Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[Link]

A scientific peer reviewed article.

Not published as a book to make a mercenary profit from gullible believers?

Then your professor needs to update what he is teaching

I'll ask him about it. I doubt he is unaware of it, he is an Atheist that keeps updated with all this stuff.

 

[Heyo]

I can pretty easily fathom why both believers and atheists believe how they do.

Nope. Obviously.

Each is seeing things through their particular filters that colorizes the question of God into their respective belief structures. Both are looking at the God question, and coming out with a different take on the same question.

There is no god question on my mind. It's been settled.
The only question that remains is why believers can't understand or at least accept that.

 

[ChristineM]

I'll ask him about it. I doubt he is unaware of it, he is an Atheist that keeps updated with all this stuff.

Do that please

Here is another scientific article
Why do we believe in gods? Religious belief 'not linked to intuition or rational thinking': The study challenges a growing trend that has attempted to show that believing in the supernatural is something that comes to us 'naturally' or intuitively

 

[Heyo]

I know this is not true of the Torah or Gospels or Quran, the word idols includes anything that is valued on par with God or in rival to God and obedience to Him.

I don't understand. What has he Torah or Gospels or Quran or idols to do with deism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it's not a question about beliefs and why people have them. It's a question about the nature and existence of God itself. That makes is a question about God. "I don't believe God exists", is an answer to a question about God's existence. It's not about why people believe the way they do about God. That would be more a psychological/sociological question.


There is no misunderstanding on my part. I believe the misunderstanding is on a lot of popular atheist views about this. I'm attempting to point out why that is so from my perspective.


I can pretty easily fathom why both believers and atheists believe how they do. Each is seeing things through their particular filters that colorizes the question of God into their respective belief structures. Both are looking at the God question, and coming out with a different take on the same question.

Tell me, do you believe that Bigfoot exists? Or that fairies exist? I don't. Now if someone gave me evidence that Bigfoot existed I could easily change my mind. It would take quite a bit more evidence to convince me that fairies exist. And since a god is even more magical than fairies it would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me that a god exists. I am always open to evidence but the rational way to act is to have non-belief in extreme claims until evidence for that claim is given. I am not saying that it is impossible for god exist therefore he does not exist, nor is that saying that it is possible that a god exists. We simply do not know enough to even say that.

Find me some substantial evidence and I can change my mind Until then the god concept is with the Bigfoot, Yeti, and fairies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A scientific peer reviewed article.

Not published as a book to make a mercenary profit from gullible believers?

Then your professor needs to update what he is teaching

Far too often when a person accuses there professor of teaching this sort of thing what actually happened is that the person misunderstood the professor. I am sure that some professors make that sort of foolish error. But they would be the very rare exception.

 

[Heyo]

Do that please

Here is another scientific article
Why do we believe in gods? Religious belief 'not linked to intuition or rational thinking': The study challenges a growing trend that has attempted to show that believing in the supernatural is something that comes to us 'naturally' or intuitively

Interesting article but it still doesn't answer why many kids are easily phased by a religious upbringing and others seem to be immune to superstitious beliefs; or were those beliefs came from in the first place.

 

[Vee]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

I guess it's only natural that even in the minds of those who are sure, there is always a tiny little place for doubt. One can always ask "what if..."

 

[Ouroboros]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

Labels... people usually tend to put their own spin and definition on them and then apply these "labels" to themselves for identity. I've learned that even though labels are shortcuts into understanding another person, their definition of the label usually tells more.

When it comes to not believing in God 100%, I believe you're wrong. I've met people who are completely unaware or interested in the concept, philosophy, or thoughts about God. And really to say that it's rare or impossible it's a reflection of your personal beliefs about the topic, not really being any fact of reality.

 

[Windwalker]

I disagree. The question of the existence of a god or gods is a philosophical one. Once the answer to that question is "yes," then theology takes over and tries to discern the nature of god or gods. If the answer, however, is "no," nothing more needs to be done.

Yes, it is a philosophical question. Specifically, it is a metaphysical question, dealing with the question what is the ultimate truth of reality. It is the view that ultimate reality lacks a God. And inherent in that question, is a theological view of what God is, in order to evaluate it.

For me (I can't speak for all atheists), there is so much information and understanding of the natural world and its workings -- without a single indication of something supernatural going on -- that the philosophical question is answered "No."

But as you can see right here you already expressed a theological view by calling God "supernatural". You had an image of God as "outside nature", and that is a theological view, regardless if you believe God exists or not.

You started with a theological image of God as "supernatural", and chose to discard it based on philosophically reasoning that natural systems don't need a supernatural God. The entire question had theology present within it at its heart.

What if your theology about God did not define God outside of nature? Then the evidence you presented as disproving God, affirms God. You see, you cannot escape it being theological in nature. Questions of ultimate reality are theological, or at the least include it, whether we like it or not.

 

[dianaiad]

So we do agree that someone says she doesn't believe in god is rather important in deciding the question whether she's an atheist?

Of course, if s/he says s/he doesn't believe in ANY god.

Someone who doesn't believe in any god BUT 'this' one is not atheist, but a theist.

I know, I know...but I didn't invent the concept OR the word.

 

[dianaiad]

Gotta love the semantic games theists play about what atheists should call themselves instead of getting to the actual point and demonstrating their god actually exists or does anything.

WE'RE playing the games?

I don't think a theist came up with the 'you are atheist too...we just believe in one less god than you do."

As for me, I couldn't care less. I mean, I do believe that my ideas regarding God are correct, but I can't prove that and have no intention of doing so....and I resent greatly the idea that some atheist can demand that I PROVE my beliefs about God are correct when I have made no such claim.

Remember; "I believe in God" is NOT the same claim as "GOD IS WHO I SAY HE IS AND YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TOO!"

The only thing I have to do to prove the first is repeat it. "I believe..." There you go. Proven. I believe. I said so. I don't have to prove anything to any atheist in order for me to continue to believe.

The second claim? Well, that's a whole 'nuther story, and if someone made that claim to me, I'd demand proof, too.

 

[Windwalker]

Nope. Obviously.

Obviously why? Can you address the actual points I cited? I'd like to hear your specific reasonings against what I said.

There is no god question on my mind. It's been settled.

How did you settle the question? Did you look at it? If you did, then you were having a question about God.

The only question that remains is why believers can't understand or at least accept that.

What believers are you referring to? What do they believe about God? What view of God is it that you hold in your mind in your rejection of it? Do all believers see God that same way? Can you answer these questions?

 

[dianaiad]

I'm an atheist. I hang around atheist forums . I live surrounded by other atheists since my culture isn't "theist" friendly. None of them are believers but in opposition or "mad at God". That's the masturbatory fantasm of some believers with a persecution complex. At best, some atheists I have met, could be said to be mad at believers for the awfull things they have done to them and do to others, but they aren't "mad at God". You are the subject of their anger and disgust not your deity.

When I read/listen to atheists who go into diatribes against the god of the OT, or demand to know why God permits evil (like volcanoes, tidal waves, tornadoes and mass murderers) I notice that they aren't mad at the believers, but at the deity they believe in. If they were angry at PEOPLE only, they would acknowledge that since religions are man made, that without religion men would find another reason to be nasty to one another.

Instead, and almost universally, the claim is that without religion the world would be a matter of people dancing around campfires singing "Imagine." That's not being mad at the people. That's being mad at the deity.

 

[dianaiad]

Figures, its been refuted, so read the article


Kind of like being mad at harry potter

Quite a few people ARE mad at Harry Potter. They want to burn those books...witchcraft, don'tcha know. But if you mention J.K. Rowling, they'll go...'who?"

I know a few of these. Sang with 'em in a Methodist choir.

I know, I know...surprised me, too.

Point is, It doesn't really matter if the deity one is mad at actually exists. If you are mad at it, YOU are mad at it. (general 'you')

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

Depends on the definition, really.

I kinda believe there are two things:
1. True atheism - They don't happen to believe in god/Gods but make no claims that such don't exist (this is wrongly called "soft atheism"). They are simply religiously indifferent.
2. Anti-theism - Actively opposed to the notion of deities.

The reason, I don't call "hard" atheism hard, is because it's actually more difficult to actually convince anyone of your position.

Suppose you go to an old house with some friends. One of them is actually indifferent to ghosts. The other one loudly repeats "there's no such thing as ghosts." One of these seems to convincingly not be afraid of ghosts. The other is fooling nobody.

 

[Mindmaster]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

It's more of a "I don't know, so I'm OK with that" position.

But, honestly... We're really just guessing here at what "creator" means. We're an atom in a giant "organism" of the universe that is at such a macro (e.g. large) scale that we absolutely have no idea what that organism looks like.

There are stars that are the size of a million of our 'Suns' and there is vast incomprehensible amounts of space between them until we hit the "heat wall" that we can't see past. And, in theory, that's just one of many of those -- it's completely possible that that entire visible universe is just part of a multiverse where it is just an atom in that space. However, with current technology we can't see past the big bang heat signature and effectively are blind to anything beyond it.

Anyway, a God, like one in The Bible depicts is nearly impossible and from our perspective the creating agent would be very much impossible to be aware of or observe. Atheism doesn't deny a creating agent/force either, it just doesn't accept one until we find it.

 

[Wurlitzer Oz]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism.

So to get really picky on that level, it simply means "godless".

And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.

But there are a lot of gods in many religions who are not creator gods!

And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

So my default paradigm is atheism. But I'm perfectly able to believe in all kinds of things, including gods and spirits, for the sake of doing chaos magic.

Have you ever doubted your God, even a tiny little bit? Does that make you an atheist?

 

[Left Coast]

WE'RE playing the games?

I don't think a theist came up with the 'you are atheist too...we just believe in one less god than you do."

Which was in response to a silly theist thread, to make a point. As he explained to to you.

As for me, I couldn't care less. I mean, I do believe that my ideas regarding God are correct, but I can't prove that and have no intention of doing so....and I resent greatly the idea that some atheist can demand that I PROVE my beliefs about God are correct when I have made no such claim.

If you admit your beliefs can't be demonstrated to be correct, then I also couldn't care less. I care when people make silly threads about what I should label myself to bear around the bush of the point, which is whether any of us have a good reason to think a god exists.

Remember; "I believe in God" is NOT the same claim as "GOD IS WHO I SAY HE IS AND YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TOO!"

The only thing I have to do to prove the first is repeat it. "I believe..." There you go. Proven. I believe. I said so. I don't have to prove anything to any atheist in order for me to continue to believe.

I don't question that people believe in god. That's completely mundane and obvious. The relevant question is whether that belief comports with reality.

 

[Windwalker]

Tell me, do you believe that Bigfoot exists? Or that fairies exist? I don't. Now if someone gave me evidence that Bigfoot existed I could easily change my mind. It would take quite a bit more evidence to convince me that fairies exist. And since a god is even more magical than fairies it would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me that a god exists.

Can you see that everything you just said here, expresses a view of God as a certain thing? You defined God as "even more magical than fairies". That is a very specific view of God. It is inescapably a theological view. Theology defines God. You have a theological view of God you hold in your mind. And it is against that theological view, you find fault and reason to not believe it.

I of course, share your disbelief of that idea of God. The difference seems, that I recognize that all views of God are theological perspectives, and some are less compatible with modern reason and logic and knowledge than others are. The theological perspective of the mythic-literal, anthropomorphic view of God, is the working perspective of everything I have seen within modern atheism (of which I was part of for many years). Your objection, is my objection as well.

For me personally, I've come to understand atheism as a theological perspective because it looks at the Reality question (which is what God symbolizes linguistically), and takes that mythic-literal perspective and rightly demonstrates that it cannot be held in a modern rational worldspace in any functional sense of the word. Creationism is not science! The atheist is absolutely correct in this. I agree. The atheist perspective of Ultimate Reality, does not allow for an unreasonable, irrational deity, acting like a human with serious anger issues. Its view of "God" is not that face, so it leaves it as a more open question. And I agree with this as well.

It's where one then goes with that "open question", that becomes seen in the true largest sense possible, the Open Question", the Great Mystery. It is there that we see that everything is a theological question, including all our sciences.

Find me some substantial evidence and I can change my mind Until then the god concept is with the Bigfoot, Yeti, and fairies.

With the concept of God you have here, I'd have to be convinced before you! And good luck with that. I think the question of God is much, much larger than the image of God as magical sky deity. That is the child's eye view, but that too is how we learn and grow. We stop "thinking as a child". Gradually, our questions about evidences, become more about understanding meaning.