Can you truly be atheist?

[Reverend Jeremiah]

could someone please explain something to me. I clicked on a link on the home page of this forum and gave my reply to the thread. I got a warning for being a non-theist in a theist chat (even before I joined the non-theists), But I come into the Atheist chat, and I see someone from the Theist group chatting in here.

Im a bit confussed about this forum

 

[Rex]

could someone please explain something to me. I clicked on a link on the home page of this forum and gave my reply to the thread. I got a warning for being a non-theist in a theist chat (even before I joined the non-theists), But I come into the Atheist chat, and I see someone from the Theist group chatting in here.

Im a bit confussed about this forum

I replied to your email. But here it is too:

I understand, most don't read the rules before their first post anyways.
Any religion can respond in any forum, but we don't allow debating or
bashing or anything we deem un-necessary in the Individual Religion Forums.

The Latest forum topics at the bottom are just that, latest topics in all
the forums.

There is pretty much a place for everything on these forums. And it may
take some time to get use to it. We have members from over 40 different
religions/lack of and we all make an effort to be respectful of each other.
It's a crazy idea, but that's how we do it.

If you need anything just PM me.

 

[linwood]

But in this case none of the theories of the creation of the multiverse have any evidence for or against them, you can't even say that one is more likely (or better supported) than another because past the point of the singularity what we class as likely no longer applies.

I agree with you on the point of creation and I put no possible solution forward simply because I believe that Particle you speak of shares so many traits with a deity that it desrves no more "belief" than a diety.

I will admit I do tend to gravitate towards abiogenesis as a possible creation of life here rather than a literal interpretation of any religiousn creation story I`ve heard simply because there is evidence (however slight) of it`s possibilty.

Also the fact that we have little evidence today does not mean we won`t have any tomorrow either.

As far as the lack of evidence being evidence in itself I believe it is to an extent.
It`s true that "faith" is required but not anything nearly as absolute as "blind or revealed faith"

Here`s an analogy I read somehwere.

I call you on the phone and tell you I was called in early to work so I didn`t have time to feed the elephant I keep in my living room.
I ask you if you can take a moment and go feed him for me.
You say certainly I`d be glad to help.

You drive through the puddles and wet roads to my house (been raining for days and it just stopped last night).
Grab the bag of peanuts just outside my front door and let yourself in.

You walk through the living room without seeing my elephant.
You check all the other rooms..no elephant.

You begin to get concerned and check my yard and doors to see if he has broken out and is rampaging through my neighborhood.
No broken doors no elephant prints in the wet yard, no screaming nieghbors..nothing.

You go back inside and you notice there is no broken furniture, no elephant feces on the floor, and the place doesn`t smell like an elephant pen as it would if one had been there for any length of time.

What is your conclusion about my elephant and why?

Did you arrive to your conclusion through "blind faith"?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Also, we've seen the Earth from space, it looked pretty round to me.

Yes, it looks round to me too. But for all I know, demons could be tricking me into thinking it is round. Heck, anything is possible. The reason I do not believe demons are tricking me into thinking it's round, however, is because there is no evidence to support it.

Again, just because we can't be 100% certain of something does not mean that all claims are equal. Some claims are better supported than others, and some are not supported at all.

 

[Halcyon]

I'd conclude you don't have an elephant due to lack of evidence, but like you say as of yet there is no evidence in support of any of the theories, so my 'basic' question if you like was, if you don't believe in god but you can't 100% rule him out, does that not make you agnostic? Now i understand that atheism is a believe system, not as i thought, the default position.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Do you consider yourself agnostic to Zeus? howabout Aphrodite? There is a logical falacy that you are commiting called "false Dichotomy" in which you are arguing against one god vs. no god. The reality is that there are millions of Gods and Goddesses that mankind has invinted throughout history. By using occams razor with this knowledge, we can rule out the trickster gods (or demons) by ruling that they are manmade until proof presents itself. How can we do that you might ask. Elephants are not supernatural beings, nor has anyone in this forum claimed them to be. Gods on the other hand are... so just call them by their names, and they should appear if they want you to worship/worry about them.

Example: How do you know Abraham Lincoln was real.
answer: Because there is proof with pictures and writings of history.
-but the same thing aplies to jesus doesnt it?
answer: No, because Jesus is described as a supernatural being and I have asked him to appear before me and he hasnt, so his claims of supernatural origins must be considered false until proof to the contrary presents itself. Jesus might have been a real man, but a god? Occams razor says no.
-But why not ask Abraham Lincoln to appear then?
answer: There is no supernatural claim to Lincoln, so this doesnt apply to him... unless you are trying to claim that he is now a spirit. Then ask him to show himself to you, and if it doesnt happen, then Occams razor says that spirits are unnecesary variables to the equation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By using occams razor with this knowledge, we can rule out the trickster gods (or demons) by ruling that they are manmade until proof presents itself.

Rubish. Occam's Razor is, at best, a useful heuristic; it has no epistemic or ontological import. As for the rest, you confuse evidence with proof for, while absence of evdence is clearly evidence of absence, absence of proof is proof of nothing.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Then you are saying that, according to your logic, any claim, no matter how fantastic, can be presented as evidence for its existance.
By claiming occams razor as rubish, by default you are claiming that all gods and goddesses can, and do actually exist.
Fantastic claims require fantastic evidences.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then you are saying that, according to your logic, any claim, no matter how fantastic, can be presented as evidence for its existance.

I clearly said no such thing. Your descision to distort my comments is unfortunate and, perhaps, symptomatic.

By claiming occams razor as rubish, by default you are claiming that all gods and goddesses can, and do actually exist.

First: I never claimed that Occam's Razor is rubbish. Second: even had I done so, your statement does not even reach the level of non sequitur, since such a claim says absolutely nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God(s). A recommendation: read what I wrote, and think about what I said. It may be right or wrong, but it has little to do with your faulty caricatures or inane conclusions.

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidences.

I doubt that either of us know what "fantastic evidences" means. In my opinion, extraordinary claims warrant evidence that is extraordinarily well tested and confirmed.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

what a useful way to dodge the actual topic, change the argument over to picking apart the semantics instead of the subject matter. You have also managed to avoid saying yea or nay to my claim that the current subject is a false dichotomy between one god and no god, when there are obviously millions of gods made by man.

Perhaps the next hard question you ask me, I can dodge the topic by debating the definition of "is"...LOL

P.S. Thankyou for correcting my "fantastic claims" quote, I forgot that it was "extraordinary claims" instead

 

[Halcyon]

Rev. Jeremiah, you seem to be under the false impression that i am a religious Christian, I am Gnostic, my interpretation of that is I search for the truth, i do not claim to have the truth.
As for Zeus and Aphrodite, yes i am agnostic them, i have no evidence that they do not exist, i have no evidence that they do. Do you give more credence to Jehovah than them as an atheist?

As for your opinion of Jesus, he never said he was of divine origin, other people did.

In this thread i wanted to know how someone could 100% rule out the existance of a divine creation, whether it was carried out by a god, goddess, pink unicorn or sentient bowl of spaghetti. To repeat myself i now know that atheism is not, as i thought, the total lack of belief, but a positive belief in the non-existance of god, thus you can be 100% atheist. My question is answered. Maybe you should have read the whole thread before posting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To repeat myself i now know that atheism is not, as i thought, the total lack of belief, but a positive belief in the non-existance of god, thus you can be 100% atheist.

For many if not most atheists, it is no such thing. Rather, it is the positive assertion that insufficient evidence exists to warrant belief in deity, much as there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief in the Daoine Sidhe.

 

[Halcyon]

For many if not most atheists, it is no such thing. Rather, it is the positive assertion that insufficient evidence exists to warrant belief in deity, much as there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief in the Daoine Sidhe.

Oops sorry, my mistake. But now see i'm a bit confused again. Maybe if i approach it from a different angle;

Can atheists please tell their beliefs on the creation prior to the big bang singularity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was not aware that there was such a thing as a "prior to" the big bang.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can atheists please tell their beliefs on the creation prior to the big bang singularity.

I have none with which I'm comfortable, nor am I willing to grant that "prior to the big bang singularity" is a meaningful phrase. Why might that be relevant?

 

[angel888]

Halcyon said:As for your opinion of Jesus, he never said he was of divine origin, other people did.


Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God which is of divine origin.

He also was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is also of divine origin, Jesus was God/Man, yet he was divine.



Only Faith can prove Creation and its origins, One cant prove or show another Faith.


Angel

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He also was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit, ...

Bullpuckie. Read between the lined. Genesis makes it very clear that the Sons of God had a thing about women. Gabriel was just one more winged stud covering his tracks ...

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

I suggest you re-read my first thread, in which I also say Jesus could have been a man (I think he was invented though.)
perhaps the people in this thread should have read my original post before getting offended(if you are). I only pointed out a possible false Dichotomy, and I wanted to clear it up by asking if your post also included other gods as well.
sheeesh! I was only trying to point out that You cant discuss TRUE and total atheism without including all supernatural occurances....I think I need a hug

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Only Faith can prove Creation and its origins, One cant prove or show another Faith.Angel

I can honestly say that this sentence made absolutely no logical sense

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suggest you re-read my first thread, ...

Actually, (a) you mean your 2nd post, and (b) it does not improve with rereading. Anyone who insists that Occam's Razor is proof of anything whatsoever is simply speaking out of ignorance.