Can an atheist believe in God?

[PureX]

Well, sure. Generally, there are few who can grasp nonsensical ramblings. "God as a mystery" is meaningless. "God as invention" is too vague to be helpful. Theism is one thing. Atheism is the opposite.

There are a great many things that are a mystery to us. That doesn't make them nonsensical or meaningless. The source and purpose of existence being a very big one. Yet observation and reason dictate that there must be some origin and purpose, and that whatever it is, it transcends the realm of our cognitive comprehension.

 

[Magic Man]

There are a great many things that are a mystery to us. That doesn't make them nonsensical or meaningless.

No, but calling God a mystery isn't and then saying that's one side of a coin with "God is an invention" as the other side makes it meaningless.

The source and purpose of existence being a very big one. Yet observation and reason dictate that there must be some origin and purpose, and that whatever it is, it transcends the realm of our cognitive comprehension.

Observation and reason do not dictate there must be an origin or purpose. "Purpose" is a loaded word that implies an intelligent being as creator. Reason definitely does not dictate that such a thing must exist. Going back to your original comment:

There is God the imaginary deity that humans create for themselves in their minds. And there is God the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. If you understand this, and how these different ideations interact, you can b3 both theist and atheist simultaneously.

Not many people are able to do this, however.

All you're doing there is saying that the typical theistic god-concept is imaginary, created by humans in their minds. But your god-concept is still an intelligent being like theirs' you just wrap it in some cool-sounding words like "mystery source, sustenance and purpose". Which means your point about being an atheist and theist simultaneously fails, since you're just substituting your own theistic god for theirs.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Most people I've discussed God with, especially Christians in online forums, assume that I'm an atheist even though I no longer label myself that way. I ask a lot of questions about theism and religion and expect honest, sensible answers, but I don't tell them I'm an atheist.

You expect honest, sensible answers about theism but you withhold that you are an atheist? Theism is with gods, atheism is without gods. You can believe in gods while being without them. I'm apolitical. Without politics. I believe in the existence of politics. The demons don't believe in God they know God, and yet shudder.

I also have what I think are convincing arguments that Gods are human creations and that miracles don't happen.

Nobody cares. It's ideology, again, comparable to politics. A person of a certain political affiliation will believe if their brand appears to be in charge, everything is good, except for that the other brand is a threat. Logic, facts, reason, truth, data all become useless. Only used as talking points. A god is anything or anyone venerated. Of course, gods are human creations. So is money. The point is moot, except for ideology. Waste of time. Like WWF wrestling. A divide and conquer, bread and circus performance of ideology.

So what's going on with me?

Nothing, really. Maybe ideology? I can't really say for sure since I don't know you except from this post.

As odd as it might sound, in a way it seems that yes, I do believe in God. I was a Christian into my early twenties having been Roman Catholic and then evangelical. I don't think I ever completely shook all that indoctrination. Although belief in AZ

So, in essence, you believe in specific religious ideologies, not God?

So yes, I think an atheist can believe in God. To smooth over that paradox, let's say that an atheist reasons that no Gods exist, but belief is another matter.

Belief doesn't matter. Existence isn't dependent upon it. Gods without question exist. What you seem to be doing is assuming (probably an occidental) variation of God, from the Bible, who is named Jehovah, means God. Jehovah was a god of many gods. The Bible calls Moses God, the judges, angels, idols, "worthless" gods, etc. The Bible says Satan is the God of this world. Before Jehovah created anything, he wasn't a God. Only becoming a god when people venerated him. He said he would become a God to Israel. If no one any longer worshipped (venerated) Jehovah he wouldn't be God anymore. You see? He would still exist, but just no longer be a god, or God. So, outside of that Abrahamic paradigm and even within it there are many gods. A god doesn't have to exist to be a god, anyway. The question of existence, if not specific, is pointless.

So let me say that I'm a "rational atheist" in that I doubt God based on reason rather than lack of belief.

I seriously doubt that. If it were true, you would be the first such case that I would have encountered and I've talked to thousands of them. I was one myself and I certainly didn't fall under that "reasonable" category. Your post doesn't indicate that being the case. Your religion has only shifted slightly from when you were "Christian." It's just another side of the coin of ideology. Nothing to do with reason. There are no rational atheists and very few rational theists.

Or to dispense with theistic labels completely, let's say I'm a "truth seeker" who has found that belief in God is to believe a lie.

Nonsense. What difference would it make if it were a lie? Or "truth?" You aren't really seeking anything except for possible confirmation bias. If you sincerely believed "God" to be a lie you wouldn't be seeking God, would you?

ETA: I was speaking ideologically regarding the existence of "rational atheists." I think atheism is rational, but fundamental militant atheism isn't rational in my experience, both personal experience and observational.

 

[Jagella]

You're either a theist or an atheist. You either have the belief in a theistic god, or you don't.

We'll just need to disagree on that issue. It seems to me that human cognition and belief just doesn't fit into such neat categories.

It does, but it goes along with lacking belief.

I'm not so sure. Believing there is no A isn't quite the same as having no belief in A. For one thing, to believe there is no A requires knowledge about A while having no belief in A does not require knowing anything about A.

The lack of belief is the main thing. If you also have the positive belief that God doesn't exist, then that's fine too.

How can you know if belief is absent? I think belief can be subtle and may only come to the surface under some circumstances. That's where the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes" comes from. Generally, many people under normal circumstances can disregard belief in God, but under dire circumstances their supposedly absent theism may come to the surface. I've had such experiences.

If you believe in God, you're not an atheist.

You keep asserting that. All I need to do is assert the opposite.

You said you determined that there is no God. That means you're an atheist.

I agree that reasoning that no God exists is a kind of atheism that I call "rational atheism." Rational atheism is based on logic rather than belief.

If you still believe God exists, then you're a theist, and you haven't determined that there is no God.

Again, I think that's too simplistic and doesn't take into consideration the ability of the human mind to harbor conflicting thoughts. Did you ever hear of cognitive dissonance?

Atheism is based on lack of belief. Sometimes the lack of belief is based on reason.

Again, that's an assertion I don't agree with. Atheism can be based on logic which differs from a basis in belief.

 

[PureX]

No, but calling God a mystery isn't and then saying that's one side of a coin with "God is an invention" as the other side makes it meaningless.

Observation and reason do not dictate there must be an origin or purpose. "Purpose" is a loaded word that implies an intelligent being as creator. Reason definitely does not dictate that such a thing must exist. Going back to your original comment:

All you're doing there is saying that the typical theistic god-concept is imaginary, created by humans in their minds. But your god-concept is still an intelligent being like theirs' you just wrap it in some cool-sounding words like "mystery source, sustenance and purpose". Which means your point about being an atheist and theist simultaneously fails, since you're just substituting your own theistic god for theirs.

You aren't mentally mature enough to gain anything from our havng this conversation. You just want to fight and dismiss an unfamiliar perspective. But you can't learn anything new that way. You can only wallow in your own imagined righteousness. Is that really what you're about?

 

[Magic Man]

We'll just need to disagree on that issue. It seems to me that human cognition and belief just doesn't fit into such neat categories.

The categories we're talking about are:

With belief in God.
Without belief in God.

Everyone fits into one of those.

I'm not so sure. Believing there is no A isn't quite the same as having no belief in A. For one thing, to believe there is no A requires knowledge about A while having no belief in A does not require knowing anything about A.

That's what I'm saying. Lacking belief is different from believing the negative, but the lack of belief is all that's necessary to be an atheist. Some atheists go further by also having the active belief that God doesn't exist.

How can you know if belief is absent? I think belief can be subtle and may only come to the surface under some circumstances. That's where the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes" comes from. Generally, many people under normal circumstances can disregard belief in God, but under dire circumstances their supposedly absent theism may come to the surface. I've had such experiences.

That expression is more meant as "when the crap hits the fan, you're going to pray to God". It's not so much about "absent belief", but coming crawling to God, when you need him.

You keep asserting that. All I need to do is assert the opposite.

Sure, you can assert the opposite, but you're wrong. It's the very definition of the word.

I agree that reasoning that no God exists is a kind of atheism that I call "rational atheism." Rational atheism is based on logic rather than belief.

That's a meaningless distinction. Atheism is lack of belief in God. Whether you come to atheist through reasoning or just through ignorance of the concept of God, it's all atheism. Coming to it through rational consideration of the topic is just coming to the same place as any other atheist.

Again, I think that's too simplistic and doesn't take into consideration the ability of the human mind to harbor conflicting thoughts. Did you ever hear of cognitive dissonance?

Again, that's an assertion I don't agree with. Atheism can be based on logic which differs from a basis in belief.

Atheism "based on logic" is not different from atheism "based on belief". It's all the same, just different avenues to the same thing.

 

[Magic Man]

You aren't mentally mature enough to gain anything from our havng this conversation.

Haha, yeah, that's it. Tell yourself whatever you need to to make yourself feel superior. I'm sorry I pointed out the lack of sense of your comments.

You just want to fight and dismiss an unfamiliar perspective. But you can't learn anything new that way. You can only wallow in your own imagined righteousness. Is that really what you're about?

Phew, that sure was some silly use or words meant to make you sound better.

Look, you're asserting deepities. "God is a mystery", "God is a mystery source and sustenance". It sounds profound, but it's really just nonsense. That's really your whole thing here. "Few people can do what I do." No, I can also create deepities so I sound deeper than I actually am.

You can't be a theist and an atheist. The "God" you're talking about is an invention just like the one you call imaginary in people's minds.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion is the reason people believe in God. Looking at things without that religious bias makes one aware that "existence" is not evidence of God.

I am not certain of that. The attempt of rationality and idealism in philosophy can lead to the idea of God without being theism in religious tradition as such.

 

[McBell]

You aren't mentally mature enough to gain anything from our havng this conversation. You just want to fight and dismiss an unfamiliar perspective. But you can't learn anything new that way. You can only wallow in your own imagined righteousness. Is that really what you're about?

"It can not possibly be because I am wrong.
It HAS to be because everyone else is wrong"​

 

[I Am Hugh]

Religion is the reason people believe in God.

Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, Scientology, arguably, Hinduism. Let's just leave that aside for the purpose of this discussion, since it is very complicated.

Looking at things without that religious bias makes one aware that "existence" is not evidence of God.

Evidence of God? Which God? I first contemplated God as an atheist. I've never belonged to any religion. God simply means mighty/venerated, religion simply means supreme importance, repetition. For example, money is his God, he saves it religiously.

 

[Magic Man]

Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, Scientology, arguably, Hinduism. Let's just leave that aside for the purpose of this discussion, since it is very complicated.

I'm not sure why you posted that in response to that comment by me.

Evidence of God? Which God?

It's not evidence of any god.

I first contemplated God as an atheist. I've never belonged to any religion.

OK...?

God simply means mighty/venerated, religion simply means supreme importance, repetition. For example, money is his God, he saves it religiously.

No. God has many different meanings, which is part of the problem with the term now. But in this case we're talking about a theistic god, an intelligent being that created everything with intent. God does not simply mean "mighty/venerated", or else some leaders would be "God". Parents could be considered "God" according to that. Etc.

Religion also has multiple meanings, but the one we're talking about here is:

1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


2a(1)
: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2)
: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

The one you're using is lower on the list than these, and it's a metaphorical use. It's unhelpful to conflate them as if they're the same thing.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I'm not sure why you posted that in response to that comment by me.

You seemed to have equated religion with God, i.e. theism, which doesn't explain about half of them, not to mention probably more than half of the theistic ones being more about community than God, theism.

It's not evidence of any god.

Theistic religions are evidence of gods.

No. God has many different meanings, which is part of the problem with the term now.

No, actually the word god, in any language ever known to man, has only ever meant mighty/venerated. There are many examples of gods. Supernatural, natural, human, non-human, literal, figurative, fictional, non-fictional.

But in this case we're talking about a theistic god,

All gods are theistic.

an intelligent being that created everything with intent. God does not simply mean "mighty/venerated", or else some leaders would be "God". Parents could be considered "God" according to that. Etc.

Religion also has multiple meanings, but the one we're talking about here is:

1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


2a(1)
: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2)
: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

The one you're using is lower on the list than these, and it's a metaphorical use. It's unhelpful to conflate them as if they're the same thing.

Oh. What you are using is ideology. You are ideologically opposed to theism, irreligious, due to sociopolitical frustration in a quasi "theocratic" world, or straight up ideology. You just don't understand what god and religion are. You don't see even the remotest possibility that you have gods and religions. I call that, from the Latin, Imatio Dei, Imitation of God. You don't really object to God, you only imitate God. You don't believe in God you are God.

 

[Jagella]

The categories we're talking about are:

With belief in God.
Without belief in God.

Everyone fits into one of those.

That's what I'm saying. Lacking belief is different from believing the negative, but the lack of belief is all that's necessary to be an atheist. Some atheists go further by also having the active belief that God doesn't exist.

That expression is more meant as "when the crap hits the fan, you're going to pray to God". It's not so much about "absent belief", but coming crawling to God, when you need him.

Sure, you can assert the opposite, but you're wrong. It's the very definition of the word.

That's a meaningless distinction. Atheism is lack of belief in God. Whether you come to atheist through reasoning or just through ignorance of the concept of God, it's all atheism. Coming to it through rational consideration of the topic is just coming to the same place as any other atheist.

Atheism "based on logic" is not different from atheism "based on belief". It's all the same, just different avenues to the same thing.

Again, I simply disagree with your assertions about atheism. I think that atheists can believe in God, and that includes you.

 

[Eddi]

Can an atheist believe in God?​

LOL nope by definition!

 

[Magic Man]

You seemed to have equated religion with God, i.e. theism, which doesn't explain about half of them, not to mention probably more than half of the theistic ones being more about community than God, theism.

No, I said people believe in God because of religion. I didn't say all religions have the same god.

Theistic religions are evidence of gods.

No, they're not. They're evidence of humans' belief in gods.

No, actually the word god, in any language ever known to man, has only ever meant mighty/venerated. There are many examples of gods. Supernatural, natural, human, non-human, literal, figurative, fictional, non-fictional.

Nope. "God" means an intelligent being that created everything. There are other meanings, but that's the most common and popular, and the most useful for this discussion. There is no definition of "mighty/venerated". Again, that would include parents, leaders and many other regular humans.

All gods are theistic.

No, they're not. A deistic god is not. Neither is a pantheistic one.

Oh. What you are using is ideology. You are ideologically opposed to theism, irreligious, due to sociopolitical frustration in a quasi "theocratic" world, or straight up ideology. You just don't understand what god and religion are. You don't see even the remotest possibility that you have gods and religions. I call that, from the Latin, Imatio Dei, Imitation of God. You don't really object to God, you only imitate God. You don't believe in God you are God.

That sure was a lot of words to try to make yourself feel superior, while only really showing that you have nothing of value to add.

I posted the definitions of God. If you want to use a different definition, don't conflate it with the main ones. If you want to pretend you're cool and superior, please just go elsewhere.

 

[Magic Man]

Again, I simply disagree with your assertions about atheism. I think that atheists can believe in God, and that includes you.

Again, you can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. An atheist, by definition cannot believe in God, and that includes you and me. An atheist is one without God.

 

[Jagella]

Can an atheist believe in God?​

LOL nope by definition!

It looks like your God is any definition you choose.

 

[Jagella]

Again, you can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong.

You are wrong.

An atheist, by definition cannot believe in God,

You are wrong.

and that includes you and me.

You are wrong.

An atheist is one without God.

It looks like an atheist can be one without evidence to support claims about atheism.

 

[McBell]

You are wrong.

You are wrong.

You are wrong.

It looks like an atheist can be one without evidence to support claims about atheism.

And you thought the term "bastardization" was to harsh?

Thank you for demonstrating it was a far to polite term to apply.

 

[Magic Man]

You are wrong.

You are wrong.

You are wrong.

It looks like an atheist can be one without evidence to support claims about atheism.

I guess this is the part where you realize you have no actual counterarguments, so you resort to "Nuh uh!". The bottom line is an atheist by definition does not believe in God. If you have something more than "nuh uh!", feel free to reply. Otherwise, maybe don't.