What does it mean to be an Atheist ( not a mocking thread)

[Polymath257]

Basically, these atheists are liars. They believe that gods don't exist, yet they know they can't possibly defend that belief with the same requirement of evidence that they demand from everyone else for their beliefs, so they feign "unbelief" and claim they don't have to defend it. It's just linguistic misdirection meant to avoid being honest and forthright about what they believe and why they believe it.

There is a subtle difference between not believing Gods exist and believing that no Gods exist.

And, whether you like it or not, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim. It requires no evidence to not believe in, say, gnomes. The same is true for Gods. But you would demand evidence if i said I believe in gnomes. That is why I ask for evidence in Gods prior to belief.

 

[columbus]

Errr, surprise, you're a theist.

Why?
Because you think that the dictionary is Holy Writ?
I don't. I don't even believe in the concept of human writing that is so "True" that recognizing it's authority is a requirement.
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

In my opinion, atheists are those following the educated line of reasoning that a belief must be supported by evidence. Or else doubting it is legitimate. This line of reasoning however is fallacious. While it's true that doubting a belief is legitimate, humans don't actually rely on evidence to approach a truth (of any kind). There are several reasons for humans to abandon such a an sound-to-be plausible approach. 1) digging evidence is never efficient. 2) humans lack the capability of digging evidence, thus 3) evidence are not available to humans.

The example I used many times as of late is,
When a friend told you that he had a big meal on Christmas, that remains the only way such a fact can convey. Demanding evidence for this historical event itself is a joke. You have 3 meals a day, 1000 meals a year. So by age 31 you already had more than 30,000 meals in your life. Show us the evidence of the food contents of any single 1 of them. If you can't, nor can the 7 billion humans in this world. You can't gather any evidence of 30,000 x 7 billion meals of today's humans by assuming an average age of 30!

Evidence? What is it, other than a joke?

Evidence is the basis of all knowledge. Now, in the case of your friend, you know it is common to have large meals in Christmas and you probably have no other reason to doubt his claim, nor is it significant for anything else. So why doubt the statement?

On the other hand, if you knew your friend was a habitual liar and that he might well be bragging about how much he spent on the Christmas dinner, and you knew in other ways that he didn't have anyone to invite over nor the funds to present a large meal, you might well disbelieve or require some other evidence (statements from others that were there, for example) before you believe him.

More, if your friend claims to have some very valuable property in Florida that he wants to sell you for cash, you would be well advised to doubt him without more evidence. The amount of evidence will depend on how much investment you are asked to contribute.

So, trivial claims that are about common activities or events may not be doubted so much. But significant claims about uncommon events or activities will be unless some other evidence is given.

So, do you consider the existence of a God to be trivial and common? or non-trivial and of significance?

 

[rrobs]

Hi Rrobs

There is a few things that can happen to a human being when dying, but i dont see it as dying
1: if one attain enlightenment one go to the heaven or paradise one belong to according to what spiritual path we have followed. Example christians go to paradise, Buddhists to Nirvana and so on.

2: If we have lived a ok morally life we can be reborn as human beings, but if we have to much karma we can risk being reborn in the 3 lowest realm of animals/hungry ghosts or Hell. (hell in buddhism is not a permanent state of existance)

3: maybe it is over when we die?

When it comes to God i have no evidence of a creator God, but i do belive that gods exist, and i do not say Christian belief or other religious beliefs are wrong But i chosen Buddhism as the path i cultivate

Thanks for the reply Amanaki.

I failed to read the little profile box on our original post. I just assumed you were an Atheist by the content in the post. That's why I asked the question I asked. I pretty much knew the Buddhist view of death which is what you gave me in your nice reply.

Maybe a genuine Atheist will read my question and get back to me.

God bless...

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hello again.....

Much to some Atheist member's irritation, I have classed myself as a kind of atheist........ this is how I see one kind of atheism.

I am a Deist. Deists tend to believe in an uninvolved, disinterested or unaware Deity.

I am not a Theist. Theists tend to believe in an involved, interested or aware God.

And so, being a non-theist, I am a kind of atheist. With any luck, in time, Deism and Theism definitions will be properly separated. At present some folks insist that Deism is a kind of Theism, which is daft.

Well, by definition you are NOT an atheist, because you very clearly state: I BELIEVE in an uninvolved, disinterested or unaware deity. You DO have a belief in a deity, that ALL that's required to make you a theist. The fact that you believe in a disinterested deity makes no difference at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, @rrobs

Since you opened the question, please allow me:

Just curious; what do you think happens to people after they die?

Some Buddhists seem to believe that there is some form of, for lack of a better word, spiritual footprint that might return in a newborn at some point.

I don't believe in that, personally. People just die. I am not a supernaturalist.

I see neither evidence nor convenience for anything resembling an afterlife.

Of course, I do believe that while we are alive we leave consequences of our existence that may be of some impact on others. In that sense, and in that sense alone, I think that we may live on after our deaths.

 

[charlie sc]

Why?
Because you think that the dictionary is Holy Writ?
I don't. I don't even believe in the concept of human writing that is so "True" that recognizing it's authority is a requirement.
Tom

From what you've said, according to my definitions, you classify as a Satanist Buddhist utilitarian Pieitarian. Oh, and I'm an angel. Don't worry, let's not talk about definitions; they're not important.

 

[Yerda]

I describe myself as an atheist and I mean that for every version of god I've considered I've rejected them or found them too vague to get my head around. There are some ideas that seem plausible but that's it. I'm not anti-theist, if there were gods that seemed likely to me I'd become a theist.

For myself, I vary from ignostic (thinking the term 'deity' is too ill defined to be meaningful) to fairly strong atheist (I don't think the term 'supernatural' is meaningful), to flirting with pantheism (the universe is an appropriate object of worship). At times I even go to apatheism (I don't care if deities exist), but that is rare.

This is similar to how I shift about on the notion of god.

I can get myself quite close to imagining a plausible natural deity by considering ever expanding frames of reference and I seem to end up picturing somewhere like a universal mind. Then I remember I need to do the washing and ideas like that immediately seem silly.

Basically, these atheists are liars. They believe that gods don't exist, yet they know they can't possibly defend that belief with the same requirement of evidence that they demand from everyone else for their beliefs, so they feign "unbelief" and claim they don't have to defend it. It's just linguistic misdirection meant to avoid being honest and forthright about what they believe and why they believe it.

I agree there is sometimes some sleight of hand with framing in terms of evidence and how 'positive' their beliefs are and it generally has the function of reducing the burden of defending their position. Debate forums are places where people play rhetorical games and we all sometimes 'cheat' a bit. Maybe calling them liars is a rhetorical move with the effect of heading off certain types of later move?

 

[HonestJoe]

Maybe a genuine Atheist will read my question and get back to me.

Atheism doesn't have anything much to do with your question (of what happens after death), that's the point of most of the answers to the OP question. I could give you my personal answer but different atheists could give entirely different ones, just as different theists would.

 

[charlie sc]

Just curious; what do you think happens to people after they die? I'd be interested to hear an answer from someone like yourself who lacks a belief in god.

As one atheist, I'll enlighten you. I would love an afterlife to exist, preferably something nice. Who the hell wants a meaningless life in the absolute sense or a mortal life, pffff? What probably happens is nothing, a bit like when you smash your mobile-phone against some rocks and you have a particularly strong arm. As an atheist, or person, I'm not interested in fantasies if they're not true. Don't get me wrong, I love fantasy and sci-fi but that's a different context. It's entertaining

 

[rrobs]

Atheism doesn't have anything much to do with your question (of what happens after death), that's the point of most of the answers to the OP question. I could give you my personal answer but different atheists could give entirely different ones, just as different theists would.

That makes sense. I suppose it would odd if all the people in any group agreed on anything. That's appears to be the human condition.

I believe the scriptures contain absolute truth, but that doesn't mean I have a corner on truth or anybody else has it. Indeed, I don't see them saying Jesus is God or that God is a trinity, so among Christians I'm a big time pariah. A mere 500 years ago I would have been burned at the stake for thinking that, and to this day I've been condemned to eternal hell fire by many of my bothers and sisters (what's with the obsession of fire I wonder?). But I digress. If the scriptures are the truth as given to various men via divine revelation, it in no way guarantees that everybody who reads them will agree on the content. So it's no surprise that Atheists, or any belief system for that matter, can't agree with each other.

Take care...

 

[rrobs]

As one atheist, I'll enlighten you. I would love an afterlife to exist, preferably something nice. Who the hell wants a meaningless life in the absolute sense or a mortal life, pffff? What probably happens is nothing, a bit like when you smash your mobile-phone against some rocks and you have a particularly strong arm. As an atheist, or person, I'm not interested in fantasies if they're not true. Don't get me wrong, I love fantasy and sci-fi but that's a different context. It's entertaining

I think you will get your wish for an afterlife. I also think the orthodox churches have got things screwed up beyond repair when it comes to the subject.

Just for your entertainment, I'll tell you what I understand the scriptures to say. I'm in no way asking you to believe it. I just think it may be a different twist on what you've heard from the aforementioned "fubar" church doctrine.

1) When we die on this earth we die. There's no floating up to heaven or going down to hell.

Ecclesiastes 9:10,

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.​

In simple terms, dead people are dead. That right there is believed by few, including 99% of Christians. I don't think I'm "interpreting" anything here. It's pretty simple grammar, without any big words.

2) For those who believe in Christ, he will return and gather them together with him.

1Thess 4:17,

Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
​

The "we" (the second word) is, from the preceding context, folks who accepted Christ as their Lord. Once again, no complicated sentence structure. Just says what it means and means what it says. No interpretation necessary.

Even before they die, Christians have already been judged and found OK.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
​

Most Christians, I suppose in an attempt to show humility, go bananas when I tell them they are as righteous as God, but I don't know how else to read this verse. In any case those who accept Christ are guaranteed a seat in paradise, not because of their work, but because of Christ's work.

3) As to those who didn't accept Christ, all is not lost. I'll stop quoting verses for the sake of brevity (I'll be glad to give them to you later if you wish), but suffice it to say that after Christ gathers the together the Christians, there will be two resurrections of the non-Christians. During those judgments God will grant eternal life in paradise to those who, although they didn't accept Christ, nonetheless lived decent lives. I strongly suspect that will be the case for the vast majority of people. The scriptures say many times that He will judge people by their hearts. People, especially Christians unfortunately, judge by appearance. They seem to want to take God's job over, but that's another story. The really nasty people (again can't see who by appearances, not our job) will quietly go back to the grave where they will no longer exist. They will be back to the state of no consciousness mentioned above in Ecclesiastes.

4) Scripturally, the lake of fire is for devil spirits, not for people.

That's probably more than you wanted to know, but there it is. I trust it is at least a different take on what you may have been taught, directly or indirectly, by the churches.

Take care...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

From what you've said, according to my definitions, you classify as a Satanist Buddhist utilitarian Pieitarian. Oh, and I'm an angel. Don't worry, let's not talk about definitions; they're not important.

Definitions are important, but literalism is myopic and without nuance. Many terms in philosophy and theology have meanings detached from their root word meaning, or detached from their etymology, or have contextual definitions. And we shouldn't ignore that. Or we get caught up in repetitive arguments where people can't possibly grasp that Satanism and Buddhism, for example, includes both theistic and atheistic worldviews, or that utilitarian is an umbrella for many meta ethical (and theological) positions and meant different things to different philosophers through history.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Basically, these atheists are liars.

I don't think it's entirely necessary to begin by tossing around the word "liars." Not, in my view, a particularly charitable way to begin. [/QUOTE]

They believe that gods don't exist, yet they know they can't possibly defend that belief with the same requirement of evidence that they demand from everyone else for their beliefs, so they feign "unbelief" and claim they don't have to defend it. It's just linguistic misdirection meant to avoid being honest and forthright about what they believe and why they believe it.

Why do you feel it necessary to deny what people tell you? I myself have said many times that there really is a difference between "I do not believe X" and "I believe X is false." To say "I don't believe gods exist," rather than "I believe God does not exist" is not "linguistic misdirection," but rather a carefully considered statement of how I and others really see the world.

Recall the comic strip "Peanuts," in which Linus van Pelt truly and sincerely believed in the Great Pumpkin, while nobody else did. Linus could provide no shred of evidence for his belief, but that did not stop him from believing. Theists, likewise, can show no shred of evidence for their belief in a God active in the world, or for almost anything else that they believe is a consequence of this God's activity and concern. They still believe it. And worse, they usually insist that there is no point in even bothering to produce evidence. Usually, they'll cite Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" but all that does is beg the question.

Let me be very clear, and try not to "linguistically misdirect." I do not believe in any gods because my experience of life, my training, and my personal observation for lo these now 71 years has provided zero evidence against the idea, and a rather large amount of evidence that contradicts what I understand is believed by those few major religions that I know anything about.

I feel quite the same way about Communism, even though I've read Marx. I have looked at Communism in the context of human nature, and I've seen how that ideology has fared, and it has not fared well. Even, surprisingly, while China continues to pretend that it is a Communist nation, it clearly is not, and it is developing quite a lively capitalism in spite of its own internal denial of any such thing.

But while I think that Communism, in every version so far tried, doesn't work, I cannot state definitively that there is not a way for some variety of Communism, that includes a real understanding of human nature, might not. In the same, while I do not believe in the existence of gods, for all the very real reasons I've given, I cannot be absolutely certain that there isn't something hidden from me that is simply beyond my understanding.

Now, here is the real point of this long post: even though I can't be sure that there isn't something hidden from me that is beyond my understanding, there is absolutely zero reason that I should try to behave in some special, peculiar way -- just in case there is! It is something that I am convinced I can safely ignore. And that's where most atheists are...

 

[charlie sc]

I think you will get your wish for an afterlife. I also think the orthodox churches have got things screwed up beyond repair when it comes to the subject.

Just for your entertainment, I'll tell you what I understand the scriptures to say. I'm in no way asking you to believe it. I just think it may be a different twist on what you've heard from the aforementioned "fubar" church doctrine.

1) When we die on this earth we die. There's no floating up to heaven or going down to hell.

Ecclesiastes 9:10,
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
In simple terms, dead people are dead. That right there is believed by few, including 99% of Christians. I don't think I'm "interpreting" anything here. It's pretty simple grammar, without any big words.

2) For those who believe in Christ, he will return and gather them together with him.

1Thess 4:17,

Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
The "we" (the second word) is, from the preceding context, folks who accepted Christ as their Lord. Once again, no complicated sentence structure. Just says what it means and means what it says. No interpretation necessary.

Even before they die, Christians have already been judged and found OK.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Most Christians, I suppose in an attempt to show humility, go bananas when I tell them they are as righteous as God, but I don't know how else to read this verse. In any case those who accept Christ are guaranteed a seat in paradise, not because of their work, but because of Christ's work.

Thank you for the thought, but ummm I don't necessarily mind dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Also, I think cryonics is a thing. And of course, it's always nice to have a good surprise.

but suffice it to say that after Christ gathers the together the Christians, there will be two resurrections of the non-Christians. During those judgments God will grant eternal life in paradise to those who, although they didn't accept Christ, nonetheless lived decent lives.

Oh, I see. So non-Christians get second class seats, huh?

 

[rrobs]

Oh, I see. So non-Christians get second class seats, huh?

No, not all. Eternal life in paradise is eternal life in paradise. Nobody will care how they got there. At least I can't imagine why they would.

 

[charlie sc]

Definitions are important, but literalism is myopic and without nuance. Many terms in philosophy and theology have meanings detached from their root word meaning, or detached from their etymology, or have contextual definitions. And we shouldn't ignore that. Or we get caught up in repetitive arguments where people can't possibly grasp that Satanism and Buddhism, for example, includes both theistic and atheistic worldviews, or that utilitarian is an umbrella for many meta ethical (and theological) positions and meant different things to different philosophers through history.

My reply was sarcastic and uses of his own logic against him. I offer something even more ridiculous but with the same logic said person uses. Therefore, in order to remedy it, they need to either accept the ridiculousness of it or examine how they use their own logic. I realise this method is rather crude, but I find it's effective against people who outright use assertions.
I understand the value of definitions, usages and the context they're used, but I find what can be worse is talking passed each other. Remember, the current argument is not how he uses the definition of theism/atheism(even though I would like to know how he got to this point in the first place) but it's the claim that this particular definition is the mainstream.

 

[charlie sc]

No, not all. Eternal life in paradise is eternal life in paradise. Nobody will care how they got there. At least I can't imagine why they would.

So you don't like first class seats or wouldn't take them if you had the opportunity?

 

[rrobs]

So you don't like first class seats or wouldn't take them if you had the opportunity?

Classes are a man made concept, not God's. But if you want to think in terms of class, all the seats in paradise would be first class.

Take care...

 

[charlie sc]

Classes are a man made concept, not God's. But if you want to think in terms of class, all the seats in paradise would be first class.

Take care...

By the way, if I see you at the airport and we're going on the same flight, I guess you'll give me your first class seat and I'll give you mine. We're going to the same destination anyway.
Take care to you my friend and no take backsies!