Can An Atheist Believe in God?

[footprints]

I don't think they make sense, no. Atheism isn't about how likely a person thinks God is; it's about whether a person believes in God or not. It's an either-or proposition.

However, if you disagree, perhaps you could tell us what, besides non-belief in gods, can make a person an atheist.

The human brain works on relationships to association patterns, in other words probability.

Is your non-belief in deities, pure and simply "Blind Faith," or in other words, have you just picked an answer at random and run with it, without any logic and reason attached to it?....... if not,

Tell me all the things which draw you to your non-belief in gods conclusion?..

Then from your ability to critically reason, tell me everything which you give credit of a deity to?

An example, lack of evidence is a cop out, blind faith position, born from a mind unable to critically reason. Down the line of Christianity, the Bible is evidence. In order to deny this evidence, you must have counter evidence which you believe contradicts it and which you put a higher faith value in.

I will definately understand, if you tell me your lack of belief is based in Blind Faith.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think they make sense, no. Atheism isn't about how likely a person thinks God is; it's about whether a person believes in God or not. It's an either-or proposition.

Can a person believe in "God and not God"? If so, from a perspectivist viewpoint it's still the same either-or position. Belief is a positioning (attitude) towards something that appears to be true. The moment "God" appears to "be and not be" (existence and beyond existence, if you like, although they are inadequate words) then, if there is belief in that, there is belief in "God and not God".

You ask me to define "God." I'm open to suggestions of how to define "something" that both is and isn't, and cannot be said to be or not be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The human brain works on relationships to association patterns, in other words probability.

Is your non-belief in deities, pure and simply "Blind Faith," or in other words, have you just picked an answer at random and run with it, without any logic and reason attached to it?....... if not,

Tell me all the things which draw you to your non-belief in gods conclusion?..

Then from your ability to critically reason, tell me everything which you give credit of a deity to?

An example, lack of evidence is a cop out, blind faith position, born from a mind unable to critically reason. Down the line of Christianity, the Bible is evidence. In order to deny this evidence, you must have counter evidence which you believe contradicts it and which you put a higher faith value in.

I will definately understand, if you tell me your lack of belief is based in Blind Faith.

And how does any of what you've just said have any bearing on the question of whether a person is an atheist or not?

When I say "atheist", I don't mean anything like "super-smart person who knows better than all those silly theists", I just mean "someone who does not believe in God". A person can arrive at atheism rationally or irrationally, but none of this matters in deciding whether the term "atheist" is appropriate to describe the person.

Atheism is a term that describes a person's position or end state. It seems to me that all your answers have focused on the path that a person takes to reach that state, but this is really tangential to the immediate issue. Whatever path a person took to reach their current set of beliefs, if that set does not include a belief in any god, then the person is an atheist... regardless of what path the person took to get there.

Can a person believe in "God and not God"? If so, from a perspectivist viewpoint it's still the same either-or position. Belief is a positioning (attitude) towards something that appears to be true. The moment "God" appears to "be and not be" (existence and beyond existence, if you like, although they are inadequate words) then, if there is belief in that, there is belief in "God and not God".

You ask me to define "God." I'm open to suggestions of how to define "something" that both is and isn't, and cannot be said to be or not be.

If you're using the term "God", then unless you're just uttering empty words, there's some sort of concept and meaning behind the term as you use it. Why not just tell us what you mean when you say "God"?

 

[logician]

The human brain works on relationships to association patterns, in other words probability.

Is your non-belief in deities, pure and simply "Blind Faith," or in other words, have you just picked an answer at random and run with it, without any logic and reason attached to it?....... if not,

Tell me all the things which draw you to your non-belief in gods conclusion?..

Then from your ability to critically reason, tell me everything which you give credit of a deity to?

An example, lack of evidence is a cop out, blind faith position, born from a mind unable to critically reason. Down the line of Christianity, the Bible is evidence. In order to deny this evidence, you must have counter evidence which you believe contradicts it and which you put a higher faith value in.

I will definately understand, if you tell me your lack of belief is based in Blind Faith.

Except the bible is fiction and hearsay, not a historical document.

 

[Willamena]

If you're using the term "God", then unless you're just uttering empty words, there's some sort of concept and meaning behind the term as you use it. Why not just tell us what you mean when you say "God"?

Technically, I did. But every time I do, someone asks me to define "God", as if I hadn't even opened my mouth.

Fool me fifteen million times, shame on me.

 

[footprints]

And how does any of what you've just said have any bearing on the question of whether a person is an atheist or not?

When I say "atheist", I don't mean anything like "super-smart person who knows better than all those silly theists", I just mean "someone who does not believe in God". A person can arrive at atheism rationally or irrationally, but none of this matters in deciding whether the term "atheist" is appropriate to describe the person.

Atheism is a term that describes a person's position or end state. It seems to me that all your answers have focused on the path that a person takes to reach that state, but this is really tangential to the immediate issue. Whatever path a person took to reach their current set of beliefs, if that set does not include a belief in any god, then the person is an atheist... regardless of what path the person took to get there.

Nobody has ever questioned the end state position of being an atheist. In fact, I went to a short explanation, giving probability statements, to say, even a very mild atheist, was still an atheist. We could of course argue, the closer they get to the 50:50 probability statement, they would be more inclined to be an atheistic-agnostic or on the other side of the line a theistic-agnostic, this though tends to cloud the issue taking it into greater detail and explanation, and is not what the topic in question is asking.

The end position of being an atheist, isn't the question though. The question is, "Can an atheist, believe in God?" The answer to this question is......

An atheist can believe in God, to a greater or lesser degree, providing their belief in a deity figure, doesn't outweigh their belief, of disbelief. The moment they cross over that line, they cease to be an atheist by definition and become a theist. One could argue, a theistic-agnostic belief, but for clarity sake, this has been omitted.

Every theist who has ever converted to atheism, every atheist who has ever converted to theism, had to at one stage crossed through this position. This may have been done rationally and logically, as a theist starts to question their belief, or it may be irrationally, one single bad event can trigger the jump mechanism of belief. The same of course applies to the atheist who converts to theism, their beief patterns can change due to rationale and logic, or by irrational and illogical trigger mechanisms.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It amazes me that this topic is really still being discussed... How much more clear can the word "atheist" be?

 

[logician]

Atheists don't believe in god period. Any halfway position is agnostic, or total belief is theistic.

 

[footprints]

Except the bible is fiction and hearsay, not a historical document.

Logician, from reading some of your more in-depth posts, where you have actually shared some of your beliefs with forum members, instead of these silly one liners, I do understand you have more intelligence to share.

I further understand, you are more intelligent than the fiction you have portrayed and tried to project in this post. That by any rational and logical viewpoint, the bible is indeed a grouping of historical documents, at least, reproduced versions thereof. Now it may be argued, one way or the other, whether it (as a whole) is historically correct, or whether it is a perceptual view, based on the specific view, of one specific culture. Speculation on this is rife, and in many directions, and I believe it will be, for many years to come, as it has been for many years in the past and as it is now in the present.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Logician, from reading some of your more in-depth posts, where you have actually shared some of your beliefs with forum members, instead of these silly one liners, I do understand you have more intelligence to share.

I further understand, you are more intelligent than the fiction you have portrayed and tried to project in this post. That by any rational and logical viewpoint, the bible is indeed a grouping of historical documents, at least, reproduced versions thereof. Now it may be argued, one way or the other, whether it (as a whole) is historically correct, or whether it is a perceptual view, based on the specific view, of one specific culture. Speculation on this is rife, and in many directions, and I believe it will be, for many years to come, as it has been for many years in the past and as it is now in the present.

Being old doesn't make it a historical document, it has to contain accurate history in order to be called historical. The Bible is a theological text, not a learning tool for people who wish to gather facts.

 

[footprints]

Being old doesn't make it a historical document, it has to contain accurate history in order to be called historical. The Bible is a theological text, not a learning tool for people who wish to gather facts.

Hmmm, so being an old document doesn't make it a historical document?

Wow, thank you for that great insight. So therefore the pyramids stop being historical monuments, due to the same reasoning? After all, the pyramids were theoligical monuments.

Thank you for sharing your logic and reason, but at this stage, I can find better logic and reason to align with.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmmm, so being an old document doesn't make it a historical document?

Wow, thank you for that great insight. So therefore the pyramids stop being historical monuments, due to the same reasoning? After all, the pyramids were theoligical monuments.

Thank you for sharing your logic and reason, but at this stage, I can find better logic and reason to align with.

Why is it that whenever someone completely shuts down your arguments you always resort to these cheap tactics of distorting and misinterpreting their statements?

The Bible is not a historical document because it's aim and function is and was not to record history. In that sense, it is not historical documentation. You know that this is what they meant, now stop playing dumb and respond to his arguments.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Why is it that whenever someone completely shuts down your arguments you always resort to these cheap tactics of distorting and misinterpreting their statements?

The Bible is not a historical document because it's aim and function is and was not to record history. In that sense, it is not historical documentation. You know that this is what they meant, now stop playing dumb and respond to his arguments.

Thank you kindly sir

 

[logician]

Logician, from reading some of your more in-depth posts, where you have actually shared some of your beliefs with forum members, instead of these silly one liners, I do understand you have more intelligence to share.

I further understand, you are more intelligent than the fiction you have portrayed and tried to project in this post. That by any rational and logical viewpoint, the bible is indeed a grouping of historical documents, at least, reproduced versions thereof. Now it may be argued, one way or the other, whether it (as a whole) is historically correct, or whether it is a perceptual view, based on the specific view, of one specific culture. Speculation on this is rife, and in many directions, and I believe it will be, for many years to come, as it has been for many years in the past and as it is now in the present.

The idea that the bible is a historical document is about like the idea that Shakespeare's tales were stories about real people. The bible is fiction stacked on hearsay multiple times over. NOthing in it would hold up in any court of law.

 

[footprints]

And how does any of what you've just said have any bearing on the question of whether a person is an atheist or not?

When I say "atheist", I don't mean anything like "super-smart person who knows better than all those silly theists", I just mean "someone who does not believe in God". A person can arrive at atheism rationally or irrationally, but none of this matters in deciding whether the term "atheist" is appropriate to describe the person.

Atheism is a term that describes a person's position or end state. It seems to me that all your answers have focused on the path that a person takes to reach that state, but this is really tangential to the immediate issue. Whatever path a person took to reach their current set of beliefs, if that set does not include a belief in any god, then the person is an atheist... regardless of what path the person took to get there.

Penguin, seeing as how you refuse to do the balance sheet approach, ie align your beliefs, disbeliefs up side by side of each other. I do understand, this would take time and would require you to sit in quiet reflection of your own beliefs to enable you to think clearly and rationally of exactly what constitutes your own belief in this matter. The for and against arguments and your own ability to critically reason.

Let us try this approach, it is far quicker and will not take up so much of your time. In essence it is the basic "Biami Line." I shouldn't get into too much trouble revealing this little bit to you.

Draw a horizontal and vertical line of equal length on a piece of paper. Ensure that that the two lines dissect each other exactly in the middle of each opposing line.

Using a compass, draw a circle using the cross hair centre of the dissecting lines as the middle point, so that the circle touches the end points of the vertical and horizontal lines on its way round. You should end up with four equal quadrants.

On the far right hand side of the horizontal line, just outside the circle write the words, Extremist Irrationalist. On the far left hand side of the horizontal line, just outside of the circle, write the words, Biblical Creationist, or Biblical Literalists. These are the two extreme positons down this line as it pertains to the deity debate.

On the top section of the vertical line, just outside the circle, write the word, Gnostic. On the bottom of the vertical line, just outside the circle, write the word, Agnostic. These are the two extreme positions as it pertains to the deity debate in this position.

Within the confines of this circle (otherwise known as a cycle), is every belief pattern known to mankind, as it relates to the deity position. Put a dot anywhere, and somebody, somewhere in all probabilty holds this position. The closer ones own personal belief gets to any line, the closer they are to that belief, than any person further away from that line. Any position which is on the circle line, is a positon of extremism. If you start seeing the beginning of Yin and Yang, your eyes will not be decieving you.

The base position, or the point of balance, is the mid point of the cross hairs, which is of course, the mid point of the circle as well. This is the position every person who follows a path of enlightenment is striving to reach. This is the same position that every new born child enters the world in, albeit in the new born childs case, it is a position born of ignorance of knowledge, rather than an accumulation of knowledge.

 

[footprints]

The idea that the bible is a historical document is about like the idea that Shakespeare's tales were stories about real people. The bible is fiction stacked on hearsay multiple times over. NOthing in it would hold up in any court of law.

The bible is, and always be a historical document. It's accurancy may be questioned, but its historical value will never be. Even though Shakespear's tales, may not have pertained to real people (this is a debatable point in itself, there is strong argument which suggests shakespeare did in fact write them about real people, albeit pseudonyms were used to either protect the people he was writing about, or to protect himself), the validity of his historical work will never be questioned.

I am pretty sure, the Roman occupancy of Palestine at the alledged time of Jesus would be upheld in any court of law that I know of.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The bible is, and always be a historical document. It's accurancy may be questioned, but its historical value will never be. Even though Shakespear's tales, may not have pertained to real people (this is a debatable point in itself, there is strong argument which suggests shakespeare did in fact write them about real people, albeit pseudonyms were used to either protect the people he was writing about, or to protect himself), the validity of his historical work will never be questioned.

I am pretty sure, the Roman occupancy of Palestine at the alledged time of Jesus would be upheld in any court of law that I know of.

So if I wrote a book that said George W Bush was the president of the US in 2007, but then go on to say that unicorns took over Russia, by your reasoning, in a few hundred years, my book will be a valid historical document because some of it is accurate?

 

[footprints]

Why is it that whenever someone completely shuts down your arguments you always resort to these cheap tactics of distorting and misinterpreting their statements?

The Bible is not a historical document because it's aim and function is and was not to record history. In that sense, it is not historical documentation. You know that this is what they meant, now stop playing dumb and respond to his arguments.

That is an obvious perceptional view, born of your personal belief patterns. It is quite clear and very obvious, that this poster didn't shut my argument down with the logic and rationale they provided.

Are the pramids historical monuments?

Is the view presented by the Romans real, or is it a percetual view of themselves? When based in reality, we know the Romans were nothing more than a group of rabid barbarians who murdered and plundered for their own personal gain, this though isn't how their own personal view of history, is portrayed. So don't you consider Roman history, historical documentation either?

Yes Imortal I know you have belief patterns, and that what I write will cut directly across, them. If it isn't based on your logic, it just isn't logical at all. I know this and I get it. Same mulberry tree.

 

[footprints]

So if I wrote a book that said George W Bush was the president of the US in 2007, but then go on to say that unicorns took over Russia, by your reasoning, in a few hundred years, my book will be a valid historical document because some of it is accurate?

If that is what you truly believed ISLAM, than it would be a historical document, based on your perception of the alledged events of the time. If there were no other documentation to disprove it, or to suggest otherwise, it would be the only evidence available at that point in time. This in itself could lead to many probabilities, the two major ones being they would either look back at the historical document and say, people of that time sure did hold funny beliefs, or the other high probability could be that they would use it to justify their own position to take over another country.

Accuracy, inaccuracy has nothing to do with a historic document, the document just merely has to exist to make it historical. The "Dead Sea Scrolls," are a historic document, a very real, tangible piece of historic reference and an extremely valuable (money wise) document as well. The sole reason why they are so valuable is due to their age, or historic reference, not what is written in them.

Are the pyramids, historical monuments? What about statues of Caesar? What about statues of David?

 

[footprints]

Do you really believe the stuff you write?:no:

LOL what you mean to say, is you don't believe it. Your logic and reason is tainted another way.

I will ask you the same question, are the pyramids historical monuments? Keeping in mind, the reason they were built, was wrong or inaccurate based on the atheistic belief.

You, I and everybody else in the world knows the pyramids are historical monuments. Now all we have to do is find out why you twist this logic and reason when it comes to the bible.