How I Feel About Atheists

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I appreciate your insight and thoughts, I really do. But I just disagree with most of them, concerning this topic.
I'm not going to expand my thoughts, reasons, beliefs, etc...any further . You know what I believe and I understand what you believe.
We just disagree. Also, there are many words and ideas you use that are not purely objective but are subjective and open to interpretation. I can't go through all of these. It would be pointless. You have your reasons to believe what you do and I have mine. You seem reasonable enough and intelligent enough to accept and understand that everything you believe is not necessarily what is "fact" or set in stone. It may be, but not necessarily. Your name would imply this : It Ain't Necessarily So. That title applies to your world views and framework as well.

Thank you for a polite and good-natured discussion. Yes, all of my beliefs are tentatively held since I understand that even the most certain ones might be wrong.

Incidentally, in case you were unaware, "It Ain't Necessarily So" is the title of a song from the musical Porgy and Bess: "The things that you're liable to read in the Bible, it ain't necessarily so"

 

[LuisDantas]

There are plenty of comments on this thread that indicate their authors have rejected the possibility that any gods exist apart from the human imagination.

And such is the case for many atheists. Many others don't even have anything to reject. So?

Atheism is not just skepticism.

Nor does it require skepticism, although there is a significant statistical correlation between the two.

And few of the self-declared atheists, here, are merely skeptical. They are fully in the camp of having rejected the possible existence of any gods. They just don't like to admit that directly because they know they can't defend it any more than the theists can defend their assertions that gods do exist apart from their imaginations.

You are confused. To the extent that anyone might have to justify their beliefs regarding the hypothetical literal existence of any deities, it would be the theists.

Many myths have some basis in actual historical events. But it is NOT the purpose of mythology to document or convey historical events. And so even if they begin with some historical event, they are soon morphed and exaggerated to convey the ideals of the cultures that create them. That's what mythology is for: to embody and convey the ideals of the cultures that create and use them. Not to present a factual history.

Fair enough. But that is a criticism to be directed towards those who present such myths as having historical accuracy, not towards those who doubt that accuracy.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I have told you that I do not reject the possibility of a god or gods existing. Are you going to tell me that that doesn't qualify as atheism to you? If not, perhaps you should reexamine your definition.

My definition of atheism is logical and reasonable. So are my observations about why so many atheists want to avoid my definition. If you think my definition of atheism is wrong, then you should be able to offer better reasons for why that would be so.

But whatever you choose, you won't be able to get the definition I just gave you out of the dictionaries or out of common usage. You won't stop agnostic atheists like me from calling ourselves atheists.

Being agnostic does not effect whether one is an atheist, or a skeptic. I am also agnostic, and a theist. Being agnostic only means that we can't reach our decision regarding the existence of gods, through acquired knowledge. But we can still reach a decision, and lots of atheists and theists do so, in spite of this agnosticism. We just do so via a different criteria. So your being an atheist or a skeptic does not rest on your agnosticism. It rests on your position relative to the possibility of the existence of gods. Not on any presumed knowledge of their existence, or lack of it.

So perhaps you should allow atheists to define themselves rather than telling them what they must believe to call themselves atheists.

I am defining atheism as what it is. You can define yourself however you want. But I won't allow for or play into anyone's lies, or delusions. I know what atheism is, and what it isn't. And it isn't agnosticism, nor is it open-minded skepticism. It's the conviction that no gods exist, and that "God" is an imaginary entity that occurs only in the minds of many human beings, but that exists nowhere else.

 

[Polymath257]

My definition of atheism is logical and reasonable. So are my observations about why so many atheists want to avoid my definition. If you think my definition of atheism is wrong, then you should be able to offer better reasons for why that would be so.
Being agnostic does not effect whether one is an atheist, or a skeptic. I am also agnostic, and a theist. Being agnostic only means that we can't reach our decision regarding the existence of gods, through acquired knowledge. But we can still reach a decision, and lots of atheists and theists do so, in spite of this agnosticism. We just do so via a different criteria. So your being an atheist or a skeptic does not rest on your agnosticism. It rests on your position relative to the possibility of the existence of gods. Not on your presued knowledge of their existence, or lack of it.
I am defining atheism as what it is. You can define yourself however you want. But I won't allow for or play into anyone's lies, or delusions. I know what atheism is, and what it isn't. And it isn't agnosticism, nor is it open-minded skepticism. It's the conviction that no gods exist, and that "God" is an imaginary entity that occurs only in the minds of many human beings, but that exists nowhere else.

if you think that it is not the case that God only occurs in the minds of human beings, please provide evidence of this. it seems to be directly counter to your previous encouragement to use imagination to determine ones ideas about God.

 

[PureX]

Definition of atheism

If your argument rests on dictionary definitions, and common language use, you have no real argument. Because we humans use language as much to confuse and obscure and deny reality as we do to try and clarify it.

 

[PureX]

Yes, atheism rejects the idea that a god exists.
But it is not an irrational decision, it is a decision based on evidence or to be precise the total lack of evidence.
Give me evidence, I will reconsider.

You claim that the lack of evidence is your evidence in support of atheism, and yet you also claim that the same lack of evidence negates theism. You have no evidence of your own, and yet you demand it from others.

Can you guess why I might have so little respect for such a position?

 

[jonathan180iq]

If your argument rests on dictionary definitions, and common language use, you have no real argument. Because we humans use language as much to confuse and obscure and deny reality as we do to try and clarify it.

...Says the guy who started a discussion using his own definitions and assertions, told other people what they believe, tells them why their claimed beliefs are bad, and refuses to accept any variance from those faulty premises...

"If you could only see things my way, then you'd know I'm right!"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not sure that it amounts to "rejection of the possibility," but there are so many possibilities that one might wonder why someone would simply settle for one such possibility and declare it to be a "true religion" when there are so many other possibilities.

Good point. The agnostic atheist has rejected no possible gods, whereas the gnostic theist has rejected the possibility of every god but one.

 

[Altfish]

You claim that the lack of evidence is your evidence in support of atheism, and you you also claim that the same lack of evidence negates theism. You have no evidence of your own, and yet you demand it from others.

Can you guess why I might have so little respect for such a position?

"Atheism" and "negates theism" are the same thing!!
Believe it or not, the 'lack of evidence' is my 'evidence' for the non-existence of gods. It is the basis upon which I arrive at the position of atheism.
Do you believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I thought not. Why not? Do you have evidence for its non-existence?
As I repeatedly say on here, point me at the evidence and I will consider it and maybe change my mind.

I guess your lack of respect is because you don't understand my position.

 

[PureX]

To the extent that anyone might have to justify their beliefs regarding the hypothetical literal existence of any deities, it would be the theists.

That's the fantasy that these "unbelief" atheists are trying to promote. But it's BS. Because atheism IS A POSITION, and therefor requires just as much justification as any other.

But that is a criticism to be directed towards those who present such myths as having historical accuracy, not towards those who doubt that accuracy.

I'm not here to promote or defend "Bibliolatry".

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

You're correct on this particular one. Mistake on my part.

And I know ID hypothesis isn't popular in most scientific circles. I only said science does offer some facts that can lead to an ID. I am more of a skeptic on this matter because I see scientific theories and hypothesis change quire often over time as new research and ides are postulated. There are some articles I have read that non religious , non ID biased scientists have written about how their studies have led them to the very possible reality of an ID. Their studies on the nature of DNA and the improbability of proteins forming are so astronomical as to be virtually impossible. The science gets very , very deep. But it makes plausible sense to me. I can find these articles if you wish. But it seems that any scientific papers or journals I may put forth you will not entertain or accept due to you concrete belief in the matter. And your beliefs are perfectly valid. But I believe there is quite possibly real science that can suggest and lead one to believe that there maybe an ID behind our natural existence. And again , why do all ideas have to be in popular scientific journals to be valid ? Popular mainstream medium of any sort can always have an agenda and hold power and money that can become designed to only present certain ideas while leaving out what they might not want others to discover for personal reasons. Not that this is always the case, but it is the case in many different arenas that only have their interests at hand, including scientific medium. So I am more of a a skeptic when it comes to all popular mainstream medium. It's similar to the biased news media channels. So some of the material I have read by scientists on this topic you would probably dismiss But I am not so dismissive of "alternative' journals and books because these people may not have any agenda and may actually be on to something as intelligent and enlightening as any other mainstream scientist or journal.Look at Nikola Tesla .Albert Einstein and countless other scientists who were deemed crazy and whose ideas and hypothesis were extremely criticized but later were accepted ..This may not happen with ID hypothesis but it makes enough sense to me that I also think it could become an accepted possibility in the scientific community. ID hypothesis has grown and is growing in the scientific community. This should demand some serious insight and acknowledgment. It is a hypothesis that might not be able to be proven, but scientific evidence can lend itself to the real possibility of an ID and could quite possibly, one day, point to the probability of one.

 

[PureX]

...Says the guy who started a discussion using his own definitions and assertions, told other people what they believe, tells them why their claimed beliefs are bad, and refuses to accept any variance from those faulty premises...

"If you could only see things my way, then you'd know I'm right!"

And yet in all my "wrongeness", and in 21 pages of posts, no one has managed to explain how I am wrong. Imagine that!

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

"Atheism" and "negates theism" are the same thing!!
Believe it or not, the 'lack of evidence' is my 'evidence' for the non-existence of gods. It is the basis upon which I arrive at the position of atheism.
Do you believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I thought not. Why not? Do you have evidence for its non-existence?
As I repeatedly say on here, point me at the evidence and I will consider it and maybe change my mind.

I guess your lack of respect is because you don't understand my position.

Give me the evidence that there is no possibility that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[PureX]

I guess your lack of respect is because you don't understand my position.

I don't think even YOU understand your position. And I've heard it all before, in every permutation you can imagine. And still, it's nonsense. No evidence is not evidence. Ignorance is not validation. And I don't think you have a clue why this is so.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm interested in the science that can reasonably point to the possibility of an ID

I'm not aware of any.

What finding do you think would favor an intelligent designer over blind, unguided processes?

Also, I'm pretty much done reading the ID papers. They are universally disappointing. They either have no findings in support of an intelligent designer or they are opinion pieces.

We must comprehend things differently because what I read supports the ID hypothesis.

Rather than providing just links, perhaps you can also supply the text in the papers you read that you think supports ID. You forgot to answer, "Which of those papers do you think supports the intelligent design hypothesis? I looked at the titles and supplied text of about a half dozen of them and didn't see anything about intelligent design. Some challenge evolution, but which found evidence of an intelligent designer?"

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Give me the evidence that there is no possibility that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That Spaghetti Monster analogy is senseless. We are talking about he possibility that there is a Creator/Intelligent Designer behind our existence. Not a specific type of concrete entity, but a higher intelligence, which may have countless forms or no form at all. Do you ever wonder how we came into existence ? Or do you never contemplate that ? It is the most fundamental thought every human that ever existed has contemplated. What is your hypothesis on how we exist at all, how the universe exists at all ? Do you agree that we exist ? There must have been a process or first cause which led to our existence. Give me the proof. Give me the evidence of what caused our existence and the universe. If you lack the evidence then you don't believe in our existence because you said you require evidence and that lack of evidence is why you don't believe in the possibility of a Creator or Intelligent Designer. Do you believe we just came into existence by some chance or unknown process ? If so, where is that evidence.

 

[Koldo]

...Says the guy who started a discussion using his own definitions and assertions, told other people what they believe, tells them why their claimed beliefs are bad, and refuses to accept any variance from those faulty premises...

"If you could only see things my way, then you'd know I'm right!"

I wish I could rate this post as 'Winner' multiple times.

 

[PureX]

Give me the evidence that there is no possibility that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And there is evidence.

For one thing, existence as we experience and understand it is totally 'designed'. In fact, that's what scientists study: the design of physical existence. If there were no design, there would be nothing for scientists to study, and no way for them to study it. Also, everything that exists, exists in an interwoven net of cause and effect. Such that it would be illogical to assume that existence, itself, is somehow NOT caused, when everything that exists, is.

These observations do not constitute proof, but they certainly qualify as evidence.

 

[Koldo]

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design : Article : Nature

I must confess I was surprised when I read 'Nature' on your link.

Then I proceed to read the article and....

"The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington."

Okay then...

 

[Polymath257]

That Spaghetti Monster analogy is senseless. We are talking about he possibility that there is a Creator/Intelligent Designer behind our existence.

And that this creator is the FSM.

Not a specific type of concrete entity, but a higher intelligence, which may have countless forms or no form at all. Do you ever wonder how we came into existence ? Or do you never contemplate that ? It is the most fundamental thought every human that ever existed has contemplated. What is your hypothesis on how we exist at all, how the universe exists at all ? Do you agree that we exist ? There must have been a process or first cause which led to our existence.

Why? More specifically, why does there need to be a cause? Let alone a first cause? Why does there need to have been a *process*? ALL of those concepts involve a pre-existing time, but time is part of the universe, not something separate from it. So, logically, the universe itself *cannot* be caused.