The Paradox of Atheism and God

[Echogem222]

I understand scientists are not all the seekers of truth people make them out to be. They maybe like you.

So you've chosen to go that route. Okay. I'm done. I've explained enough.

Ok, you're just being a troll, got it.

+++

(Your response, which implies that scientists (and myself) are not seekers of truth, is an example of an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument attacks the character of the individual (or group, in the case of scientists) rather than addressing the actual content or substance of the argument presented. It is something trolls often do. Trolling is often characterized by the use of inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or disrupting normal, on-topic discussion. Using ad hominem attacks can be a way to deflect from the actual argument and provoke the other person into responding with emotion rather than reason. It can be a tactic to derail the conversation, divert attention away from the subject at hand, and create a hostile or unproductive environment for discussion.)

+++

If, as per your argument, our existence cannot be explained through evolutionary processes due to the complexities involved, it would equally be illogical to attribute our existence to a designer or a creator. The concept of design implies formation from pre-existing elements or principles, and if these can't be scrutinized or understood scientifically, then attributing our existence to a creator doesn’t resolve the complexity; it merely shifts it. How can we logically conclude a designed creation if the design process itself is incomprehensible or unexplained?

 

[dybmh]

An atheist is more accepting of evidence

Online-atheists? Not when it comes to discussing the stories in the OT. If the online-atheist is wrong about the details of the story, no amount of evidence is accepted.

 

[dybmh]

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?

Only?

I think that would be a god that did not want to be experienced by a vast majority of people.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

God is an atheist so there you go.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Sure maybe?

Personally, I'm neither interested in the question of a god or gods existence or their expectations because the thing I'm most wary of is not using my own judgement and instead outsourcing it to someone else claiming to be Source of Truth (trust me bro), be they scribe, interpreter or something more. I think virtue ethics is sometimes lazy and often dangerous, way moreso than considering for yourself the consequences to actions before you, yourself act, without trying to reference someone else's manual of morals.

So, that said, if there is a God or gods and it or they are cool with that than neat, we aren't at odds. But neither do I have any particular need to interact with them because their input wouldn't effect my beliefs or behavior anyway. I'd, at most, wave to said God or gods like they were a neighbor out to get coffee and I see them across the street. (This is assuming a dualist interpretation. If nondualism i wouldn't bother waving because I am as much God as anything else.)

So I sometimes call myself am apatheist because the existence of gods really doesn't matter to me, and an agnostic because I don’t claim to know for sure (or even think knowing for sure is possible). But practically speaking I'm an atheist because I conduct my affairs as if there isn't one. And try my best to evaluate the day to day based on its own merit. No gods or devils or afterlife required.

 

[Unfettered]

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.

All interesting things to consider. My understanding of atheism, generally—and this constitutes, perhaps, the greatest impediment to a given atheist finding the path to God—is that it is an a- theistic position. Meaning, "against God" or "one who denies God," etc. If that is correct, then it is that prejudice of the question that would seem, to me, to doom the atheist to indefinite ignorance on the question. Because that which is denied is denied without evidence, not because of evidence. IE, "I deny the existence of God because I have no evidence of God." How is that any different than denying any other thing simply because one cannot observe the thing? Or, even if one changes the position to "I deny the existence of God because I have evidence that seems to conflict with the idea of God's existence," the atheist still denies on the basis of that which he does not know, rather than what he knows, or can observe.

IE, atheism is not inherently scientific, but inherently dogmatic. It is as "religious" as is theism in the sense that it informs the atheist's understanding of things that transcend the natural world.

Ironic, if you ask me.

 

[Heyo]

All interesting things to consider. My understanding of atheism, generally—and this constitutes, perhaps, the greatest impediment to a given atheist finding the path to God—is that it is an a- theistic position. Meaning, "against God" or "one who denies God," etc. If that is correct, then it is that prejudice of the question that would seem, to me, to doom the atheist to indefinite ignorance on the question. Because that which is denied is denied without evidence, not because of evidence. IE, "I deny the existence of God because I have no evidence of God." How is that any different than denying any other thing simply because one cannot observe the thing? Or, even if one changes the position to "I deny the existence of God because I have evidence that seems to conflict with the idea of God's existence," the atheist still denies on the basis of that which he does not know, rather than what he knows, or can observe.

IE, atheism is not inherently scientific, but inherently dogmatic. It is as "religious" as is theism in the sense that it informs the atheist's understanding of things that transcend the natural world.

Ironic, if you ask me.

Are you an a-fairy-in-my-garden-ist? An a-UFOlogist? An a-Quezalquotlist?
Is that because of evidence you have or because of evidence you lack?

 

[Unfettered]

Are you an a-fairy-in-my-garden-ist? An a-UFOlogist? An a-Quezalquotlist?
Is that because of evidence you have or because of evidence you lack?

Good question. Let's look at just the first one and use it as the model for the others:

I do not believe that there are fairies in my garden. I have no cause to believe so, honestly. Does this make me an afairies-in-my-gardenist? No, it does not. Why not? Because I don't care about the question. At all. If someone wants to believe there are fairies in my garden, more power to him. If someone is a fairies-in-my-gardenist, good for him. And if there is an afairies-in-my-gardenist out there, I hope he and the fairies-in-my-gardenist treat one another with kindness and respect in their disparate beliefs.

 

[Heyo]

Good question. Let's look at just the first one and use it as the model for the others:

I do not believe that there are fairies in my garden. I have no cause to believe so, honestly. Does this make me an afairies-in-my-gardenist? No, it does not. Why not? Because I don't care about the question. At all. If someone wants to believe there are fairies in my garden, more power to him. If someone is a fairies-in-my-gardenist, good for him. And if there is an afairies-in-my-gardenist out there, I hope he and the fairies-in-my-gardenist treat one another with kindness and respect in their disparate beliefs.

So you are more of an apath-fairies-in-my-gardenist?

 

[ChristineM]

Online-atheists? Not when it comes to discussing the stories in the OT. If the online-atheist is wrong about the details of the story, no amount of evidence is accepted.

The stories in the OT are not generally evidenced, a few places are and these are accepted as having existed based on the evidence.

However god magic is not evidence but please feel free to provide the falsifiable evidence you claim

 

[PureX]

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.

Contrary to their own bloated opinions of themselves, I have not found atheists to be any more inclined toward reason, logic, or evidence than anyone else is. In fact, because they SEE themselves this way, they tend to be as blinded to their own irrationality and bias as the most zealous religious theists are.

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?

There is no logical reason to listen to people that make such proclamations when they could not possibly know their claims to be so. And yet the atheists will take this silly bait almost every time. Not very logical of them, is it.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God.

Does anyone even need a "pathway to God"? Is God lost that we need to find it? Are we lost in some Godless place that we need to find our way out of? Or, isn't the whole "lost" idea just a metaphor for other people holding to a different brand of awareness than ours?

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.

The fact that we don't know is why we are free do decide these answers for ourselves.

 

[ChristineM]

Contrary to their own bloated opinions, I have not found atheists to be any more inclined toward reason, logic, or evidence than anyone else. In fact, because they SEE themselves this way, they tend to be a blind to their own irrationality and bias as the most zealous religious theists.

There is no logical reason to listen to people that make such proclamations, when they could not possibly know their claims to be so. And yet the atheists will take this silly bait every time. Not very logical of them.

Does anyone even need a "pathway to God"? Is God lost that we need to find it? Are we lost in some Godless place that we need to find our way out? Or, isn't the whole "lost" idea just a metaphor for other people holding to a different brand of awareness?

The fact that we don't know is why we are free do decide these answers for ourselves.

I assume that is your own bloated opinion based on your hatred of atheism.

 

[wellwisher]

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem with this definition of Atheism, is Buddhism is considered one of the largest world religions, but it has no deities. According to your definition Buddhism would be an example of an Atheist Religion. Buddha was a human who transcended his human ego nature; several operating system updates. This is more like the IT of the human brain, which is sort of my approach, with a Christian flavor, since all roads lead to Rome.

This example of an atheist religion, suggests that there should be other Atheist religions. We need a new definition of religion that is not designed to ignore possible atheist religions, so they can avoid all the separation of church and state restrictions, that they have imposed on all the deity religions.

Imagine if Atheism could not be taught in Public Schools, due to being a type of religion, that is built upon the dogma of a negative premise. Living, based on a negative foundation, may not be healthy. That is sort of what has been imposed on others. Doesn't seem fair, right?

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion was designed to allows all to speak of their religions, with each newbie person having more options to find their own way, without any one religious group forcing everyone down just one religious cattle chute. This may not fit all, and will create fanaticism to compensate inner doubt.

 

[1213]

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.

This world with all unrighteousness and evil certainly feels something that could be called hell. But, Bible tells hell (=Gehenna) is a place where soul and body are destroyed.

Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Matt. 10:28

So this world is not the same, also because God's kingdom still is on earth also.

And being questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God comes, He answered them and said, The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, Lo, here! Or, Lo, there! For behold the kingdom of God is in your midst.
Luke 17:20-21

 

[ChristineM]

The problem with this definition of Atheism, is Buddhism is considered one of the largest world religions, but it has no deities. According to your definition Buddhism would be an example of an Atheist Religion. Buddha was a human who transcended his human ego nature; several operating system updates. This is more like the IT of the human brain, which is sort of my approach, with a Christian flavor, since all roads lead to Rome.

This example of an atheist religion, suggests that there should be other Atheist religions. We need a new definition of religion that is not designed to ignore possible atheist religions, so they can avoid all the separation of church and state restrictions, that they have imposed on all the deity religions.

Imagine if Atheism could not be taught in Public Schools, due to being a type of religion, that is built upon the dogma of a negative premise. Living, based on a negative foundation, may not be healthy. That is sort of what has been imposed on others. Doesn't seem fair, right?

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion was designed to allows all to speak of their religions, with each newbie person having more options to find their own way, without any one religious group forcing everyone down just one religious cattle chute. This may not fit all, and will create fanaticism to compensate inner doubt.

Tldr except the first paragraph. I suggest that if you don't like the definitihon you could always write to the lexicographers of each dictionary and ask them to change it to your bias.

 

[PureX]

The problem with this definition of Atheism, is Buddhism is considered one of the largest world religions, but it has no deities. According to your definition Buddhism would be an example of an Atheist Religion. Buddha was a human who transcended his human ego nature; several operating system updates. This is more like the IT of the human brain, which is sort of my approach, with a Christian flavor, since all roads lead to Rome.

This example of an atheist religion, suggests that there should be other Atheist religions. We need a new definition of religion that is not designed to ignore possible atheist religions, so they can avoid all the separation of church and state restrictions, that they have imposed on all the deity religions.

Imagine if Atheism could not be taught in Public Schools, due to being a type of religion, that is built upon the dogma of a negative premise. Living, based on a negative foundation, may not be healthy. That is sort of what has been imposed on others. Doesn't seem fair, right?

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion was designed to allows all to speak of their religions, with each newbie person having more options to find their own way, without any one religious group forcing everyone down just one religious cattle chute. This may not fit all, and will create fanaticism to compensate inner doubt.

The problem is that way too many people both religious and non-religious, alike, think theism and religion are the same things, and that they are both entirely based on one's 'belief'. Both assumptions, however, are quite wrong. Religion is not theism and theism is not religion. So being anti-religion does not make one an 'atheist'. And neither theism nor atheism are properly defined by what anyone believes or doesn't believe.

But at this point so much bias and bigotry is being based on these false assumptions that those who hold them will simply not give them up. Nor will they listen to reason. So they just keep on spewing and perpetuating this nonsense, endlessly.

 

[ChristineM]

So they just keep on spewing and perpetuating this nonsense, endlessly.

Do you include yourself in this claim?

 

[PureX]

Do you include yourself in this claim?

No. I am able and willing to recognize the difference between theism and religious belief. So I am therefor able to recognize and understand what atheism is, and that it is not the refusal to believe in any religion's depictions, stories, or proclamations about the nature or existence of their gods.

 

[ChristineM]

No. I am able and willing to recognize the difference between theism and religious belief. So I am therefor able to recognize and understand what atheism is, and that it is not the refusal to believe in any religion's depictions, stories, or proclamations about their gods.

You have not shown any understanding of atheism. All you have done is shown bias and bigotry against it.

Atheism is well and precisely defined, you'll do well to look it up rather than making it up to suit your ego

 

[blü 2]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God,

Others may think it's the observation that God never appears, says or does, and doesn't appear to have a description appropriate to a real being, so that the word "God" doesn't denote any real thing.

but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God?

What definition of "God" are we using?

What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence?

I define objective reality as the world external to the self which we know about through our senses. If we can't find a real God there ─ and so far we can't ─ then God is only a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain, no?