Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[Rabbi Daniel]

Good for you. Why?

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%
whereas, for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100% and that there is no God 0%
BTW a famous atheist say or wrote something like that

 

[Heyo]

I know there is a God.

Nope. You don't. You don't even know what a god is.
You believe there is a god and you can believe 100% there to be a god.
I can believe there to be no god with 100% certainty.
But we both don't know.

How do I know that you don't know?
Knowledge has a definition and properties. Knowledge is transferable. If someone had knowledge about the existence and nature of god and transferred that knowledge, we wouldn't have 10s of 1000s of religions, denominations, sects.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, I made the "ridiculous" statement you refer to because of the things I read and hear.

So it's just your opinion / interpretation of some anecdotes people told you.

I have heard many atheists who are still obsessed with their former faith (or who have become angry for some other reason, though most seem to be 'former members') whose words are aimed, not at believers, but at the object of the belief. Not at the church members, but at the deity they worship.

You know the type..."What sort of god would....(insert perceived horrific act here)" or "A GOOD God would never allow (insert death toll of some natural disaster, or some historical telling of heinous act committed by people who claimed that God told them to do it).

Which would be an argument against the claims of the religion, which would provide basis for nonbelief.

Sounds like you heared what you wanted to hear instead of what was actually said.

Seems to me that someone who was mad at the people would phrase things differently; laying the blame on the people, not the deity they hold responsible.

(shrug)

I don't see what is "mad" or "angry" about noting that a supposed benevolent being wouldn't engage in reprehensible immoral acts.

It's just pointing out an internal contradiction.

 

[HonestJoe]

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%
whereas, for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100% and that there is no God 0%

Why do you keep ignoring all the replies challenging your assertions?

Again, you believe there is a God and you may well be 100% certain in that belief but it is equally possible for someone to believe there are no gods and be 100% certain in their belief. The assertion the individual believes in doesn't make any difference to whether they can believe it 100% or not.

I'd actually doubt anyone can be truly 100% certain of any belief, however much we might like to convince ourselves differently. Maybe part of that might be pushing the idea that anyone who believes differently to us can't possibly be as certain as we are in our belief because what we believe is different and better.

BTW a famous atheist say or wrote something like that

And at some time a famous theist will have said "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" but you're not expected to agree with them. Why should what some other atheist said have anything to do with any of us?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%

This didn't answer my questions.

whereas, for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100% and that there is no God 0%
BTW a famous atheist say or wrote something like that

All knowledge is tentative. If you were more honest with yourself or thought about the issue a bit deeper, maybe you'd recognize this and bring yourself a notch or two back from your 100% certainty.

...But I think it's a bit dishonest to try to spin this as if this atheists have some sort of special uncertainty when it comes to God.

I mean, the same can be said about all sorts of claims that are obviously fabricated; that's the whole point of Russell's Teapot. We can't say for sure that Bertrand Russell's absurd suggestion - that there's a teapot floating space out near Mars - is absolutely false. Same with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster: if we're being honest with ourselves, we can't reject them with 100% certainty either.

So there are questions that are more interesting and relevant to me than "can we be 100% sure that this doesn't exist?" These are questions like:

- do I have more uncertainty about this thing than I do for things that are obviously absurd fabrications?

- is there good reason to believe that this thing is real?

- can I recognize mechanisms that might allow the thing to be real?

- is it more likely that the thing exists or doesn't? Does its existence or non-existence create any logical problems?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%
whereas, for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100% and that there is no God 0%
BTW a famous atheist say or wrote something like that

Yes, yes... you said that already-- the Million $$ question is Why?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Don't worry, atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't worry, atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

You just can't relate to an atheist mindset at all, can you?

I mean, you effectively just told us that not believing in God is so foreign and unimaginable to you that you figure atheists are lying. I think this says more about you than it does about atheists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%
whereas, for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100% and that there is no God 0%
BTW a famous atheist say or wrote something like that

That just means that the atheist position is far more tenable. Given the state of our universe and the state of "us" as humans (with our very imperfect means of perceiving the contents of said universe) - 100% certainty about almost anything is a form of naivete.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

I don't have this. Not in the slightest.

There's an interesting difference between us, eh? I am willing to allow that other people have views on this topic different from my own, and you simply are not. You act as if you know what I think, or how I feel. You would tell me straight to my face that I am lying about my own disposition, which I can certainly know far better than you can by definition.

But you see, I believe you about your disposition. I am quite sure you believe as you say you do. Otherwise, how could I explain your abject levels of disgusting smugness about it all?

 

[HonestJoe]

Don't worry, atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

Who is assaulting him? He came here and basically accused all atheist of lying and most of the responses have just been trying (but failing) to engage him in polite discussion.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

Exactly as much as you have suppressed beliefs/hopes/concepts that Odin is watching over you and on your death, will send the Valkyries to carry you to Valhalla.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've seen this definition before. I would drop the first two words (and change "God" to "a god"), and write, "Atheism : lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."

My reason is that whatever is meant by disbelief is either a synonym of "lack of belief" or going further to claim that the idea is untrue. I use the words unbelief and disbelief as I do the words unproven and disproven, which most people would agree say different things, but others use them as synonyms.

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

Dawkins had an interesting take on this:

Spoiler: digression

Dawkins proposes that religion arose as a result of co-opting the natural tendency of people, especially children, to unquestioningly submit to authority figures, especially fathers and tribal chiefs - a behavior which offers a survival advantage.

Also, add the intuition to impute agency to nature, which we inherited from the beasts. Better to assume that that sound or movement was due to a conscious agent, run, and to have been wrong than the other way around. Thus lightning and thunder became gods warring once linguistic thought and ideas such as that became possible.

Given these proclivities in man, it's nor surprising that gods were invented to explain the wrath of nature, and religions established with priesthoods ostensibly to appease these gods with offerings and obedience. You referred to manipulation above. This is manipulation at the grandest scale, using the literary device of a god for those wishing to exploit others by usurping its alleged authority when speaking as if channeling a divine command

Dawkins offers the example of the moth spiraling into the flame or light bulb as an illustration of this usurpation of an instinct by a modern development. If you ask what survival advantage that behavior provided the moth, the answer is the same as with religious activities : none. Following paths using light sources evolved when the only night lights were celestial bodies, bodies that were so far away that their beams, which the moth uses to navigate, are parallel for practical purposes. It's the radial beams emanating from nearby light sources that confound the moth and condemn it to spiraling into the light.

Dawkins' larger point is that just because a behavior is widespread doesn't mean that it offers a survival advantage. The moth's behavior is clearly destructive. Dawkins argues that man invests so much energy and consumes so many resources on this activity, religion, that like spiraling into a flame, it is actually counterproductive rather than conferring a survival advantage.

It's impossible there being an Atheist unless you believe there is no value to the universe or a person chooses not to value anything.

Why do theists propose such absurdities as that a person who doesn't believe in a god or gods can't possibly find value anywhere. Is this what your religion teaches you? If so, you need better and more reliable information sources.

Atheists are ACreator(s). They are without belief in a Creator to the universe. However, they worship other things they hold dear

I worship nothing, including the things I hold dear. I respect, admire, value, and advocate for much, but worship nothing. I find it undignified.

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.

Can you show me one of these diatribes? I keep hearing about them from theists, but I don't ever see them. What I see are reasoned arguments presented dispassionately that offend theists, and that they perceive as personal attacks, but no actual attacks. Atheists aren't angry at theists unless they try to inject their religion into the law..

We demand nothing from you except evidence before we believe you, and you offer none. I know why what you call evil exists, and there is no evidence that it involves gods.

It wasn't all THAT long ago that it was an 'objective fact' that all disease was caused by ill humours of the body

That was never a fact of any kind - just another bad guess believed by faith. Just like other faith-based ideas like creationism and astrology, it was divorced from evidence, and was predictably sterile for that reason.

Well, here am I - a gnostic atheist. I know that Ahur Mazda / Yahveh / God / Allah are all human imagination.

Yes, Jehovah can be ruled out, but how do you rule out the deist god, for example. You wouldn't expect to find any evidence for it even if it ever existed.I am content holding that position and living as if these gods don't exist as I do regarding vampires and leprechauns. We don't need to rule these things out with certainty to disregard them and live as if they don't exists. For me, it is logically more satisfying to not take that leap of faith from apatheism, or indifference regarding gods, to strong atheism.

Similarly, I am 100% certain that we are a matrix because there is nothing in the universe other than fundamental forces.

You may be 100% certain, but it doesn't make you correct. You call yourself a gnostic atheist, but I don't believe you know what you claim to know because I consider it unknowable however certain you are. For example, how did you rule out the deist god? What test, observation, or algorithm can demonstrate that no gods exist?

I believe that it is wise to hold some philosophical doubt, which is different from psychological doubt, or the feeling of being uncertain. Philosophical doubt is the understanding that you may be wrong despite your certitude. Descartes questioned the existence of external reality, arguing that we would have no means of determining that our conscious experience wasn't all illusion. That argument, which never gave me a feeling of doubt about the exitence of external reality, was compelling, and allowed me to doubt external reality intellectually if not emotionally.

Notice that this understanding doesn't affect how we live life. Even if we knew for a fact that our conscious experience was of nothing external - just an illusion created by a great deceiver - what would you do differently? You're still not going to put what appears to be your hand in what appears to be boiling water, because the consequences will be whatthey always have been - the sensation of pain and appearance of blistering whatever their cause.

anti-theism requires action;

Disagree. It is an opinion that requires no action. Anti-theism is the idea that the religion is a net negative in the world, which would be better without it. Nobody holding that idea need act on it.

But can someone affirm that there is 0% chance that God ( or whatever you want to call) created this world? Not talking about 0.1 or 0.0001. How can one affirm such a thing?

People do affirm that, but I don't believe that they can know that there are no gods.

But you wrote "God," by which I assume that you mean a specific god, the god of the Hebrew scriptures. That god can be ruled out using only reason. It's logically impossible as described. Nothing can in the same sense and at the same time

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%

As I explained to the gentleman above, you can be 100% certain and still be wrong.

no scientist can state without lying that they are not searching for what they say is the Creator of everything

Yeah they can, assuming that you are talking about a sentient creator rather than merely the blind laws of physics. In fact, if that's what they're searching for, they're not doing science. That's what the ID people are doing. Scientists look at nature. They are not looking for gods.

But if they ever find a god in nature, I'm sure they'll let us know.

I do dismiss the notion that atheism isn't about belief in gods.

Atheism is the name for unbelief in gods. If belief and unbelief mean the same to you, then perhaps.

Incidentally, I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods, as in saying that they do or do not exist. I am agnostic have no opinion there, but am an atheist nevertheless.

 

[Heyo]

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

I once lived together with a cat. Cats have been worshiped as gods by the ancient Egyptians. So that cat could have been a goddess. I hoped she'd loved me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, no....but I also do not take steps to get rid of the worship of leprechauns, nor do I write posts and essays...or make websites...talking about how 'no good leprechaun' would hide his gold in a pot under a rainbow, or curse those who might find one. I guess that makes me a 'weak' a-leprechaunist, not a 'strong' a-leprechaunist.

You might take steps to rid the worship of leprechauns if vast swaths of the population were worshiping leprechauns and expecting everyone else to do the same; pushing their leprechaun beliefs onto others in the public square; insisting that if everyone else doesn't worship leprechauns as you do then they will face horrible punishments when they die; inisisting that anyone who doesn't worship leprechauns are immoral leprechaun haters, etc. You know, like a lot of people have done with religion(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't worry, atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

Yes, we are aware that you don't like your assertions to be challenged in debate forums where such things occur, and yet you continue to post in them.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

You challenge us to admit to things we don't believe in? Huh?

 

[dianaiad]

There are rules for quoting. If it's a true quote, I put the author behind the quote or something like "X said" before. If there is no speaker indicated, it is an imaginary dialogue.

Yes, I understand the rules for quotes. It's amazing, however, how many people do not understand the rules for quotes, and expect the reader to attribute imaginary dialog to real people, and vice versa.

Nice to know that you acknowledge that your assumptions about what other people are thinking does come from your own imagination, and not reality.

 

[Rabbi Daniel]

The famous atheist who I mentioned is Richard Dawkins. Now would you say, like what you may have alluded about me, that his approach is dishonest?
Yes, there may be such a thing that a believer knows that God exists, and its 100%, whereas an atheist wouldn't believe that there is no God 100%, knowing that their might be, even a tiny percentage on his belief that God exists

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So...those who really do 'believe that there is no God' are not 'true atheists?"


Is there a list of requirements one must have in order to be 'True atheists?" one of which is that one must ONLY lack a belief in gods, but must not believe that there isn't one? (and yes, there IS a difference!)

What else must be on the list?

In order to be a 'true atheist,' must one be utterly pacifist, perhaps, NOT belong to an atheist society that devotes itself to the eradication of theism (American Atheists) however mild the methods?

What IS on the list?

Those who "do believe that there is no God" are a subset of atheists... but are not representative of all atheists. Anyone who does not have a belief in any God/gods is an atheist.

If I had to guess, you have also been told this many multiple times. Apparently it is just easier not to shatter your glass-house of a worldview, keep you poor opinion of atheists that you seem to think strengthens your position (hahahahaha) and keep trudging out the same CRAP over and over.

 

[dianaiad]

So it's just your opinion / interpretation of some anecdotes people told you.




Which would be an argument against the claims of the religion, which would provide basis for nonbelief.

Sounds like you heared what you wanted to hear instead of what was actually said.



I don't see what is "mad" or "angry" about noting that a supposed benevolent being wouldn't engage in reprehensible immoral acts.

It's just pointing out an internal contradiction.

I am rather careful about the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. I do my best to practice the first.

It seems to me...pardon my assumptions here, but I base them upon the arguments of atheists who DO understand the difference between blaming the deity believed in and blaming the people who believe...that it gets pretty obvious when someone is mad at God rather than at the worshipers.

Far too few of them make the obvious deduction that if no God exists, then the harm is done by PEOPLE believing in that deity, and arranging His/Her/Its commandments to suit them. Criticizing the deity simply takes the responsibility for that harm off the shoulders of the believers/leaders of the belief system.

I have met...and read the words of...atheists who clearly understand the difference.

You talk of 'internal contradictions"...but frankly, all one does when criticizing the deity is excuse the believer; the only possible results are to either get the believers to be more intransigent in their beliefs, or to disillusion them regarding that deity and set them looking for a better one. I don't think that's what anybody wants, is it? (well, I'd prefer 'looking for a better one,' but then I AM a theist)

What you need to do is say...are you SURE that was a deity speaking? Shouldn't you take responsibility for your own actions?

When we do that, we won't be quite so prone to falling for something else....like the horrific anti-theistic proclamations from government leaders that result in the deaths of millions and millions of people.

 

[HonestJoe]

The famous atheist who I mentioned is Richard Dawkins. Now would you say, like what you may have alluded about me, that his approach is dishonest?

It's hard to say since you've not quoted him directly and it isn't actually entirely clear what you're saying or claiming that he is saying. Maybe if you actually engaged in discussion rather than blindly flinging out empty assertions, you might get some more meaningful responses.

I personally can't stand the man and disagree with a lot of what he says about belief and religion. I do hope you're smart enough to realise that atheists aren't required to worship Dawkins and blindly accept everything he says. As it happens, I suspect he'd be on the same page as me on the question of certainty, recognising that nobody can be 100% certain of their beliefs regardless of what they are.