more neutral connotations of those words.
You know the stereotype; the dogmatic, overbearing atheist. A lot of people believe that it's representative of atheists. And the difference in language is a response to that but I don't agree with that response as a nontheist myself.
Both strike me as untenable positions. With sound bite rhetoric, and staying as far away as possible from experience, while (hopefully) resting in intellectual / abstract ideas, I think the second one does stand a chance to be maintained (for a short while).
The first is rejection, plain and simple (I think). If I say money is my god, then the rejection is such that for the person exercising the rejection, money is (for them) not a god, nor ought to be treated as such. But obviously begs the question of what is god for them?
The second one is at worst (or perhaps at best) ignorance, such that babies are (allegedly) atheists, lacking a belief in god(s). From this position, babies or those ignorant of the idea (any idea) of gods, are true atheists. Yet, if one is to feign ignorance with regards to either ideas or evidence of what is deemed (by anyone) to be god(s), then it is plausible it could be maintained as a position. Again, if I say money is my god, there's plenty of evidence for that which is referenced as god, in mutual existence. And as the latter is not based on rejection (exactly), then it is really ignorance of how one arrives at idea that it (it could be anything, or non-thing) is god.
For intellectually aware adults, both positions strike me as you likely have a pretty good idea what god(s) means, at least for yourself, possible a few to many others. And you reject the idea that it (or they) exists for you as an influential aspect / force / power within own experience.
IMO, if you have other ideas beyond (yet including) the rejection (of what gods must entail), I think it is hard pressed to call that atheism. I see that as entering into another domain that is at best in vein of skepticism and at worst is criticism of the idea(s). Honestly, if you have lots of ideas about what god(s) are to other people, it seems implausible to say you technically reject the idea that god(s) exist and/or that you disbelieve it. Instead, it is more like you reject the standard of that (whatever that is) being referred to as god. Which again, begs the question of what is god for you?
My gnostic theistic self knows You are God, I am God which is why I understand the position(s) to be untenable.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Actually, I Can't really state there is no God because I don't really know it.
Its like saying that someone saying that he doesn't believe in aliens, should say there are no aliens or else it sounds like is hanging to Alienism...
I Can tell you that I do believe there are aliens. Not because of stories or people saying they saw them, rather because based on what we know about our universe, the chances of there being life on other planets is increasing daily.
on the other hand, I can't prove to you there really are aliens, so I cannot state that aliens are true, The same I can't say for sure that there aren't.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Can't really understand what a certain level of absolute is?
Something is either absolute or not...
There is no Partially absolute truth.
Can you elaborate? If one person says "gods exist" I can say "I don't believe you." If the person next to him says "gods don't exist" I can say "I don't believe you either let me get back to you when I have decided what to believe." "I don't believe gods exist" obviously doesn't mean "I believe gods don't exist"... but that was maybe not what you meant?
If I say that I don't believe my shoes are on the shelf it's because I believe that they are not on the shelf.
If one person says your shoes are on the shelf and another person says your shoes are in the kitchen any particular reason why if you don't believe the first person you have to believe the second one? If one person says gods exist and another says they don't any particular reason you have to believe the second person if you don't believe the first one?