Do atheists actually exist?

[Desert Snake]

So....
There's not non-arrogant, ignorant atheists out there, then?

Just some that use specific phrases to pretend to be less arrogant?


..What about the chance that there are actually atheists that use the "just a lack of belief" to define their thoughts on theism, because that's actually the most accurate description of their feelings....

Ok he was offering non-vague definitions.

And that's still a problem?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

My apologies, I misread what he said..
I thought he said "lack of belief", not "lack of disbelief"

 

[Desert Snake]

Editing

Hmm See I thought he was saying something that made sense in a certain manner, and not attacking the atheist position. We read that totally differently.

Still, this makes sense to me..
Atheism=there is no deity(declarative)
agnostic=I don't know if there is a deity

What is the problem here? If someone DOESN'T believe in a deity, aren't they obviously atheist? Where is the agnostic there?

This mixing of terms, it's very confusing.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Hmm See I thought he was saying something that made sense in a certain manner, and not attacking the atheist position. We read that totally differently.

Still, this makes sense to me..
Atheism=there is no deity(declarative)
agnostic=I don't know if there is a deity

What is the problem here? If someone DOESN'T believe in a deity, aren't they obviously atheist? Where is the agnostic there?

This mixing of terms, it's very confusing.

yeah, my initial post was due to me misreading, but I'll put my opinion in here,
To me, I'm among those that see gnostic/agnostic, and theism/atheism as separate things.
When someone only says their agnostic, then I assume they mean their agnostic atheists, the "I don't know, but I currently don't worship any gods"

However, there can definately be agnostic theists, who accept they can't "know" if there's a god, but will act for all reasons as if there is.

The gnostic doesn't really have anything to do with theism or atheism, it's simply a claim on whether they have "knowledge" about it or not..

It works for either theists or atheists.

Gnostic theist - I believe in god, because I know in my heart there is one.
agnostic theist - I can't honestly say I know there is a god, because that is beyond me, but I will act as if there is one, and believe there is one for all intents and purposes.

agnostic atheist - I haven't been shown there is a god, I don't know, but I see no reason to believe.
gnostic atheist - I know there is no god, for logical reasons, and evidence that I've found showing no god is needed or exists

 

[Desert Snake]

yeah, my initial post was due to me misreading, but I'll put my opinion in here,
To me, I'm among those that see gnostic/agnostic, and theism/atheism as separate things.
When someone only says their agnostic, then I assume they mean their agnostic atheists, the "I don't know, but I currently don't worship any gods"

However, there can definately be agnostic theists, who accept they can't "know" if there's a god, but will act for all reasons as if there is.

The gnostic doesn't really have anything to do with theism or atheism, it's simply a claim on whether they have "knowledge" about it or not..

It works for either theists or atheists.

Gnostic theist - I believe in god, because I know in my heart there is one.
agnostic theist - I can't honestly say I know there is a god, because that is beyond me, but I will act as if there is one, and believe there is one for all intents and purposes.

agnostic atheist - I haven't been shown there is a god, I don't know, but I see no reason to believe.
gnostic atheist - I know there is no god, for logical reasons, and evidence that I've found showing no god is needed or exists

Yeah that makes sense.

 

[s2a]

Perhaps allow then one (of many) atheists to tender some answer and further clarification that should mollify any that choose to belive, as alternative, in things (like invisible space entities) that do not exist beyond any testable proofs.

Agnostics often offer a more "scientific" reply upon prima facie evidences...a "confession" of "I do not know", et al. Fair enough, and even honest.

Atheists just manifestly state aloud that "there is/are no God(s), period".

From this perspective then, what separates or even "dares" atheists to make such proclamations?

Evidence.

The very same "evidences" that all agnostics have full and complete access.

Well then? What the heck is the difference?

Some continue to equivocate, because of..."whatever".

Some do not.

That IS the difference.

Think of such "surety" as, if you like, a matter of "faith" in fact as a "reveled truth".

Kinda like a "faith", but only dependent upon testable fact.

Does that make any sense?

 

[s2a]

................

In the context of religion(s). is there any definition relational there.

Just to wrangle all back to address the original OP...

Yes, atheists "exist".

Do "theists" exist "more"?

And, um, No to your secondary inquiry.

Any other questions?

 

[s2a]

Then there is no truth.

Not really your call.

NO. If we abide by your ascribed definition, then there is no "religious" truth.

All that remains is but testable fact...always subject to revision.

Best available answers are always beyond my call...

Just don't look to me EVER as provider of any undeniable "truths".

Fair enough?

 

[Desert Snake]

Just to wrangle all back to address the original OP...

Yes, atheists "exist".

Do "theists" exist "more"?

And, um, No to your secondary inquiry.

Any other questions?

I have no reason to think your answers are valid.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no reason to think your answers are valid.

Do you have a reason to doubt them or to disagree with them?

I happen to know that the answers are, well, both true and sort of obvious...

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you have a reason to doubt them or to disagree with them?

I happen to know that the answers are, well, both true and sort of obvious...

Of course I have reason to doubt them.

And, some answers might be right, some might be obvious, doesn't mean his answers are 'valid'. I don't consider them so, why would I?

 

[s2a]

yeah, my initial post was due to me misreading, but I'll put my opinion in here,
To me, I'm among those that see gnostic/agnostic, and theism/atheism as separate things.
When someone only says their agnostic, then I assume they mean their agnostic atheists, the "I don't know, but I currently don't worship any gods"

However, there can definitely be agnostic theists, who accept they can't "know" if there's a god, but will act for all reasons as if there is.

The gnostic doesn't really have anything to do with theism or atheism, it's simply a claim on whether they have "knowledge" about it or not..

It works for either theists or atheists.

Gnostic theist - I believe in god, because I know in my heart there is one.
agnostic theist - I can't honestly say I know there is a god, because that is beyond me, but I will act as if there is one, and believe there is one for all intents and purposes.

agnostic atheist - I haven't been shown there is a god, I don't know, but I see no reason to believe.
gnostic atheist - I know there is no god, for logical reasons, and evidence that I've found showing no god is needed or exists

Well heck, even now I am confused.

A "gnostic/atheist"?

My understanding of a "gnostic" is derived from "The Gnosis Archive", which self-defines a "Gnostic" as possessing :
"knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions."

Umm, yeah...ok. Sounds really gnostically.

Except for that "religious" part of course.

Geez, only self-identifying as an "atheist" myself (the utter opposite of any theist, or believer in supernauralistic gods/entities/space aliens/Hollywood celebrities), my levels or measurable qualities of "transcendence" are obviously waiting to evolve from within, after 56 years of existence or so. Doh. I feel so dull and uninteresting now.

Maybe time to interview Dr. Hawking again, and find out fer sure whether he might define himself as an "agnostic atheist" or a "gnostic atheist". Maybe it's on his official "atheist" card. He doesn't give away much in his secret handshake at the "atheist" meetings though...what an obvious anti-transcendentalist!

Hmm. Why is it never enough, as an ordinary atheist to simply say "I do not believe as a matter of faith or established fact" in ANY Gods or supernatural entities.?

Um, Period.

OK?

Why must any believers (or even those non-believing heathens) seek some identifying moniker or label for simple atheists? Really, I mean, what's your deal? What is the issue? Really.

An atheist is not (only) a "non-theist".
Is not an "unbeliever" (except in your designation).
This false analogy strikes me as defining another "atheist" as a "denier" of "Bigfoot", or of space aliens on a fascinating quest for intelligent life.

Maybe Bigfoot is "out there".
Show me. Simple.
Or shut the ***** up, OK?

In my understandings, "Atheists" do not waste their time in efforts to "disprove" claimed sightings of Nessie, UFO's, the Bermuda Triangle, happy thoughts/dreams, nor the cares of any doppelganger Alex Trebek.

It maybe happens, to be fair, but always remains an utter waste of time. It's like trying to debate the next fatalist that insists the end of the world is "near". Never mind that they have been demonstrably WRONG 100% of the time (so far), but hey...maybe next time....

...kinda like, well..."disprove that Bigfoot does NOT exist!"

Um, why?

Why even try to disprove any conspiracy theory or religious belief? Science has trudged along after all these centuries to continually obviate any necessity of a supernatural "cause/effect" for almost anything that can be ubiquitously measured/tested/observed. Inquiry may have religious roots, but any valued results are about as "atheistic" as they come. Because...science doesn't care about religious claims. That's not what it does. That will tick some people off, but what of it?

Perhaps there are some "atheists" that may seek dual citizenship passports, that "maybe" Canada is also kinda/sorta a "country" too...just to save time at the border when it matters...but otherwise your "beliefs" are not theirs. Not even close. OK?

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course I have reason to doubt them.

No, that is not clear at all. I assumed you wanted a demonstration of some sort, since the fact itself is as well-established as one could want.

And, some answers might be right, some might be obvious, doesn't mean his answers are 'valid'. I don't consider them so, why would I?

Because you know them to be?

I'm still trying to conceive a reason not to know them as true.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, that is not clear at all. I assumed you wanted a demonstration of some sort, since the fact itself is as well-established as one could want.




Because you know them to be?

I'm still trying to conceive a reason not to know them as true.

It has to do with credibility. As soon as the strawman arguments etc. begin, validity of opinion is questionable. You must be reading a different thread than I am.

I don't even feel it's necessary to explain why with his obvious bias I would just assume validity to his answers, whether they are correct or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

An answer known to be true is still true, even if you have every reason in the book to doubt the reliability of the source.

I don't remember any Strawmans, but then I have not looked. I fear you may be commiting an Ad Hominem while attempting to protect yourself from those supposed Strawmen, though.

 

[Desert Snake]

An answer known to be true is still true, even if you have every reason in the book to doubt the reliability of the source.

I don't remember any Strawmans, but then I have not looked. I fear you may be commiting an Ad Hominem while attempting to protect yourself from those supposed Strawmen, though.

Nope, I brought up the validity of the answers, specifically.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Well heck, even now I am confused.

A "gnostic/atheist"?

My understanding of a "gnostic" is derived from "The Gnosis Archive", which self-defines a "Gnostic" as possessing :
"knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions."

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known"
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Umm, yeah...ok. Sounds really gnostically.

Except for that "religious" part of course.
Geez, only self-identifying as an "atheist" myself (the utter opposite of any theist, or believer in supernauralistic gods/entities/space aliens/Hollywood celebrities), my levels or measurable qualities of "transcendence" are obviously waiting to evolve from within, after 56 years of existence or so. Doh. I feel so dull and uninteresting now.

Honestly, at this point, I'm wondering if you have some personal problem with me, and don't know a decent, polite way to express it.

Maybe time to interview Dr. Hawking again, and find out fer sure whether he might define himself as an "agnostic atheist" or a "gnostic atheist". Maybe it's on his official "atheist" card. He doesn't give away much in his secret handshake at the "atheist" meetings though...what an obvious anti-transcendentalist!

Hmm. Why is it never enough, as an ordinary atheist to simply say "I do not believe as a matter of faith or established fact" in ANY Gods or supernatural entities.?

Um, Period.

OK?

I don't believe in any gods. I have never been convinced otherwise. Maybe someday I will. Who are you to dictate what I call myself?

Why must any believers (or even those non-believing heathens) seek some identifying moniker or label for simple atheists? Really, I mean, what's your deal? What is the issue? Really.

You're complaining about the label I call myself, and I'm the one with the problem?
I call myself an agnostic, or weak atheist to differentiate from hard atheists.
Do you complain about different branches of christianity calling themselves other things? Or do you call out anyone who believes, and uses anything other than "theist?"

An atheist is not (only) a "non-theist".

Atheism is, by definition and etymology, "not theism" a-theism.

Is not an "unbeliever" (except in your designation).
This false analogy strikes me as defining another "atheist" as a "denier" of "Bigfoot", or of space aliens on a fascinating quest for intelligent life.

Maybe Bigfoot is "out there".
Show me. Simple.

You call me out for a false analogy, then immediately link theism to something other than god claims? Bigfoot??
Seriously.. Do you have a personal problem with me, or are you just really bad at getting a rational idea across.

Or shut the ***** up, OK?

And that's where I'm done with you.
Please take your own suggestion.
If you can't be civil in the slightest, and are just here to rant, I have no desire to engage in a worthless waste of time.

 

[s2a]

The classic examples are religions like Raelianism and some forms of Buddhism: they have a community of shared belief, practice, and philosophy, have their own rituals and services, but don't include any gods in their belief system.

They aren't freethinkers or skeptics, but they are atheists.

Ummm...

I'm trying to recall my "community" of shared "beliefs" (or all lack thereof)...

Wherein did I last commune with other atheists to share our lacking shared faiths or disbeliefs?

Ummmm...

Doh....

 

[s2a]

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known"
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair enough...so far....

Honestly, at this point, I'm wondering if you have some personal problem with me, and don't know a decent, polite way to express it.

Nope. I don't know you well enough to offer a specialized insult. Care to share?

I don't believe in any gods. I have never been convinced otherwise. Maybe someday I will. Who are you to dictate what I call myself?

Dictate? You may classify yourself howsoever you choose here. Not really my call, nor interest.

You're complaining about the label I call myself, and I'm the one with the problem?

You misunderstand. I don't care.

I call myself an agnostic, or weak atheist to differentiate from hard atheists.
Do you complain about different branches of christianity calling themselves other things? Or do you call out anyone who believes, and uses anything other than "theist?"

Yep.

Atheism is, by definition and etymology, "not theism" a-theism.

And then what is "atheism"? Hmmm...?

You call me out for a false analogy, then immediately link theism to something other than god claims? Bigfoot??
Seriously.. Do you have a personal problem with me, or are you just really bad at getting a rational idea across.

You are a lousy spokesperson.
Bigfoot is a conjured entity with zero credible evidences.
I don't know you (again). Straw men make poor bodyguards.
Oh, and yes, you smell kinds funny, since you asked.

{quote]And that's where I'm done with you.
Please take your own suggestion.
If you can't be civil in the slightest, and are just here to rant, I have no desire to engage in a worthless waste of time.[/quote]

Fair enough...coward.

Speak your mind, then run as fast as you may.

Doubtless...someone will erect a statue to such brave character...in the face of such empty words... (I feel the lasting shame even now)