Can An Atheist Believe in God?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What does this mean?

Think I get it.

The person in question (who is currently an atheist) may be capable of coming to a belief in God. However, when he does this, he ceases to be an atheist.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I was thinking more of the hippy new age and occult stuff that was floating around at the time. But I don't know much about Clarence 13X or LaVey or the occult for that matter so I guess I can't comment.

I made a 5 percenter thread in atheist DIR, I'll post more information in it if you would like.

 

[monta]

Well, you'll have to be a little more specific about what it is you mean by a "particular understanding of god," for any meaningful commentary to be made. If you ask a vague, nebulous question, you have to expect various interpretations.

:slap:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't see why not.

Can I have an imaginary friend, believe in his or her existence and yet at the same time know that my friend is imaginary?
Existance is made up of all sorts of apparent contradictions.

No. You either believe your friend is real, or believe he is imaginary. If you know your friend is imaginary, you can believe he exists as an imaginary construct, but you can't believe that he actually exists. Well, I suppose if your schizophrenic you could, but I'm asking about psychologically healthy people.

 

[sandandfoam]

but I'm asking about psychologically healthy people.

Sorry, don't know any.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Edit: Look, I know my responses aren't welcome in your threads, hence I didn't answer your OP, but you could at least allow me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth.

I don't see why you would think this. If your posts weren't welcome, I'd simply ignore them. We've had many back-and-forths. I find your posts interesting, and different than much of the usual hum-drum, but I thought that by this point you'd be aware that I'm always going to challenge you on the clarity of what you're expressing. I assumed if you didn't appreciate the challenge of my responses, as I do yours, then you wouldn't post responses to my posts or threads.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry, don't know any.

That's sad. I understand though - carry on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

:slap:

Oh yeah baby, you know what I like.

 

[ChristineES]

Simple question: Can you believe that god(s) exist and still be an atheist?

If so, please explain your position.

If not, is there any other belief which would also disqualify you as an atheist?

Atheist, by it's very definition, means the rejection of the idea that there is a God, so no.
But what about those who believe in a spiritual life but not in a supreme being? I don't know if they would truly count as an atheist or not.

 

[footprints]

Think I get it.

The person in question (who is currently an atheist) may be capable of coming to a belief in God. However, when he does this, he ceases to be an atheist.

I do not see it like that. Atheism like any other belief pattern comes attached with an element of faith in that belief, to a greater or lesser degree.

A slight change in direction of probability, wouldn't necessarily change the atheist belief pattern and as such the atheist position, it would just make them more reasonable in their position and open to greater discussion (More tolerant to opposing beliefs). Unless of course the change of belief, went in the opposite direction and toward extremism, then of course they would become less reasonable (more intolerant to opposing beliefs).

A complete change of belief patterns, I can only agree with the position as you have stated.

 

[Tristesse]

I do not see it like that. Atheism like any other belief pattern comes attached with an element of faith in that belief, to a greater or lesser degree.

A slight change in direction of probability, wouldn't necessarily change the atheist belief pattern and as such the atheist position, it would just make them more reasonable in their position and open to greater discussion (More tolerant to opposing beliefs). Unless of course the change of belief, went in the opposite direction and toward extremism, then of course they would become less reasonable (more intolerant to opposing beliefs).

A complete change of belief patterns, I can only agree with the position as you have stated.

How is not believing in a god, considered faith? Would my lack of belief in fairies be considered faith?

 

[logician]

How is not believing in a god, considered faith? Would my lack of belief in fairies be considered faith?

It isn't. The claim that atheism is a "faith" is bogus. Atheism only claims there is no evidenciary proof that a god exists. One does not need to prove there is no god, any more than proving Bertrand Russell's proverbial celestial teapot doesn't orbit the earth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not see it like that. Atheism like any other belief pattern comes attached with an element of faith in that belief, to a greater or lesser degree.

A slight change in direction of probability, wouldn't necessarily change the atheist belief pattern and as such the atheist position, it would just make them more reasonable in their position and open to greater discussion (More tolerant to opposing beliefs). Unless of course the change of belief, went in the opposite direction and toward extremism, then of course they would become less reasonable (more intolerant to opposing beliefs).

A complete change of belief patterns, I can only agree with the position as you have stated.

I'm not sure I get what you're driving at. It almost seems that you're saying that atheism is defined by more than just not believing in gods, so simply believing in God would not be enough to make a person no longer atheist.

Is that a fair re-wording of what you've said?

 

[footprints]

How is not believing in a god, considered faith? Would my lack of belief in fairies be considered faith?

Tristesse, if you cannot rationalise the fact, that atheism is a belief pattern, you will never rationalise the fact that beliefs have an element of faith attached to them. Albeit, from your perspective, you will see this faith, in people of other belief patterns. It is a quirk of nature, that we will see in others, that which, we will not see in ourselves. Science explains this phenomena very well, and from the tests and evaluations carried out and the subsequent conclusions drawn from it, we use it on a daily basis to correct imbalances of human perception, generated from the environment. To put it in a nutshell, it is a derivative of human perception.

Trying to divert rational converstation by injecting irrational analogies into it, only serves to rationalise your own belief patterns. It is these silly little analogies, which help build, form and maintain your belief patterns. Only when a person relates, can they associate. I personally do not have your belief patterns, so I will never relate and associate to these silly analogies, as people who share your belief patterns do.

 

[Tristesse]

Tristesse, if you cannot rationalise the fact, that atheism is a belief pattern, you will never rationalise the fact that beliefs have an element of faith attached to them. Albeit, from your perspective, you will see this faith, in people of other belief patterns. It is a quirk of nature, that we will see in others, that which, we will not see in ourselves. Science explains this phenomena very well, and from the tests and evaluations carried out and the subsequent conclusions drawn from it, we use it on a daily basis to correct imbalances of human perception, generated from the environment. To put it in a nutshell, it is a derivative of human perception.

Trying to divert rational converstation by injecting irrational analogies into it, only serves to rationalise your own belief patterns. It is these silly little analogies, which help build, form and maintain your belief patterns. Only when a person relates, can they associate. I personally do not have your belief patterns, so I will never relate and associate to these silly analogies, as people who share your belief patterns do.

Why is my analogy irrational and silly? I think the concept of a god is irrational and silly, but why is the analogy of fairies and gods silly? They both have the equivalent amount of evidence......none

Other than the lack of belief in a god(which isn't a belief) what other beliefs do atheists have?

 

[footprints]

I'm not sure I get what you're driving at. It almost seems that you're saying that atheism is defined by more than just not believing in gods, so simply believing in God would not be enough to make a person no longer atheist.

Is that a fair re-wording of what you've said?

That is a fair re-wording.

All beliefs come with an element of faith attached to that belief. Depending on the faith attached to each belief, will define which side of the line a person is on.

A person may believe in a deity, but if their probability statement says 60:50, with the 60 representing the lack of belief stance, and the 50 representing the belief stance, then the belief pattern is still atheist. A mild atheistic position, but an atheist postion never the less.

If on the other hand, the probability factor swings around the other way 50:60, then the person in question has clearly changed positions. A mild theistic position, but a theist position, never the less.

Where belief patterns are concerned the faith attached to each belief swings from the two extreme probability statements 100:0 and 0:100, to every possible variation in-between these two extremes. My own personal probability statement pertaining to a deity is 50:50.

 

[footprints]

Why is my analogy irrational and silly? I think the concept of a god is irrational and silly, but why is the analogy of fairies and gods silly? They both have the equivalent amount of evidence......none

Other than the lack of belief in a god(which isn't a belief) what other beliefs do atheists have?

The analogy is silly because they do not relate to the same thing. A deity is an alledged witnessed event based on the testimony of ancient cultures. Many of these cultures have written evidence to testify to this alledged piece of knowledge. The deity may not be there, but the teachings (fossils) they alledgedly left are there. And as with the Australian aboriginal, these teachings go back 10's of thousands of years.

A fairy, as in your analogy, has always been and will always be, a childs fairytale. That you can align the two, says more pertaining to your personal belief pattern, than it does to hard core, factual evidence on the subject matter. A fairytale belief, so to speak.

Personally, in a deity debate, I do not care what other belief patterns an atheist, theist, agnostic, deist, pagan, gnostic et al, have. Albeit from time to time people will share these belief patterns with me, as they try to stamp their voice of authority.

 

[Tristesse]

The analogy is silly because they do not relate to the same thing. A deity is an alledged witnessed event based on the testimony of ancient cultures. Many of these cultures have written evidence to testify to this alledged piece of knowledge. The deity may not be there, but the teachings (fossils) they alledgedly left are there. And as with the Australian aboriginal, these teachings go back 10's of thousands of years.

A fairy, as in your analogy, has always been and will always be, a childs fairytale. That you can align the two, says more pertaining to your personal belief pattern, than it does to hard core, factual evidence on the subject matter. A fairytale belief, so to speak.

Personally, in a deity debate, I do not care what other belief patterns an atheist, theist, agnostic, deist, pagan, gnostic et al, have. Albeit from time to time people will share these belief patterns with me, as they try to stamp their voice of authority.

Actually, fairies weren't always "fairytales." They were seriously believed in some cultures, in fact some civilizations revered fairies almost like gods. It's not until later that they became the equivalent of myths.

Text is not sufficient to claim that certain events actually took place. Especially supernatural events. And extra especially because of the period of time in which these writings took place.

So, I think the fairy analogy is even handed.

 

[footprints]

Actually, fairies weren't always "fairytales." They were seriously believed in some cultures, in fact some civilizations revered fairies almost like gods. It's not until later that they became the equivalent of myths.

Text is not sufficient to claim that certain events actually took place. Especially supernatural events. And extra especially because of the period of time in which these writings took place.

So, I think the fairy analogy is even handed.

Fairies like leprechauns, relate to other species. Whether or not these species actually existed we have no record of. Unknown knowledge. In legends pertaining to the Australian aboriginal, they speak of a tall race of people who once shared Australia with them. Across the pacific, all pacific islanders have legends of giant type people, we have no record of these either.

Reality though is not what your analogy was pointing to, it was the myth effect. Which makes your analogy and belief of these analogies, fairytale beliefs, so to speak.

Fossil evidence is all we have to go on to try and find the truth of the past. If the text (fossil) is there, which it is, all we can do is follow it and see where it leads.

I cannot stop your belief patterns attaching the supernatural to anything. Supernatural is only the phenomena of an event which hasn't been naturally explained. All events, even God per se, if this deity is to be found, will have a natural explanation attached to it, once we understand the phenomena ourselves.

Supernatural diverts rational converstation just as much as silly analogies do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a fair re-wording.

All beliefs come with an element of faith attached to that belief. Depending on the faith attached to each belief, will define which side of the line a person is on.

Actually, in the case of atheism, belief or disbelief in deities defines which side of the line a person is on.

However, if you disagree, I invite you to give me an example of an atheist who believes in God. Just one. Be specific.