Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

[Atheologian]

Atheists claim that God does not exist. This goes against everything man has learned about his "soul", or "spirit" and the natural world around us. In a discussion of the nature of God, does an Atheist have anything useful to say? How can you comment on something you don't believe, therefore could not possibly comprehend?

 

[Atheologian]

I'll start by saying I have heard this argument over and over, and, of course they do. The argument of most devout people is that we can't comprehend, because we don't believe, but that is not true. It's easy to forget that many atheists were once religious, i think, and that we know what "faith" is, we just choose not to see it as a virtue.
I think in some instances, they do have a place in theological matters, particularly when those matters involve the community or civilization as a whole.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm an atheist because theists believe their imaginary little God friend is real.

 

[Atheologian]

I'm an atheist because theists believe their imaginary little God friend is real.

lol, but, what argument would you have for someone that says, since you don't believe in their imaginary friend, you can't talk about him?

Also, when does his belief, if ever, encroach on your personal liberty, freedom, happiness, etc.

For example, what if he believed, by divine right, he was entitled to your lawn mower?
On the other hand, what if he believed he was charged by the Lord to give you money each week, to show good will? Would you still interfere?

 

[Willamena]

I'm an atheist because theists believe their imaginary little God friend is real.

So, you're an atheist because you like to caricaturize? That's a good reason.

 

[Atheologian]

I need to say, before anyone starts flaming, that I am not asking for proof or disproof of God, or suggesting one way or another on his existance/non-existance. It's an objective question, posed hypothetically.

 

[Willamena]

It's not an objective question. It takes a side.

 

[dogsgod]

I need to say, before anyone starts flaming, that I am not asking for proof or disproof of God, or suggesting one way or another on his existance/non-existance. It's an objective question, posed hypothetically.

No need to discuss proof of any sort, nor existence. God is a belief I don't share in, therefore I'm an atheist. Done.

 

[Alceste]

All of the debates I get into where atheism informs my opinions have to do with the role of religion in society or the usefulness of religion in ethics, and little if anything to do with god/s.

There are a few atheists in here who go on the occasional tirade to try to disprove "god", but since they have to pick one particular version of "god" in order to do this I think they're no better than "one true church" theists. I'm pretty sure the majority are more concerned about the dangers of the religious theocratic movement than the non-existence of god.

 

[Atheologian]

It's not an objective question. It takes a side.

that's what an objective question does.
It presents a question from one or more points of view, and asks you to argue it out logically.
Being "objective" means being able to consider other points of view and weigh them equally against your own.
Posing an objective question requires you to take one of those positions, regardless of your own, in order to give the discussion a place to start. By starting in the middle of the road, with a neutral position, you get just that kind of discussion. middle of the road.

 

[Atheologian]

All of the debates I get into where atheism informs my opinions have to do with the role of religion in society or the usefulness of religion in ethics, and little if anything to do with god/s.

There are a few atheists in here who go on the occasional tirade to try to disprove "god", but since they have to pick one particular version of "god" in order to do this I think they're no better than "one true church" theists. I'm pretty sure the majority are more concerned about the dangers of the religious theocratic movement than the non-existence of god.

I think that's an important point. Even for the religious, a sense of what is good for humanity as a whole should take precedence over what is good for the church, or religion as a whole. I don't think I am overstepping any boundaries there.

 

[gnomon]

Atheists claim that God does not exist.

Not necessarily.

This goes against everything man has learned about his "soul", or "spirit" and the natural world around us.

Not necessarily. Especially considering the great variations on the idea of the soul and that there are some atheists who do believe in the spirit.

In a discussion of the nature of God, does an Atheist have anything useful to say?

Anything an atheist says is practically as useful as anything a theist can say about the concept of God.

How can you comment on something you don't believe, therefore could not possibly comprehend?

Belief does not necessarily lead to comprehension nor does comprehension imply belief.

 

[Willamena]

that's what an objective question does.

Just the opposite. Objectivity takes no side.

Being "objective" means being able to consider other points of view and weigh them equally against your own.

No, that's open-minded. Objectivity is no point of view.

 

[freethinker44]

that's what an objective question does.
It presents a question from one or more points of view, and asks you to argue it out logically.

I think you mean unbiased.

 

[Atheologian]

Just the opposite. Objectivity takes no side.


No, that's open-minded. Objectivity is no point of view.

Objectivity is all points of view. No point of view is called IGNORANCE

 

[Atheologian]

I think you mean unbiased.

No, unbiased means not taking one side or another, not the ability to take all sides.
Has anyone in this forum ever taken a creative writing class?

Whether the topic is posed objectively or not is irrelevant anyway. Willamena seems to enjoy derailing a conversation far more than adding something to it. Don't help her.

 

[Atheologian]

Not necessarily.



Not necessarily. Especially considering the great variations on the idea of the soul and that there are some atheists who do believe in the spirit.



Anything an atheist says is practically as useful as anything a theist can say about the concept of God.



Belief does not necessarily lead to comprehension nor does comprehension imply belief.

you don't have to argue that to me, I am an atheist. What kind of things would you say?

 

[Willamena]

Objectivity is all points of view. No point of view is called IGNORANCE

I get that you're not able to be objective. I get that.

 

[Willamena]

Atheists claim that God does not exist. This goes against everything man has learned about his "soul", or "spirit" and the natural world around us.

In what way?

How can you comment on something you don't believe, therefore could not possibly comprehend?

You tell me.

 

[gnomon]

you don't have to argue that to me, I am an atheist. What kind of things would you say?

Discussions of the historical aspects of theistic belief and discussing what specific gods in different cultures mean for that culture.

Would it make sense for an atheist to engage in a discussion where theists are describing what God means for them? I would say no.