Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

[Subduction Zone]

1 Corinthians 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords),

Nuff said?

Peace be unto us all, event unto the end.

Not really. It is rather pointless to attempt to refute a myth with another myth.

 

[12jtartar]

One thing I've noticed, is that of all non religious we'll say, or rather anti-theists, what not, explicit atheists seem to understand atheism, the least. This has even affected the very way that atheism is defined.

Ie,
'Know there is no god or gods'
No, you're getting what you think you know, mixed up with know

'No evidence for god or gods'
No, you're getting what your perspective is, mixed up with a fact statement

The only non god adherents who understand non god adherence, seem to be agnostics, and then it gets muddled with 'atheism', a claim to know that god or gods, doesn't exist, or isn't real.

Disciple of Jesus,
It seems to me that the best answer, or description of an atheist is found in the Bible itself, Psalms 14:1, 53:1.
The reason for an atheist not believing in God, is, that they do not search for Him, with sincerity, Psalms 10:3,4, Proverbs 2:3-14. It seems that atheists do not want to know God, because that would would limit their actions, they would be required to obey His laws, which they do not want to do. It seems that they want to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to, without having to answer for their actions. The problem with this Godless way of life is, their is a God that requires certain obedience, for any person to live in the Paradise Earth, that God has Purposed, Revelation 21:3-8. Agape!!!

 

[Mox]

'Know there is no god or gods'
No, you're getting what you think you know, mixed up with know

'No evidence for god or gods'
No, you're getting what your perspective is, mixed up with a fact statement

The possibility of Yahweh/El or Horus or Allah or Vishnu and so on actually existing, as described by their respective holy books, is vanishingly small.
Since there is no empirical or other evidence for any of these Gods existing, outside of claims based on orthodox scripture and personal revelation.

There is no testable evidence for any God of any kind or description.

It is a matter of faith and personal belief, that the God you see in your mind's eye, actually exists or not. It is not something you can prove.

In fact, whenever a positive claim of fact is made, that such and such exists for example, the burden of proof lies on the claimant.

The reason for this is very logical.

You cannot disprove a claim that itself is not properly evidenced, as there is no evidence to disprove.

No case to answer, your lordship/honor.

 

[LuisDantas]

One thing I've noticed, is that of all non religious we'll say, or rather anti-theists, what not, explicit atheists seem to understand atheism, the least. This has even affected the very way that atheism is defined.

Ie,
'Know there is no god or gods'
No, you're getting what you think you know, mixed up with know

'No evidence for god or gods'
No, you're getting what your perspective is, mixed up with a fact statement

The only non god adherents who understand non god adherence, seem to be agnostics, and then it gets muddled with 'atheism', a claim to know that god or gods, doesn't exist, or isn't real.

Nonsense.

"God" is an inherently ambiguous concept and that carries into all derived concepts.

Except perhaps for apatheism and ignosticism.

That is all.

Still, you made a honest statement and therefore deserve a honest clarification.

The issue is that positive claims about "god" are inherently in need of support and delimitation, which are more often than not neglected. That neglect enables whoever feels like it to disregard the matter entirely. That is what Russell's Teapot illustrates.

Theists, and even people who have any resistance towards atheism, often forget how bold their stance and expectations are. It is not atheists who need to justify their stance.

 

[Mox]

It seems that atheists do not want to know God, because that would would limit their actions, they would be required to obey His laws, which they do not want to do. It seems that they want to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to, without having to answer for their actions. The problem with this Godless way of life is, their is a God that requires certain obedience, for any person to live in the Paradise Earth, that God has Purposed, Revelation 21:3-8. Agape!!!

Sheer denigration and demonisation of innocent people.

Your assumption is groundless and entirely judgemental. Something the bible repeatedly warns against.

Scapegoating any group, is a sign of personal weakness and moral inferioity,

 

[Jumi]

Disciple of Jesus,
It seems to me that the best answer, or description of an atheist is found in the Bible itself, Psalms 14:1

If it's the best answer, do you believe an atheist doctor who saves a life is not doing anything good? Or that saving lives is possibly a bad thing.

Or do you interpret it in another way?

 

[exchemist]

Disciple of Jesus,
It seems to me that the best answer, or description of an atheist is found in the Bible itself, Psalms 14:1, 53:1.
The reason for an atheist not believing in God, is, that they do not search for Him, with sincerity, Psalms 10:3,4, Proverbs 2:3-14. It seems that atheists do not want to know God, because that would would limit their actions, they would be required to obey His laws, which they do not want to do. It seems that they want to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to, without having to answer for their actions. The problem with this Godless way of life is, their is a God that requires certain obedience, for any person to live in the Paradise Earth, that God has Purposed, Revelation 21:3-8. Agape!!!

This strikes me a silly argument. Why on Earth would someone who has not been brought up to believe in God be motivated to "search for him", with or without sincerity?
The onus, surely, is on the believer to make a case for God's existence.

It is also a calumny to accuse atheists of not wanting to know God or obey his laws, out of selfish motives. They are often simply people who adopt a physicalist worldview, seeing no evidence of anything beyond the physical world and not feeling any need to imagine there may be anything beyond.

Again, it is up to the believer to make the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Disciple of Jesus,
It seems to me that the best answer, or description of an atheist is found in the Bible itself, Psalms 14:1, 53:1.
The reason for an atheist not believing in God, is, that they do not search for Him, with sincerity, Psalms 10:3,4, Proverbs 2:3-14. It seems that atheists do not want to know God, because that would would limit their actions, they would be required to obey His laws, which they do not want to do. It seems that they want to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to, without having to answer for their actions. The problem with this Godless way of life is, their is a God that requires certain obedience, for any person to live in the Paradise Earth, that God has Purposed, Revelation 21:3-8. Agape!!!

That is obviously false and is a bearing of false witness in your part.

Where do you get such garbage from? Oh wait, from a book of myths that you should not take too seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

Makes the claim that god or gods doesn't exist, usually by an argument of evidence, however any argument could really be made, or not, for that claim. It's god or gods don't exist', and they claim to know that.

This is known as 'strong atheism'.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it is muddling. Because you don't know that 'know' is a belief. You don't understand the word usage.

Not all beliefs are knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd claim to know some God's don't exist. Just not all God's.

Some people identify the universe as God. And I certainly believe the universe exists. Does that mean I am not an atheist?

The question also depends strongly on what you mean by the term 'God'. Do you mean a creator of the universe? Of just the Earth? Of life on the Earth? Or is 'God' the 'first cause'? The unmoved mover? Or is 'God' a 'necessarily existing being'? Or maybe a 'greatest being'? Or something that is 'omni' (benevolent, scient,potent)?

The point is that all of these concepts are different than the others. Until you tell me which of these, or which combination of these, you mean when you say 'God', it is rather difficult to say whether I believe in *your* concept of a deity.

So, while I don't believe it, I do find it *possible* that some multi-dimensional teenager created this universe. Would such a being properly be called 'God'? Even if the 'art project' that is this universe has since been lost in some multi-dimensional attic?

That's part of why I actually lean towards ignosticism: that the term 'God' needs to be defined *before* questions of belief are raised. And nobody seems to be able to agree on a definition.

But I am also apatheistic: of the previous definitions of 'God' that seem coherent, it really wouldn't change my life at all if any of them were true.

 

[Ishmael]

And again:

The Illusion of Matter: Our Physical Material World Isn’t Really Physical At All

Belief systems have shaped our reality since the beginning of conscious thought and will continue to do so.

What we thought we once KNEW we now believe is wrong and what we now BELIEVE to be true is shaping our reality to.

That the "collective" beliefs have initially more power over the individual beliefs should be self evident.

But, IF you took the time to read this: http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/daniel-revelation.pdf

You might find that the self-fulfilling prophecies illustrated are steadily becoming manifest.

MOST of its histories have already been accomplished with sufficient proofs.

IF it is a myth, fear not.

IF it is a Divine edict?

Ignore it at your peril.

With only love and understanding of what it is to disbelieve or to have nothing to believe in,

Grace be unto us all, even unto the end. Amen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And again:

The Illusion of Matter: Our Physical Material World Isn’t Really Physical At All

Belief systems have shaped our reality since the beginning of conscious thought and will continue to do so.

What we thought we once KNEW we now believe is wrong and what we now BELIEVE to be true is shaping our reality to.

That the "collective" beliefs have initially more power over the individual beliefs should be self evident.

But, IF you took the time to read this: http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/daniel-revelation.pdf

You might find that the self-fulfilling prophecies illustrated are steadily becoming manifest.

MOST of its histories have already been accomplished with sufficient proofs.

IF it is a myth, fear not.

IF it is a Divine edict?

Ignore it at your peril.

With only love and understanding of what it is to disbelieve or to have nothing to believe in,

Grace be unto us all, even unto the end. Amen.

Woo Woo sites only tell us that you do not understand what you oppose.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Some people identify the universe as God. And I certainly believe the universe exists. Does that mean I am not an atheist?

The question also depends strongly on what you mean by the term 'God'. Do you mean a creator of the universe? Of just the Earth? Of life on the Earth? Or is 'God' the 'first cause'? The unmoved mover? Or is 'God' a 'necessarily existing being'? Or maybe a 'greatest being'? Or something that is 'omni' (benevolent, scient,potent)?

The point is that all of these concepts are different than the others. Until you tell me which of these, or which combination of these, you mean when you say 'God', it is rather difficult to say whether I believe in *your* concept of a deity.

So, while I don't believe it, I do find it *possible* that some multi-dimensional teenager created this universe. Would such a being properly be called 'God'? Even if the 'art project' that is this universe has since been lost in some multi-dimensional attic?

That's part of why I actually lean towards ignosticism: that the term 'God' needs to be defined *before* questions of belief are raised. And nobody seems to be able to agree on a definition.

But I am also apatheistic: of the previous definitions of 'God' that seem coherent, it really wouldn't change my life at all if any of them were true.

Seems like you extrapolated my point, but we're in agreement??

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Disciple of Jesus,
It seems to me that the best answer, or description of an atheist is found in the Bible itself, Psalms 14:1, 53:1.
The reason for an atheist not believing in God, is, that they do not search for Him, with sincerity, Psalms 10:3,4, Proverbs 2:3-14. It seems that atheists do not want to know God, because that would would limit their actions, they would be required to obey His laws, which they do not want to do. It seems that they want to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to, without having to answer for their actions. The problem with this Godless way of life is, their is a God that requires certain obedience, for any person to live in the Paradise Earth, that God has Purposed, Revelation 21:3-8. Agape!!!

Wow. Be careful. If you actually meet or deal honestly with many atheists the cognitive dissonance involved will blow your head off (figureatively). Heck, maybe literally.

 

[joe1776]

Knowledge is demonstrable, if you can't show it, you don't know it.

From one experience with each, I know that precognition and telepathy are possible. I feel completely capable of analyzing those experiences. I'm certain they could not be explained by other causes. And yet, I can't demonstrate them. Both involved visions. Those experiences were extraordinary evidence for me alone.

 

[David T]

One thing I've noticed, is that of all non religious we'll say, or rather anti-theists, what not, explicit atheists seem to understand atheism, the least. This has even affected the very way that atheism is defined.

Ie,
'Know there is no god or gods'
No, you're getting what you think you know, mixed up with know

'No evidence for god or gods'
No, you're getting what your perspective is, mixed up with a fact statement

The only non god adherents who understand non god adherence, seem to be agnostics, and then it gets muddled with 'atheism', a claim to know that god or gods, doesn't exist, or isn't real.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I think, therefore I Am?

The Illusion of Matter: Our Physical Material World Isn’t Really Physical At All

Virtual reality nonsense.

 

[David T]

Wow. Be careful. If you actually meet or deal honestly with many atheists the cognitive dissonance involved will blow your head off (figureatively). Heck, maybe literally.

Cognitive dissonance is t possible for certain people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From one experience with each, I know that precognition and telepathy are possible. I feel completely capable of analyzing those experiences. I'm certain they could not be explained by other causes. And yet, I can't demonstrate them. Both involved visions. They were extraordinary evidence for me alone.

You probably just fooled yourself. Sadly the Million Dollar Challenge is over, but bear in mind for all of the years that it existed no one was able to pass it.

 

[David T]

This is a better OP; easier understand.

Let me get your logic. Talk with me here. ---Please converse.

Atheist don't understand atheism relating to God's existence but agnostics do?

1. First, problem one, no one has defined god in one specific description. No Hindu, no Abrahamic (kinda wish Muslims can say something), and in part, no Pagan. I think the only people I understand god is pantheism.

But then that word is not completely defined by person. Believers can't even (some cant and others prefer not to) anything so far. All we have of gods existence is a claim and evidence making a confirmed bias over scripture of any god-religion, without connecting how the culture and practices then some how applies today. Yet, we don't use the same medical treatments as back then. I find that weird since they are both important.

Even among christians the word god is mixed up. The problem starts with theists. You must have a distinct explanation of god-each of you-to judge whether god Does exist in the active world apart from the desires and minds of believers. The difference is Hindus get this. Some Pagans do. Christians don't.

That's problem one.

2. Problem two is not providing any connection outside your experience to life that we all understand as a common denominator of what fact and whats belief.

Facts arent beliefs; beliefs arent facts. Christians (Since many other god-believers understand this; dont know about muslims and jews). Since beliefs arent facts, expression of those beliefs cannot be presented as facts to a diverse crowd of people.

Unless its your opinion as a fact and kept at your opinion, god as a fact (abrahamic) is not a fact-is not connected to reality for the reason of problem one.

3. Problem three is sacred scripture. Christians and Bahai do this. I don't see any other god-believer do outside their own group.

Its counterproductive. Think about it. You say god exists; fine. You say this is why; fine-your belief. You say look at this book; we look at it. You say god exists by this book. We look puzzled.

If we cannot understand your claim how in the world are we supposed to understand Bahaullah's claim nor the Jews and Muslims claim nor christians (jesus as god or not)l. It's out of the ballpark because of the other two problems. Scripture doesnt help because it was written so long ago and we cannot ask the people who wrote it, we have to talk to you as believers.

Thats why the confirmation bias such as scripture does not work. But believers through it out anyway, as if your scriptures provide some automatic revelation of your truth. That does not make sense.

Now to the atheist part

In order for an atheist to say god exists (or an agnostic to say he doesnt know he does) is theist have to solve the problems above and give a proper and tangible (doesnt mean material) or logical explanation of what and who god is apart from your beliefs of how you define him as well las what people over three thousand years ago defines him. I side with jews since they don't define god. Everyone else tries to.

So a atheist who does 100 percent believe god does not exist is logical because he can't say god does nor says he doesn't know if he doesn't have a proper definition to go off of in the first place

Atheist just means lack of belief in god. People have their variations; but, that's the core of it. So, we can't change the word nor any other word thereby misinterpreting it. Unless there is a god beyond a concept and belief, by what means is this type of atheist wrong or misguided.

Follow the logic not from your personal belief. That's another problem. Arguing from the wrong perspective or tool. You need to change it up a bit. Also, provide new insight rather than regurgitated ones.

Agnosticism says they don't prove whether god exists or not. This, I don't understand, because there is no concrete definition, so which god do they exactly doesnt know exist. Its illogical. Atheist have more sense because you cant claim something exists when there is no tangible definition to which any evidence can be presented.

So....

That leaves me, as an atheist, with this conclusion

God (abrahamic and Hindu) exists in the hearts of people not as external beings. Holy Spirit is said to be love and a comfortable. God is said to be a provider. Jesus had a mission to be a savior. No where in history do these things show up in a spiritual way.

If it were fact, then the spirituality would be part of the history of christianity; it is not. Yes, there are stuff about christianity, but not stuff specific to supernatural events in a historical light. Can't prove god with history.

1. So you must have concrete idea of god in order to defend your view against those who say otherwise

2. Two, you guys need to decide whether you have a belief or a fact. We understand the subjectivity of beliefs. Once you say its a fact, then....

3. Sacred scripture is counter productive. We can't just read Bahaullah's and the Apostles scripture and there ya go, we know everything spiritually. It doesnt work that way.

I am an atheist; strong one, as they call it. Once you find what an atheist is, my definitions would change. I can't be a agnostic because I need to understand who or what I would be saying I don't know exists.



Thank you for reading all this.

That was actually very good!!!

A 13th century nun said "we cannot live in an interpreted world for an interpreted world is not home" a Catholic priest fr. Thomas berry wrote a heresy below fo but it isn't seen as heresy by the nonsensicals why? The world is filled with nonsensicals we call it". normal"