I'm an atheist. Ask me anything.

[aymen amir]

Either yes, you expect us to believe that, or no, you don't. Does what I said sound reasonable and correct to you?

i started practising ISLAM after i understood it ...before i studied it i was labelled as a Muslim but not a follower of Islam

 

[Storm]

Not quite.

OK.

I think a god is a spiritual being, one without a material body--a being who cannot be perceived with our senses. And what I'm saying is that for me, I think "being subject to being perceived" and "existing" are functionally equivalent. If something "exists" in some sense, but has no measurable effect, cannot be perceived with any sense, and has no measurable effect that can be perceived with any sense, then regardless of whether it may "exist" in some sense, it can be treated as non-existent for all intents and purposes.

It seemed to me that the very definition of a god is a being that cannot be perceived with any sense. So we need to look for some measurable effect. And there aren't any.
[emphasis added]

OK, this is much more reasonable than what I initially thought you were saying. However, there's a serious flaw: while accepting the most common definition of "God" (which is perfectly reasonable), you simultaenously ignore the attendant belief that humans are equipped with spiritual senses capable of perceiving it. You can't do that, the two are inextricably linked.

So that's why I'm a strong atheist, and why I don't consider that a faith position.

I think I understand your reasoning now. Thanks for your patience.

How would you define the word "god?" Not, who or what do you think God is, but how do you define that word to include all known gods, Krishna, Zeus, Changing Woman, etc?

I would go with "Supreme Being(s)."

I don't see why multiple definitions are invalid, though. There are, after all, multiple concepts.

I'm trying to address the god-concept by definition. People have a tendency to be a bit vague on that definition.

Sad but true.

It doesn't address pantheism, or really is almost equivalent to it. I haven't thought about Panentheism.

Forgive me, but I'm trying to nail down your position. Would you say you're a strong atheist wrt to these concepts as well, or is it limited to theism?

I agree with Victor Stenger and Richard Dawkins that YWHW/Allah is subject to scientific investigation, (depending on what people even mean by that, but the traditional version), and can be eliminated based on empirical evidence. So I guess that's strong atheism as well, since it's an affirmative statement that God does not exist.

OK.

And may you be preserved from it; it's the apologetics of annoyance.

LOL!

 

[Autodidact]

i started practising ISLAM after i understood it ...before i studied it i was labelled as a Muslim but not a follower of Islam

Why are you telling us this? What does it have to do with the questions I've asked you?

 

[Autodidact]

OK, this is much more reasonable than what I initially thought you were saying. However, there's a serious flaw: while accepting the most common definition of "God" (which is perfectly reasonable), you simultaenously ignore the attendant belief that humans are equipped with spiritual senses capable of perceiving it. You can't do that, the two are inextricably linked.

Yes, if we in fact have some kind of spiritual perceptive faculty, then that's how we perceive God, and God, if She can be perceived with it, could be said to exist.

But I'm sure you're aware (or it would need a new thread) of some of the problems with that idea. When we talk about a sensory perception, we can generally agree on what we're looking at, at least to some extent. But people's "perceptions" of God don't match at all, are so wildly different that I don't think it's even in the same category as seeing or feeling. I mean, we can't all feel a rock and have 3 of us say we feel nothing, 4 say it's fuzzy, 2 say it's squishy, 1 say it feels like 2 rocks, and 1 feel a rock. That's not how sense perception works. That sounds to me a lot more like something in the brain, such as hallucination or temporal lobe stimulation, than it does like sense perception.

I think these religious experiences (which I've read a lot about, and are interesting) are better explained as brain occurrences than God sightings.

I agree that they are evidence for God, but insufficient evidence to be persuasive.

btw if everyone who had them reported anything remotely similar, the evidence would be much stronger. What seems to happen is that people have experiences, which are interpreted by them as fitting into whatever religion they were raised in.

I would go with "Supreme Being(s)."

I think that's too vague. If you're an ancient Chinese atheist, wouldn't the emperor be God then?

I don't see why multiple definitions are invalid, though. There are, after all, multiple concepts.

Then I have to analyse each definition separately.

Forgive me, but I'm trying to nail down your position. Would you say you're a strong atheist wrt to these concepts as well, or is it limited to theism?

I think pantheism is atheism with a reverent attitude. I don't think I know enough or have thought enough about Panentheism to have a position. That might make a good thread.

 

[Storm]

Yes, if we in fact have some kind of spiritual perceptive faculty, then that's how we perceive God, and God, if She can be perceived with it, could be said to exist.

But I'm sure you're aware (or it would need a new thread) of some of the problems with that idea. When we talk about a sensory perception, we can generally agree on what we're looking at, at least to some extent. But people's "perceptions" of God don't match at all, are so wildly different that I don't think it's even in the same category as seeing or feeling. I mean, we can't all feel a rock and have 3 of us say we feel nothing, 4 say it's fuzzy, 2 say it's squishy, 1 say it feels like 2 rocks, and 1 feel a rock. That's not how sense perception works. That sounds to me a lot more like something in the brain, such as hallucination or temporal lobe stimulation, than it does like sense perception.

I think these religious experiences (which I've read a lot about, and are interesting) are better explained as brain occurrences than God sightings.

I agree that they are evidence for God, but insufficient evidence to be persuasive.

btw if everyone who had them reported anything remotely similar, the evidence would be much stronger. What seems to happen is that people have experiences, which are interpreted by them as fitting into whatever religion they were raised in.

There are similarities, but I don't want to hijack your thread with them. Thank you for clarifying your position.

I think that's too vague.

A necessity imposed by your requirements.

If you're an ancient Chinese atheist, wouldn't the emperor be God then?

I don't know enough about ancient Chinese culture to answer that.

Then I have to analyse each definition separately.

Isn't that the responsible thing to do, anyway?

I think pantheism is atheism with a reverent attitude.

Sometimes, but not always. For instance, some pantheists believe in a unifying consciousness in the cosmos.

I don't think I know enough or have thought enough about Panentheism to have a position. That might make a good thread.

I'd be happy to participate in it.

 

[Charity]

My first question that comes to mind is, will I ever be rich?
In all seriousness do you believe there will ever be a time when people can live together and except each other as they are or are we doomed to have bigots and hatred as long as the world goes on?

I accept people for who they are and don't give a rat's butt about their sexual preference, their choice when it comes to religion, or the fact they have their own opinion. I just wish we could live without being force fed from each other. This is one reason I don't attend church much anymore, I feel like most of the people carry a measuring stick to see if others can measure up to their high standards and morality......

My mother always told me, "there is some good quality about everyone" sometimes you just have to look a little harder but it's there.........

 

[Kerr]

i have general ideas about other religions and they don't make sense to me

A little hint. Most things does not make sense when you just have a general knowledge about it. For example the whole trinity thing can be a bit confusing in Christianity, but when you gain more knowledge it would probably make far more sense. Just as the whole thing about jews, Christians and Muslims sharing the same God, it didn´t make sense to me until I looked into it. And I am still not sure it makes that much sense to me, but I never digged to deep into it but rather I just asked. General knowledge is just that, general, if you want things to make sense you have to study them more closely then "general".

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know enough about ancient Chinese culture to answer that.

Or it's tautological. I don't think it's accurate. For example, if there are no Gods, then the "Supreme Beings" might be national rulers, but they're not Gods. (Except in Japan.)

 

[Autodidact]

OK, I'll ask you something:

Why does ear and nose hair grow so much faster on old men than on young ones?


I've always wondered about that...

I was going to try to come up with a smart *** response, but...I got nothin' (should retitle thread: Ask me anything, although I may not have an answer. )

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is basically my whole story; you've really hit the nail on the head. Skeptic => freethinker => atheist. Once I started thinking skeptically, which is to say scientifically, I decided to try that approach in general. It seemed to me I should be willing to question anything. So I must be a free-thinker, which I thought meant someone who is willing to question anything. I didn't even know it commonly is applied to atheists. So when I started googling "free thought" and the like, I stumbled across atheism. So I asked myself whether I could question the existence of God. Well, that's filed under "anything," so I did. Then the thought process I've talked about in my responses to Storm, and voila, Bob's your uncle, bing bang boom...atheist!

ETA: So I guess science does corrupt faith! :devil:

Funny - for me it was kinda the reverse.

First, I thought long and hard about the question of god, until I realized I was an atheist, not just an agnostic as I had been calling myself before (which I think I really only did because I hadn't thought much about religion, and incorrectly figured that "agnostic" was a good label to apply for someone who wanted to stay non-commital). Then, I got introduced to the skepticism movement through various atheist web sites, podcasts, etc., and looked into it. I realized pretty quickly that I had been a skeptic all along without realizing it.

Parallel to this, I heard about freethought. Initially, I just ignored it. I first thought that the term was a way of just making atheists out to be smarter than theists, which I didn't think was really helpful. However, while I kept thinking about it in the back of my mind, I ran into a number of awful arguments for atheism, and also thought a great deal about how I'd want to raise my children. It was during this time, I realized that it wasn't the endpoint of atheism that was the most important thing for me (especially in raising a child), but the process of free inquiry, critical thinking and rational thought. I realized that I was just as opposed to unthinking atheism as I was to unthinking theism. It was then that it dawned on me what freethought was all about, and I suddenly saw the appeal.