That's a good point too.
-
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!
Atheism does not exist
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
That's a good point too.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
But if that was the case I would not believe you for saying nothing exist outside of our existence or reality.
Can such a thing exist, yes. So why do you deny it? The plausibility is mind boggling
Why not deny the existence of things until and unless some sort of evidence or consequence of their existence is found?
Why consider things while they are established as inconsequential?
Why consider things while they are established as inconsequential?
Me Myself
Back to my username
Where is the evidence for that?
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.
.
The definitions I have always gone by, and that I find the most useful, are the following.
Theism/Atheism = Belief/ Lack of belief
Gnostic/Agnostic = To claim knowledge/ Lack of knowledge
These work well because there are distinctions. A Christian may claim to believe a God exist, but also know it exists. This would be a gnostic/theist.
An atheist could also claim to believe and also know that God doesn't exist and would be a gnostic/atheist.
I find both of the above positions completely absurd. Most of the Atheists I have talked to would say they don't believe in a God, but can't know with complete certainty that none exist. They would be Agnostic Atheists. So there lack of belief is reasonable as is there willingness to admit they don't know everything and could be wrong. I would also find Agnostic/Theists reasonable, but have a harder time finding those.
Last edited:
Not to be contrary, but you could say the same about your definition of god-concepts. The label 'God' becomes of little informative value when applied broadly enough.
In terms of the topic, I've thought about this too, when trying to determine if the label 'agnostic' fits me better than atheist. I lost exactly no sleep over it, since both are (as Quintessence rightly pointed out) broad to the point of being uninformative.
But I decided atheism was a better fit for my world view. If you understand a theist as being someone who believes in a God or Gods, then an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in a God or Gods. It is the contrary position. The term atheist only really exists in opposition to theist.
Agnostic is a tougher term for me, since it includes people who think about religion and have highly developed opinions with those who are kinda...just uncertain about the whole thing, or think's it's all pretty ridiculous to even think about (ie. my wife...lol)
McBell
Admiral Obvious
So your friend is an atheist?
Or does he accept every single claimed deity?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Did we all see the Wolf Blitzer atheist interview clip today?
I wish some savvy person would post it in an OP. I swanny... Granny would have fainted to see an interview like that. She didn't believe in atheists either.
I'm pretty sure Granny would have gone with 'And she seemed SUCH a nice girl...'
I was fine with him asking the first time, but she avoided answering, and he repeated the question which seemed;
1) A little rude
2) Kinda stupid...didn't he get the cue that he might not get the answer he liked?
No biggie though. She handled herself well.
sonofdad
Member
Prove me wrong.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your trying to set up a circular argument around atheism, but it is not logical or reasonable questioning.
Please define the specific god you would like me to prove doesn't exist, then we will talk.
Your had now.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
I am not setting up an argument against atheism I am just stating that atheist should keep the meaning of atheism pure to prevent contradictions in the line of thinking.
My god is the deistic god. he does not intervene with his creation because he is so perfect he does not make mistakes so he has no further reason to provide anything else to this universe as it is in accordance to his will. The heavens themselves exist the way there needed and mankind according to my god is not the center of the universe.
I have encountered spirits once and have experience my god multiple times but only 1 moment I can recall.
he existed before religion and he will exist after.
He is irrefutable as well. If he was not then Dawkins himself would not testify that he is unable to do so nor would Michio Kaku. SO I challenge you to denounce something which I have experience and nobody else can refute because his only scripture is everything you see and believe. If you believe in wind, you believe in my god, if you believe that your hand is real you believe in my god.
Why would one need to refute the Deistic version of god to state that he does not believe in its existence, though?
Wind is real. And my hand is real. I know because it's injured (basketball) and hurts like buggery.
But I don't believe in your God. As I stated earlier, atheism is the opposite of theism. I don't need to prove there is no God to be an atheist.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
That statement was not aimed at you though. I know what you are talking about, I am challenging the atheist who have "proof there is no god"
. You are essentially free of criticism buddy.
That statement was not aimed at you though. I know what you are talking about, I am challenging the atheist who have "proof there is no god"
You are essentially free of criticism buddy.
Wow! I GOTTA get you to tell my wife that...