The Paradox of Atheism and God

[PoetPhilosopher]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? I still see this as an interesting question. However, I feel it maybe isn't the most precise question to ask? I think science is most likely to come up with the "answers". And there are theist and atheist scientists. What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? I still see this much as a possibility. What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? I still see this as a possibility. Though, the "transcendent" part gets murky and debatable. Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with. I now see this subject as a whole subject all on its own.

Some people may say that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible, but what is hell? I still see this as a good question. Is it a literal place of fire and torment, or is it a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others? As I now see, some theists, not all, may see it as both. Is hell something that God imposes on us, or something that we impose on ourselves? Still a philosophical question I'm not sure about. Is hell eternal, or can it be overcome? Still a question I'm not sure about, really. It may actually be the "wrong" question to ask, as well.

Perhaps hell is just especially real if one makes it a fear of theirs and a mental reality. I still see this as making some philosophical sense. Perhaps hell is the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence. I still see it this way. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Still see this. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death, but something that we experience in life. I'm still thinking this sentence over.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. I probably could have worded this a bit better. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. I think instead, I should have just said "Atheists may be closer to the true nature of things" rather than "The nature of God". By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. I still may see this as a possibility for atheists and agnostics. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion. This part could have been worded better, but I still haven't changed my opinion much on this as of yet. I'm thinking things through, though.

Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do. Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom. I still see the possibility of this.

Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God. I still see this as a possibility, but in regards to some, I think it's not accurate to say they don't fully reject God, if they assert that they do fully reject him. So, I think I could have worded this more carefully.

It's been two days and my thread has over 250 replies. If I didn't learn anything from such a long thread with so many posters posting, I'd probably count myself as dense.

So, I'm now going to respond to my OP myself, with what's written in bold, with my current take on it.

 

[metis]

In my semi-humble opinion, I distinguish between "atheism" and "agnosticism" this way:

atheism = believe there are no gods.

agnosticism = no belief one way or the other.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like the claim that people commit moral crimes because their religions tell them to?

I didn't claim it.
Only that it was a possibility.
Read better.

At least I was able to explain why that's logically a false claim.

There's more to logic than claiming its use.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

In my semi-humble opinion, I distinguish between "atheism" and "agnosticism" this way:

atheism = believe there are no gods.

agnosticism = no belief one way or the other.

That's a good basic definition. Though in some debates, more complex definitions may be needed.

 

[metis]

That's a good basic definition. Though in some debates, more complex definitions may be needed.

Mine aren't complex? Do you have any idea how many days and hours it took for me to come up with this???

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Mine aren't complex? Do you have any idea how many days and hours it took for me to come up with this???

One thing I might say about agnostics, is that some of them, may just kind of stand back, and think both atheists and theists are asking the wrong questions. Or that they both have it wrong as it stands. This position could lend itself to misunderstanding in debates, possibly, too.

 

[ChristineM]

"You're demanding "falsifiable evidence" for the details within a mythical religious story? WHY??? How can you not understand that this is a completely insane demand? ... And even if the person you're talking to doesn't understand this, YOU SHOULD! And if neither one of you understands this, ... then I guess you deserve each other."

Many people consider the stories to ve real, im surprised you don't understand that

 

[Unfettered]

I believe that God exists in in objective reality since God does not exist only in our minds.
Objective refers to a reality that is outside of your mind, and subjective refers to the inner reality of your mind.

However, I do not believe that God has form and shape, eyes, a nose, arms, etc. or that God looks like you and me, nor do I believe that humans look like God.

The Bible says that God is Spirit, which means that God is not a flesh human, nor does God have the qualities of a flesh human..
That humans were made in the image of God means that we were made with the capacity to reflect the spiritual qualities of God, not that we can reflect the physical qualities of God. Since God is not a physical being, humans cannot reflect physical qualities of God.

I believe that God has a mind, so God reasons, feels, thinks, and loves, but the Mind of God is not like the mind of a human since God is not a human.

I believe that God is the Father of us all, but only in a figurative sense. God cannot be our father in a biological sense since God is not a human.

I appreciate our differences of understanding. I offered what I did as a foundational element in a broader discussion, so it's not something I want to debate. If you do not understand God as I do, you must go with what you understand. If either of us decides at some point that we might need to consider what the other has offered, we'll then have a good discussion about why we don't understand the same thing. My door is always open if yours is.

 

[Revoltingest]

If someone said Harry Potter is the headmaster at Hogwarts, and Dumbledore is actually Voldemort in disguise, is that murky?

Those are clear declarative statements.

How about Star-Wars? If someone says Yoda initiated the murder of all the "younglings" in Star Wars 3, is that murky?

Ditto.
But Harry Potter & Star Wars are much
better & more clearly written than scripture.

 

[Revoltingest]

Claiming "scripture's meaning is murky" is making a claim about the details of the story.

No, I claim that believers infer greatly different meanings.
This I label "murky".

That means doing so would include you in the category I described.

Woo hoo!
It's like joining a club!

 

[Trailblazer]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

I do not believe that atheism is a rejection of God. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.
I believe that God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim. I believe that God is a personal being, but only in a certain sense. I believe that God has personality, including the capacity to reason and to feel love, but God does not reason or feel love the way humans do since God is not a human.

I believe that God is a transcendent reality that can only be known through the Messengers of God, which is the only evidence for God.
All we can know of God are some of His attributes and His will for any given age, which is revealed by the Messenger of God who was sent for that age. We can never know the essence of God, God's intrinsic nature. Not even the Messengers know that.

I do not believe that God can be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence, because I do npt believe that God can be experienced.
However, I believe that logic and reason must be applied to the evidence.

Some people may say that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible, but what is hell? Is it a literal place of fire and torment, or is it a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others? Is hell something that God imposes on us, or something that we impose on ourselves? Is hell eternal, or can it be overcome?

I do not believe that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible. I do not believe that hell is a literal place of fire and torment. I believe hell is a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others, and I also believe it is distance from God; not physical distance but distance in our heart. I do not believe that hell something that God imposes on us. I believe it is something that we impose on ourselves, although I don't believe it is that cut and dry, since distance from God is not always a choice. Of course, nobody know what the afterlife will be like, but I do not believe that hell is 'necessarily' eternal.

“It is even possible that the condition of those who have died in sin and unbelief may become changed—that is to say, they may become the object of pardon through the bounty of God, not through His justice—for bounty is giving without desert, and justice is giving what is deserved.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 232

Perhaps hell is just especially real if one makes it a fear of theirs and a mental reality. Perhaps hell is the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death, but something that we experience in life.

I believe hell the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence, the absence of love, compassion, and peace, although it is more than that. We can experience hell both in this life and after death. I believe the sum total of our personality, who we were in this life, carries over to the afterlife, which is really no more than a continuation of this earthly life in a spiritual world. If we were in hell (figuratively speaking) in this life we will be in hell in the next life. The same applies to heaven, which is the opposite of hell.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion.

I agree that by living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God, and that by rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them.

I have posted primarily to atheists for most of my time on various religious forums, for about 10 years. The issue at hand is that atheists are looking for evidence for God that does not exist, and they reject the only evidence for God that does exist, the Messengers of God. In so doing, they miss out on a what they could know about God's attributes and God's will for humans.

Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do. Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom.

I don't know what God cares about, so I don't know if God cares as much about what we believe as what we do. The only reason I think God cares what be believe is because it is beneficial for us to believe what God has revealed through His Messengers, not because God need any benefits. God is fully self-sufficient so God has no needs. The value of belief is that if one believes in the teachings and laws of God and follows them that will affect their behavior.

I believe that God wants us to worship and respect Him, but only for our own benefit, since God has no need to be worshiped or respected.
I believe that God calls for our obedience, but God does not demand our obedience, since God wants us to use our free will to choose to obey or not.

Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God.

Atheism could be a path to discovery of God if atheists did not reject what God offers as evidence of His existence.

 

[dybmh]

Nope,its because we speak 2 different languages, you will never understand me and i will never understand you so there is no point in continuing. It's always the same when we try to communicate. I should realise it will never change so...

Not true. We speak the same language. I gave the definition of falsifiable. It's true and accurate. I don't need to interview ALL online-atheists to have evidence. 1 example is evidence. 2 is better. wating you do it again in this thread is the icing on the cake.

I make no false claims, it's not who i am, but you make claims about atheists based on ignorance, bias and dare i say, hatred.

HAH! listen to you. as if you are perfectt andd can'r make a mistake or misinterpret due to your own bias. WOW.

The sky is blue, blood is red, you deny evidence... 'nuff said. It's objective as can be. All you need to do is admit you were wrong after seeing the evidence and that's the first step to showing I'm wrong. Heck. Any example would be good. But, you don't have any.

I don't hate you. I think it's silly and misguided and ignorant and hypocritical what you and the others do. Guess what? That makes you human.

And sorry to break it to you but belief is not evidence, and certainly not falsifiable evidence.

I haven't once brought "belief" as evidence. I brought you quotes. What you said, what you did. I predicted the behavior, it was expressed in real-time, in this thread.

What you're observing right now is me spiking the american football. And why shouldn't I? It feels good. It feels really really good.

 

[dybmh]

No, I claim that believers infer greatly different meanings.
This I label "murky".

You said "Some of us don't argue scripture. I find that it's meaning is murky." It's meaning = Scripture's meaning

"Some of us don't argue scripture. I find that scripture's meaning is murky."

If you want to abandon that claim we can move on to discuss this new / different one. If you don't want to, that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[ChristineM]

Not true. We speak the same language. I gave the definition of falsifiable. It's true and accurate. I don't need to interview ALL online-atheists to have evidence. 1 example is evidence. 2 is better. wating you do it again in this thread is the icing on the cake.




HAH! listen to you. as if you are perfectt andd can'r make a mistake or misinterpret due to your own bias. WOW.

The sky is blue, blood is red, you deny evidence... 'nuff said. It's objective as can be. All you need to do is admit you were wrong after seeing the evidence and that's the first step to showing I'm wrong. Heck. Any example would be good. But, you don't have any.

I don't hate you. I think it's silly and misguided and ignorant and hypocritical what you and the others do. Guess what? That makes you human.



I haven't once brought "belief" as evidence. I brought you quotes. What you said, what you did. I predicted the behavior, it was expressed in real-time, in this thread.

What you're observing right now is me spiking the american football. And why shouldn't I? It feels good. It feels really really good.

Yawn

 

[dybmh]

Yawn

That's because you have nothing to say in rebuttal. You've demonstrated the phenomena I described, added another example / more evidence to the list. And been wrong repeatedly about what it means to provide falsifiable evidence.

Because of this, it makes sense that you would make a false claim about the virtues of atheists in regard to accepting evidence. You don't seem to understand what those words mean or there is a double standard where applying them.

This is not bias. It's demonstrable fact.

 

[dybmh]

"You're demanding "falsifiable evidence" for the details within a mythical religious story? WHY??? How can you not understand that this is a completely insane demand? ... And even if the person you're talking to doesn't understand this, YOU SHOULD! And if neither one of you understands this, ... then I guess you deserve each other."

My friend. I understood. I explained the situation. @ChristineM either did not understand my claim, or was hasty reading it, or perhaps was setting up a strawman. After this mismatch was explained with quotes and screenshots, I gave the falsifiable evidence of my own *actual* claim. This evidence was, naturally, not accepted adding to the support of what I said.

 

[ChristineM]

That's because you have nothing to say in rebuttal. You've demonstrated the phenomena I described, added another example / more evidence to the list. And been wrong repeatedly about what it means to provide falsifiable evidence.

Because of this, it makes sense that you would make a false claim about the virtues of atheists in regard to accepting evidence. You don't seem to understand what those words mean or there is a double standard where applying them.

This is not bias. It's demonstrable fact.

Stop guessing to massage your ego.

 

[Revoltingest]

You said "Some of us don't argue scripture. I find that it's meaning is murky." It's meaning = Scripture's meaning

"Some of us don't argue scripture. I find that scripture's meaning is murky."

If you want to abandon that claim we can move on to discuss this new / different one. If you don't want to, that makes perfect sense to me.

I don't understand what's bothering you.

 

[dybmh]

Why because @dybmh said he was probiding falsifiable evidence. Please keep up.

Wow. No. What @PureX is observing is your request for falsifiable evidence was completely irrational based on your incorrect rendering of the claim I made.

And now there's just more and more reasons that I am correct about my assertion that online-atheists cannot accept evidence that is counter to theiir mythology. In this case, the myth is, theists do not understand claims and evidence. Showing you this is wrong, using evidence produces denial. The evidence is not accepted for no rational reason.

 

[ChristineM]

My friend. I understood. I explained the situation. @ChristineM either did not understand my claim, or was hasty reading it, or perhaps was setting up a strawman. After this mismatch was explained with quotes and screenshots, I gave the falsifiable evidence of my own *actual* claim. This evidence was, naturally, not accepted adding to the support of what I said.

It was not falsifiable and when asked you could not explain how it was falsifiable. What you gave was your opinion, opinion is not evidence of any sort