Atheists questioning their Atheism?

[Pegg]

It's rather despicable to pull out Antony Flew as an example of an atheist who turned to theism.

First of all, he rejected Christianity his entire life, including the period when he supposedly "converted". Apparently, he moved from atheism to deism (saying that he could accept "an inoffensive, inactive God"), but all the while rejecting the idea of an active God.

The claim that Flew "now believes in God" is mainly based on a book where he was listed as the co-author, but it's rather unclear how much of it he actually wrote:


Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And of course, now that Antony Flew is dead (last year - he's hardly a "19th Century atheist"), it's safe for people to say whatever they want about his beliefs without worrying about being challenged by the man himself.

[youtube]SNkxpTIbCIw[/youtube]
let the man speak for himself then

[youtube]X1e4FUhfHiU[/youtube]
dont you love you tube

 

[Magic Man]

I don't understand the concept and I come from a Christian background.

Really? You don't understand the concept of the theistic god?

The Christian god I learned about is only one of many tens or hundreds of thousands of god-concepts I don't happen to believe in. IMO, atheists who think when others use the word "god" they must be talking about the same one we learned of in childhood (or hear most about in our communities) are making a rationally unsupportable assumption. I lack belief in the Protestant god with the same absence of enthusiasm with which I lack belief in Egyptian gods. Why would I lend additional weight to the United Church of Canada god-concept I happen to be personally familiar with? For all I know the person I am speaking to believes in Thor, Guan Yin or the God of the Phelps family.

I don't know many, if any, atheists who think that when someone uses the word "god", they mean the Christian god. But the theistic god, specifically the Abrahamic one, is the only one that really matters for this. Sure, there are many different meanings for the word "god, but many of the ones other than the theistic one are either labels for something else we already have words for, like nature and love, or they're really more about different ways of viewing the world, rather than an actual being that is believed to exist in reality.

As far as the Egyptian gods, Thor, Guan Yin and the god of the Phelps', they are all theistic gods, and are for all intents and purposes the same as the one you learned about as a kid.

 

[Magic Man]

Understanding what God is, isn't understanding what God is to other people.

Actually, that is exactly what understanding what god is is. (What a weird sentence.) The god that atheists don't believe in is an objectively real being. It's not different than understanding what a unicorn is.

Being a theist myself, I would go as far to say that they don't get a complete understanding of theistic belief, simply because my theistic belief is highly conflictive with supernatural perspectives.

Many people in America don't get a complete understanding of all of the different concepts that are attached to the word "god", probably including yours. However, they don't need to to be labelled an atheist.

Let's use unicorns to illustrate the point. Unicorns are horselike creatures with a single long horn on their heads. I don't believe they exist in reality. It's possible for you to think of unicorns as wolves the size of house cats. But that doesn't affect the fact that I don't believe horselike creatures with long horns on their head exist. It doesn't matter whether I realize that some people use "unicorn" to mean "wolf the size of a house cat" because I'm not talking about that use of the word when I say I'm an aunicornist.

No, I have no misconceptions about atheists, as I was once one myself. Not to mention I'm taking the term right out of the dictionary, unless you disagree with the dictionary of course.

A God doesn't have to be intelligent, he doesn't have to have any control.

For all you know, God could of created us ignorantly and has no control.

The definition of "atheist" at its most basic level is someone who lacks a belief in God. To make that accurate, you have to qualify that it's a theistic god. When you actually talk to atheists, you realize that is the only god-concept they all necessarily agree doesn't exist. There are many others like nature and love and various other things, but they're not really important, just like your (hypothetical) idea that "unicorn" actually means "house-cat-sized wolf" is irrelevant to my labelling myself an aunicornist because I don't believe in the main and most popular definition of "unicorn".

And no, God couldn't have created us ignorantly. You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there are other possibilities for the word "God".

Of course, but the misconception is that you think that all atheists and scientists think that.

Yes, it is a misconception of yours that I think that. It's a misconception that a more careful reading of my comment would alleviate, since I specifically said "many", not "all".

The reason why I have such a problem with the label atheist, is because that they seem to appear just as dogmatic as the supernatural worshipping fools they Oppose (no offense to anyone).

I'm sure they do to you. That's probably because you're basing your view of all (or at least the vast majority of) atheists on what you've seen from a few of them. Some atheists are annoying, in-your-face and dogmatic. I'd say they're the minority, though. You just happen to notice them more because of those qualities. Just like you notice Glenn Beck more than most other conservatives because of his negative qualities, but he certainly doesn't represent all, or even most, conservatives.

And why would you think anyone would take offense to you calling one group of people dogmatic and another "fools"?

Ignorance is universal, there is no escape.

Not to mention fact can be distorted to best flavor one's taste.

Facts, knowledge, conceptions. They are all human fabricated intuitions, desires, and arrogance.

So you would agree that the justice system is just, that what you know is irrelevant, that it's what you can prove?

Please, if everyone observed based off of conspicuous facts then no one would care to challenge narrowminded and bias observations.

The truth is that there is none, and the best way to see the whole picture is to enlighten both sides.

You do no good with just a hammer and no nail, though of course you could hit someone over the head with it and cause them to act regressively instead of conducively.

But it's all how you view it, man speaks in riddles, the sooner you learn that, the sooner you will know the meaning of nothing

Thank you for the deepity of the day. Now, if you want to respond to my comment with something relevant and actually meaningful, we can move on.

 

[Magic Man]

[youtube]SNkxpTIbCIw[/youtube]
let the man speak for himself then

[youtube]X1e4FUhfHiU[/youtube]
dont you love you tube

It always boggles my mind when I hear something like this. How did an intelligent philosopher who wrote many books over the course of 50 years and advocated atheism suddenly get duped by such a ridiculous argument? It's just sad.

And by the way, he didn't convert to theism, but more of a deism. He still didn't believe in an afterlife, and he didn't believe God was involved with the world at this point.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[youtube]SNkxpTIbCIw[/youtube]
let the man speak for himself then

[youtube]X1e4FUhfHiU[/youtube]
dont you love you tube

This is some bull Pegg. Biologist don't argue over whether something is complex or not (per se). They come to agreement all the time over "complexity". What they don't do is arrive at that which is complex but then infer an intelligent agent(s).

Some creationist proponents as well as ID proponents state that because it is complex to them then it must be designed. They use certain phrases such as ("It appears to have been designed"). They even go as far as stating certain things are "Irreducibly Complex". Your videos hint to this.

Michael Behe (Biologist) and proponent of "Intelligent Design"
"A single system composed of several well- matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Darwin's Black Box: A Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.)

In response to that Dr. Ken Miller (Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) refuted this claim.

[youtube]K_HVrjKcvrU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

Here's another way to look at it. Water, to those unfamiliar with it, can seem to be complex. In truth it's so basic that it's a key element NASA looks for when trying to determine life on other planets. It's probably the single most important element on this planet. Yet three things are needed in order to make it water and viable but at the same time each part is important as well.

H2O. Two Hydrogen and one Oxygen atom.

H2O = Water
OH = Hydroxide
HH = Hydrogen
O = Combined with another O = Oxygen or (O2)

In our environment all, either together or broken down respectfully, are equally important. With something as simple, because I understand it, as H2O I have refuted the definition Behe gives for "irreducible complexity"............I've broken it down, not just simply removing "1" but two of the components and it still serves its purpose.

 

[Orias]

Actually, that is exactly what understanding what god is is. (What a weird sentence.) The god that atheists don't believe in is an objectively real being. It's not different than understanding what a unicorn is.

It is if you consider that man has an autotheistic sense about him, then I would agree.

So are you saying that atheists believe in a God then?

Many people in America don't get a complete understanding of all of the different concepts that are attached to the word "god", probably including yours. However, they don't need to to be labelled an atheist.

I am in agreeance with you.

If implicit and explicit atheism exists then so does implicit and explicit Satanism and Pantheism.

Let's use unicorns to illustrate the point. Unicorns are horselike creatures with a single long horn on their heads. I don't believe they exist in reality. It's possible for you to think of unicorns as wolves the size of house cats. But that doesn't affect the fact that I don't believe horselike creatures with long horns on their head exist. It doesn't matter whether I realize that some people use "unicorn" to mean "wolf the size of a house cat" because I'm not talking about that use of the word when I say I'm an aunicornist.

Of course, a semantic dissonance.

That should be clarified then, instead of arguing misunderstood points.

The definition of "atheist" at its most basic level is someone who lacks a belief in God. To make that accurate, you have to qualify that it's a theistic god. When you actually talk to atheists, you realize that is the only god-concept they all necessarily agree doesn't exist. There are many others like nature and love and various other things, but they're not really important, just like your (hypothetical) idea that "unicorn" actually means "house-cat-sized wolf" is irrelevant to my labelling myself an aunicornist because I don't believe in the main and most popular definition of "unicorn".

Atheism can be defined by some as lack of belief, disbelief, or predenial.

I literally use the definiton of atheists against them, but they turn it into their own flavor and try and make it as consistent as possible.

So, what I'm getting from this paragraph is, atheists won't agree with me, because they don't agree with what atheism actually is?

And no, God couldn't have created us ignorantly. You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there are other possibilities for the word "God".

How do you know God couldn't of created us ignorantly?

I must be missing the point that evidence is subjected to one as they see it.

Yes, it is a misconception of yours that I think that. It's a misconception that a more careful reading of my comment would alleviate, since I specifically said "many", not "all".

My comment still applies.

I'm sure they do to you. That's probably because you're basing your view of all (or at least the vast majority of) atheists on what you've seen from a few of them. Some atheists are annoying, in-your-face and dogmatic. I'd say they're the minority, though. You just happen to notice them more because of those qualities. Just like you notice Glenn Beck more than most other conservatives because of his negative qualities, but he certainly doesn't represent all, or even most, conservatives.

Maybe your right

And why would you think anyone would take offense to you calling one group of people dogmatic and another "fools"?

Because they don't realize that everyone fits in those catagories

Thank you for the deepity of the day. Now, if you want to respond to my comment with something relevant and actually meaningful, we can move on.

It's all relevant, and all on this side of the tabel it seems

First it seems we need to speak each others language.

 

[Orias]

This statement pretty much sums up the reason for your inaccurate posts.

You claim to have no misconceptions about atheists (which is quite contrary to many of your posts in this thread), because you were one once? So because you were an atheist once, you don't have any misconceptions about other atheists? Really? And you looked in the dictionary for the word?

There's a ton of atheists here telling you about their atheism, but you're ignoring them and working with your own thoughts regarding what an atheist is, does, or thinks. Rather silly, no?

Actually, I made a simple statement that exploded into a bunch of nonesense and contradicting points.

Their atheism tells me that it's not an ontological stance, that their self criticism has no bias tongue, and clearly that is untrue.

And yes I looked in the dictionary for the word, that's what the dictionary is there for, no?

If atheists are going to argue that the dictionary is wrong then they should change it to best fit their needs.

I realize that most of my arguments may not apply to you as well as other atheists.

Atheists are more diverse than you allow in that statement. Let's say that some are just as dogmatic.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

If atheists are going to argue that the dictionary is wrong then they should change it to best fit their needs.

Hmm, this sounds like something religion has been doing for centuries with the bible.



A cheap shot perhaps, but I couldnt resist.

 

[Magic Man]

It is if you consider that man has an autotheistic sense about him, then I would agree.

It depends on what you mean. If you mean that humans are predisposed to theism, then I'd say you're wrong.

So are you saying that atheists believe in a God then?

In a manner of speaking, yes. I believe in nature and love, and those are some people's definitions of "God", so by their standards I believe in God. What atheists don't believe in is a theistic god, which is why they call themselves atheists.

Atheism can be defined by some as lack of belief, disbelief, or predenial.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God or the rejection/denial of God's existence. You only need to meet one of those requirements to be accurately considered an atheist. Predenial is part of your definition of it, but it's an inaccurate definition. That's not what atheism is. I'm sure there are atheists who reject god-concepts they don't understand, as in a predenial, but that doesn't make it part of the definition of atheism.

I literally use the definiton of atheists against them, but they turn it into their own flavor and try and make it as consistent as possible.

How do you "use the definition of atheists against them"?

So, what I'm getting from this paragraph is, atheists won't agree with me, because they don't agree with what atheism actually is?

I'm not surprised that's what you're getting from the paragraph, but it's not what's being expressed in the paragraph. What's being expressed in the paragraph is that you don't seem to understand what atheism actually is. I'm explaining it to you, though. What I'm saying is that atheism refers to the lack of belief in a theistic god. An atheist is an atheist because he or she doesn't believe that a theistic god exists.

How do you know God couldn't of created us ignorantly?

Because of the way you word it. When you say "God created us ignorantly", it implies that God knowingly created us. The word "create" implies a creator, which implies an intelligent being.

I must be missing the point that evidence is subjected to one as they see it.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

My comment still applies.

Yes, it does. You still have the misconception that I said "all" when I said "many".

Because they don't realize that everyone fits in those catagories

Actually, that would be a reason for them not to get offended. And if you think everyone fits into those categories, then why use those names? Why specify fools, if you think everyone is a fool?

It's all relevant, and all on this side of the tabel it seems

First it seems we need to speak each others language.

None of that was relevant to my comment, and I'd be happy if you just started speaking regular English that was meaningful, rather than these things you've heard that falsely sound profound, and are completely irrelevant to our discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And yes I looked in the dictionary for the word, that's what the dictionary is there for, no?

If atheists are going to argue that the dictionary is wrong then they should change it to best fit their needs.

What dictionary, exactly? A simple lack of belief in gods fits this dictionary definition of atheism just fine:

atheism
noun
[mass noun]

• disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

definition of atheism from Oxford Dictionaries Online

So what does "disbelief" mean? The dictionary gives that as well:

disbelief
noun
[mass noun]

• inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:Laura shook her head in disbelief
• lack of faith:I'll burn in hell for disbelief

definition of disbelief from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Note the second definition.

So... is someone who simply lacks faith in god(s) an atheist?

- atheism means "disbelief in God or gods".
- the definition of disbelief includes lack of faith.
- therefore, the definition of atheism includes lack of faith in God or gods.
- therefore, all that is necessary for atheism is a lack of faith in God or gods.

See how it works?

 

[Orias]

Hmm, this sounds like something religion has been doing for centuries with the bible.



A cheap shot perhaps, but I couldnt resist.

Well, religion is a science after all.

It depends on what you mean. If you mean that humans are predisposed to theism, then I'd say you're wrong.

No, I mean man is predisposed to worship himself, autotheism. Not in a literal sense, of course, though some may take it to that extreme.

In a manner of speaking, yes. I believe in nature and love, and those are some people's definitions of "God", so by their standards I believe in God. What atheists don't believe in is a theistic god, which is why they call themselves atheists.

I see, so what exactly makes one a theist in your eyes?

Atheism is a lack of belief in God or the rejection/denial of God's existence. You only need to meet one of those requirements to be accurately considered an atheist. Predenial is part of your definition of it, but it's an inaccurate definition. That's not what atheism is. I'm sure there are atheists who reject god-concepts they don't understand, as in a predenial, but that doesn't make it part of the definition of atheism.

Ok, so because I don't belief in the Christian God or any supernatural God for that matter, does that make me an atheist?

How do you "use the definition of atheists against them"?

I simply stated that atheism was a belief, an ontological stance.

In a way, you belief that a God does not exist, therefore being a belief.

I'm not surprised that's what you're getting from the paragraph, but it's not what's being expressed in the paragraph. What's being expressed in the paragraph is that you don't seem to understand what atheism actually is. I'm explaining it to you, though. What I'm saying is that atheism refers to the lack of belief in a theistic god. An atheist is an atheist because he or she doesn't believe that a theistic god exists.

It seems what atheism actually is, is rejected by most atheists.

I understand completely, believe me, you a long with about 12 others have said almost the same exact thing to me.

It seems that all of the people that I am having this conversation with are arguing points against me that I never made.

Because of the way you word it. When you say "God created us ignorantly", it implies that God knowingly created us. The word "create" implies a creator, which implies an intelligent being.

No, a person does may not know that he is creating a path by speaking his mind.

Creating isn't something that is evident to one until he realizes what he has done.

So, for all we know, we could be a by product of something that "God" created knowingly.

Creating requires no intelligence, just mere existence.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Alright, one will not believe in God, because he or she does not want to, even if evidence has been provided.

Don't get me wrong, people change theistic beliefs all the time, but the point being that evidence is evidence to one who see's it as evidence.

Kind of like, one man's garbage is another man's treasure.

Yes, it does. You still have the misconception that I said "all" when I said "many".

I know you said many. But my comment still applies.

So do you have a point to bring up behind this.

Actually, that would be a reason for them not to get offended. And if you think everyone fits into those categories, then why use those names? Why specify fools, if you think everyone is a fool?

Ha, because not everyone thinks that

None of that was relevant to my comment, and I'd be happy if you just started speaking regular English that was meaningful, rather than these things you've heard that falsely sound profound, and are completely irrelevant to our discussion.

Things I've heard?

Let's just call it empirical evidence.

Your right, it's all irrelevant, spending my time defending myself against arguments that are directed towards arguments that I never made.

What dictionary, exactly? A simple lack of belief in gods fits this dictionary definition of atheism just fine:
definition of atheism from Oxford Dictionaries Online

atheism - definition of atheism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So what does "disbelief" mean? The dictionary gives that as well:

Refusal or reluctance to belief.

definition of disbelief from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Note the second definition.

So... is someone who simply lacks faith in god(s) an atheist?

- atheism means "disbelief in God or gods".
- the definition of disbelief includes lack of faith.
- therefore, the definition of atheism includes lack of faith in God or gods.
- therefore, all that is necessary for atheism is a lack of faith in God or gods.

See how it works?

be·lief (b

-l

f

)
n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

See how that works?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, religion is a science after all.

No, it is not. There are religions who would like to claim otherwise, but sciences are supposed to follow the scientific method. Even the best religions are very much incompatible with it.

Not that they would necessarily be better of by attempting to be compatible, mind you. IMO they shouldn't even try.

(...)
Ok, so because I don't belief in the Christian God or any supernatural God for that matter, does that make me an atheist?

Yes, that would be true. It won't necessarily be something you are aware of, much less something that you value, but it will be true.

I simply stated that atheism was a belief, an ontological stance.

Strong Atheism is. Weak Atheism isn't.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Well, religion is a science after all.

If religion is science, then it's very bad science

 

[Pegg]

It always boggles my mind when I hear something like this. How did an intelligent philosopher who wrote many books over the course of 50 years and advocated atheism suddenly get duped by such a ridiculous argument? It's just sad.

And by the way, he didn't convert to theism, but more of a deism. He still didn't believe in an afterlife, and he didn't believe God was involved with the world at this point.

i've read the book 'There is a God' in which he stresses the fact that life could not have originated by a chance combination of chemicals. He agrees with Einstein's belief that there must be an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe and life. So he came to believe that life was created by a 'creator'...for some of us that means 'God' for others it means something else but the point is that he no longer believed we were alone in the universe....something or someone became real to him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Refusal or reluctance to belief.

And your dictionary is the only one that counts, hmm?

be·lief (b

-l

f

)
n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

See how that works?

The definition of "belief" is kinda irrelevant to what we're talking about, so no, I don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

i've read the book 'There is a God' in which he stresses the fact that life could not have originated by a chance combination of chemicals. He agrees with Einstein's belief that there must be an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe and life.

Far as I know, Einstein didn't have such a belief. He is often misquoted, however.

So he came to believe that life was created by a 'creator'...for some of us that means 'God' for others it means something else but the point is that he no longer believed we were alone in the universe....something or someone became real to him.

What could such a creator be if not some kind of God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[youtube]SNkxpTIbCIw[/youtube]
let the man speak for himself then

Not sure what your point there was. He said he believed in "an intelligence". I just said in my last post that he converted to deism near the end of his life.

But even in his deism, he ardently rejected Christianity, the idea of an active, miracle-wielding God, and the existence of an afterlife.

[youtube]X1e4FUhfHiU[/youtube]
dont you love you tube

I find it funny that Antony Flew only became "the world's foremost atheist" when he became something that theists could wave around as a "point" for their side.

I also find it funny how whoever produced that video tried to twist Flew's statement about how he believed that the ultimate cause of the universe has intelligence into some sort of statement against evolution. That's exactly the sort of crap I was talking about in my last post: now that Flew is dead, people can take his belief in a hands-off, deistic "intelligence", ignore his ardent rejection of pretty much all of the major tenets of theistic religion in general and Christianity in particular, and spin it into some sort of support for their religion. I think it's shameful and ghoulish.

The so-called Christians who like to lie about Antony Flew should pay more attention to their Ninth Commandment.

 

[Pegg]

Far as I know, Einstein didn't have such a belief. He is often misquoted, however.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God."

— Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955​

And while its true he didnt believe in a personal God or the authority of priests, but he certainly did believe in a universal one:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.​

What could such a creator be if not some kind of God?

well 'God' is simply a title for a superior being. A universal consciousness with personality and unlimited power is what I think of when i hear the word 'God'

To me, Jehovah is that being... to someone else he may be some other explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i've read the book 'There is a God' in which he stresses the fact that life could not have originated by a chance combination of chemicals.

You mean the book 'There is a God' in which Roy Varghese stresses that fact, don't you?

 

[BeeBooga]

I question my choice in Atheism sometimes, even though I'm certain I'm right.

Why? Because of the fears that were taught to me at a very young age, and I still fear them sometimes, but when I get control of myself I know I'm silly. Being in an intense religion, with a strict religion-based family, it's hard to just drop that, especially if you have fears of death, because afterlife is a gleaming hope that maybe you can make up for the things you've done wrong, etc.

Like I said, I know in the end Atheism is right, and I push these fears aside, how ever hard that might be.