Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[GoodAttention]

No. I guess this is a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm an atheist myself.

My whole point in this discussion is that an incomprehensible god simply does not matter.

So I might just as well have answered "yes" to your question.

An incomprehensible god might exist and not exist at the same time. It might be good and evil all at once. It might be "the All", "the Nothing", "beyond duality"....

All of this is fair and fun and beautiful, and I love to revel in such poetry. It's a nice feeling. But it has no consequences in real life.

Do you believe reality is necessary?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A comprehension of God that can be held without question

Thank you for your answer.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok! Now the next question is, do you believe we will find an answer based in science for what makes reality necessary?

Why do you keep saying it's necessary? As for science finding an answer, well, it's difficult to imagine how, but who knows?

I agree when the question is what makes reality necessary.

Again: why do you think it is necessary? I don't know if it is or not.

Why do people think that we need to have answers to all this?

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."​

-- Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1999)​

 

[ChristineM]

However, if reality is not necessary, then this should be the core of what an atheist believes

Nonsense. What makes an atheist is nothing more than disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you add to that is your misunderstanding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nonsense. What makes an atheist is nothing more than disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you add to that is your misunderstanding.

Well at least one atheist disagrees with you:

Quote from the site of American Atheists:
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
..."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

What an atheist thinks atheist means, is decided by that atheist.

 

[GoodAttention]

Why do you keep saying it's necessary? As for science finding an answer, well, it's difficult to imagine how, but who knows?


Again: why do you think it is necessary? I don't know if it is or not.

Why do people think that we need to have answers to all this?

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."​

-- Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1999)​

As I've said before, I am attempting to find what is really meant by atheists and whether the definition is accurate.

I choose reality because this is where proof is born from, and I add necessity to question the "reality of reality" so to speak. I believe science could have an answer the question what makes reality necessary.

At this point, the difference between an athiest and a theist, in my opinion, isn't the question of God, it is the question of the necessity of reality.
If most atheists are uncertain if reality is necessary, then they could say (correct me if I'm wrong), IF reality is necessary, then the answer will be found through science, OR, will never be realized or known.

To me, an atheist would say, IF reality is necessary, then the answer could be God, however this would be an unknowable and unrealizable God.

 

[vijeno]

Do you believe reality is necessary?

I don't know.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well at least one atheist disagrees with you:

Quote from the site of American Atheists:
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
..."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

What an atheist thinks atheist means, is decided by that atheist.

I think the correct term should be antitheist and not atheist, but I understand the ramifications of using such a label.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I've said before, I am attempting to find what is really meant by atheists and whether the definition is accurate.

I choose reality because this is where proof is born from, and I add necessity to question the "reality of reality" so to speak. I believe science could have an answer the question what makes reality necessary.

...

To me, I understand that differently. To me the idea of proof could also be subjective and a want for certainty.

 

[GoodAttention]

Nonsense. What makes an atheist is nothing more than disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you add to that is your misunderstanding.

Thanks for your input.

 

[PureX]

I think the correct term should be antitheist and not atheist, but I understand the ramifications of using such a label.

Many seem to be both atheist and anti-theist. Yet many of those deny their atheism when pressed, so they won't be called on to defend it as they demand theists must do.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I've said before, I am attempting to find what is really meant by atheists and whether the definition is accurate.

I choose reality because this is where proof is born from, and I add necessity to question the "reality of reality" so to speak. I believe science could have an answer the question what makes reality necessary.

At this point, the difference between an athiest and a theist, in my opinion, isn't the question of God, it is the question of the necessity of reality.
If most atheists are uncertain if reality is necessary, then they could say (correct me if I'm wrong), IF reality is necessary, then the answer will be found through science, OR, will never be realized or known.

To me, an atheist would say, IF reality is necessary, then the answer could be God, however this would be an unknowable and unrealizable God.

A frankly don't see a connection at all. The argument from contingency is as much garbage as all the other supposed arguments for God.

Even if reality is necessary, I see no more reason to accept a God as likely, than if it isn't.

 

[GoodAttention]

To me, I understand that differently. To me the idea of proof could also be subjective and a want for certainty.

Yes, I think my questions boil down to what makes proof necessary, and can I believe in an unknowable entity with certainty.

 

[PureX]

Nonsense. What makes an atheist is nothing more than disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you add to that is your misunderstanding.

@GoodAttention ... A case in point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I think my questions boil down to what makes proof necessary, and can I believe in an unknowable entity with certainty.

I think necessary has to meaings, one philosophical and another psychological. Which one are you talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the correct term should be antitheist and not atheist, but I understand the ramifications of using such a label.

Antitheist implies that people are against theists. And that is not the case. Atheist is perfectly fine. It does not make a claim that anyone is against anything. Only that they lack a belief. It is a big tent. There will be antitheists that are atheists, but to claim that atheists are all antitheists is as big of an error as to claim that all theists are Christian.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I think my questions boil down to what makes proof necessary,

Egotism, mostly. We think we're supposed to know everything for certain, and we clearly don't. So we are constantly demanding proof even when we clearly cannot have it, or even recognize it if we did.

... and can I believe in an unknowable entity with certainty.

Again, why the insistence on certainty?

I think it's just fear of being wrong ... i.e., ego.

 

[blü 2]

I would argue that the question of God isn't reached if you don't believe reality is necessary.

Objective reality is the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses. So unbelief in reality would seem a rather unexamined view if held by anyone who needed air, water, food &c. Such believers couldn't account for how they happen to have parents, either ─ all the problems of solipsism thrown in, no?

 

[GoodAttention]

A frankly don't see a connection at all. The argument from contingency is as much garbage as all the other supposed arguments for God.

Even if reality is necessary, I see no more reason to accept a God as likely, than if it isn't.

I haven't made any argument, as I said I am only defining and exploring relatability without personal bias.

 

[vijeno]

Antitheist implies that people are against theists.

The only way I ever heard anyone use the word "antitheist" was to describe someone who is opposed to god (well, opposed to a hypothetical (in most cases, the biblical) god, if he existed). Not theists.