Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

I always believed that atheism is not believing in God, and not believing in organized religion is being agnostic. I am an agnostic because I have a strong faith on God but don't believe in organised religion, I believe religion is divisive whereas God wants us to connect and overcome our differences . It's really interesting to see how people's belief systems vary.

If you know God exists, you technically aren't agnostic. I don't know specifically how you see yourself, but a common label is "Deist." Deism is in a nutshell what Islam really is (no hate, please, I know it's more complicated than that). Deists believe that God is a necessity within our universe, but God is just "up there." He watches and holds the universe together, basically, but doesn't really have that much concern for human activity. He might as well not exist; HOWEVER, the deist argument from my experience is mostly used to try to convince Christians that their view of God isn't special, nor does it even really make much sense. The deist will attempt to persuade that the Christian that his view of God is more of a projection of man onto God, that man creates God in his own image. Not that ONLY deists make that argument, but I see it more with deists than with other. I find them difficult to dialogue with, but it's more lack of practice. I'm more used to atheists and agnostics, whereas deists DO believe that a god exists. So then it becomes about pulling them away from the notion that God doesn't interact with His creation.

I'm not a huge fan of organized religion for its own sake. I think a lot of Christianity is fraught with negativity. If something is a sin, call it a sin. Fine. But don't dump on all of humanity as though looking after ourselves as individuals is immoral. The message I get a lot at church is about the worthlessness of humanity. Ok, compared to God, we're worthless. But if God wants us with Him eternally, He's MADE us worthy. The role of organized religion should be to encourage, build up, and heal. It's unbelievers who are condemned. So why preach condemning messages to the faithful? Negative messaging is valuable in the sense that it is a warning. If someone is greedy or envious, they OUGHT to feel guilty. But someone who works hard and lives well because God has blessed him? He has nothing to feel guilty for. And the poor shouldn't be made to feel that poverty is all God has to offer on earth. Much of the messaging encourages the poor to stay poor, the miserable to stay miserable, and for the corrupt to continue operating without question. Well...my family has been poor for decades now. So I'll have to exercise a LOT of restraint not to slap the next person who says "bloom where you're planted."

I stay on with organized religion because I remain hopeful that it's not always this way, that this is just a thing where I happen to be at them moment. I feel my interactions with others have been mostly positive. Organized religion can be a big help if you let it. You just have to be careful that you don't fall in with a negative crowd who makes you feel guilty for everything, or the opposite--people who want to sell you on wishful thinking.

Theist someone who knows god exists.
Atheist- knows god doesn't exist.
Agnostic- someone who admits to not knowing either way. Also can be someone who believes "no one can know for sure".

You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. Believe either way, but admit not knowing.

Sometime "agnostic" is erroneously thought of as being "in between" theist and atheist. But it is not. A religious person (who ascribes to an organized religion) can be agnostic, as can an atheist.

Early Christians were sometimes referred to as atheists for teaching monotheism. In a similar sense, you might say I’m also an atheist. I just disbelieve in one less God than most others who claim to be atheists.

Sounds like you're misquoting Bertrand Russell, and misquoting him in a way that makes no sense.

Betrand Russell said to the Archbishop of Cantebury "I disbelieve in your god for the same reason that you don't believe the many gods of ancient Greece and Rome. I just believe in one fewer god than you believe in."

you're an Evangelical. So you believe in one god. Atheists believe in zero gods. So how is one less than zero?

There is really no "creed" amongst atheists. There shouldn't be, anyway. However I have met some self-proclaimed atheists who are very ignorant of the history of their own religions (the ones they grew up with, then rejected for whatever reason appealed to them at the time) - and thusly I cannot have a rational argument/debate with them, as they can become hostile in response to my ideas/opinions. There are many levels/definitions to the idea of atheism, just like there are to "healthy eating". The human condition is indeed very complex.

Atheists believe in un-baptizing people with hair dryers.

Seriously - I don't believe in afterlife, rapture, Biblical Armageddon, demons, angels, magic, and a lot of that - but I do believe in God and a higher force that helps you do the things you couldn't do on your own. I'm not overly religious. Maybe I'm just a Jedi. But I do believe in something.

Nah, it makes sense if you think about it.

Atheists disbelieve in ALL gods and God. I DISbelieve in one fewer. In other words, I disbelieve in all but one.

Russel says he believes in one less. I’m saying I disbelieve in one less. It also reflects one of two strands of atheism. One the one hand, there is the “There is no God. Period. End of story.” Ok, but that’s a statement that requires some sort of argument or some kind of evidence to prove. Most atheists I’ve interacted with wouldn’t go that far. They would say “I don’t believe that there is a God.” It’s not the same thing as saying with certainty that God doesn’t exist. It’s saying, in other words, “It is my opinion and belief that there is no God. I’m not saying whether there is a God or not. I’m just saying I do not believe. So leave me alone and go bother someone else.” I could just as easily say, “I do not believe that there is not a God.” But unlike the second “I do not believe...” atheist, I “do not believe” that having faith in God (or not) actually affords anyone, believer or unbeliever, that much margin for doubt.

Atheists make the same complaint about the religious. The religious often don't even know squat about their own religions that they are defending, cant quote scripture as well ascan some atheists, and so on. Many Evangelical Protestant Americans have never even heard of the Protestant Reformation, nor of Martin Luther.

Christians talk about "atheism" (which is not a creed, so much as it is the absence of a particular belief/creed) as if it were a creed analogous to Christianity which is absurd. Like they think that Atheists will line up to see the face of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens if it appears on a loaf of bread...and that the Atheist will declare it a miracle!

And yes. Western Atheism has differing levels. And (I semi take back what I said somewhere above) in the East (and for Westerners influenced by Indian thought) you could even be an Atheist and still have metaphysical beliefs (like in Karma).

You got me. Like a trick question.
My bad.

you're turning Russell's quote on its head.

Atheists DIS believe in all of thousands of dieties worshipped by Pagans and Hindus etc.. You disbelieve in all of those dieties (Shiva, Querzelcoatal, Zeus, Thor)as well, but retain belief in Jehovah, whom they also DIS believe in. So you DISbelieve in one less than they do. Got it.

And your right that the ancient Romans did call the early Christians 'atheists' because the Christians did not believe in the Roman pantheon of many gods.

Interesting. A rational debate assumes the parties debating are rational people to begin with. Atheism is inherently irrational. I’ve met some who became atheists because of negative experiences in church, etc., when they really have no clue what Jesus was up to. When this appears not to have been the case, I try to show that the atheist worldview is built on assumptions and circular reasoning. I have yet, as far as I’m aware, to sway anyone towards my own faith, but the least I can do is try to make people think a little bit more than they did.

Atheism is absolute non-belief in the possibility of the existence of any sort of deity.

Most agnostics I know don’t believe in God....but don’t preclude the possibility of His existence.

Exactly. It’s not a perfect joke, but I’ve seen Russel show up in a lot of atheist rhetoric.

Like the teapot thing. And the problem with that is Russel only meant that as an analogy, not as a statement of atheist “gospel truth,” yet some atheist use it as an ironic religious statement. Think “Pastafarians.”

Pastafarians and other parody religions are mocking the baseless claims used to try to support the existence of non-satirical monotheistic gods. You know, instead of just repeating that monotheists are just atheists who are afraid to completely commit, they mock the notion of 'one true god' by claiming to believe in a ridiculous god supported by ridiculous claims - ironically sounding very similar to genuine monotheists but with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

No wonder you fail to persuade. Using transparent lying double talk like this doesn't persuade.
IF you're gonna lie at least use a less transparent lie.

What you're saying is equivalent to saying (a) "non belief in unicorns is inherently irrational", but at the same time being (b) too cowardly to assert that "belief IN unicorns is rational".

Atheism is not a creed or ideology in the same way a religion is. Its the absence of a belief. A belief in God. Belief in god is irrational (because you cant prove it). Atheism is like non belief in unicorns.

The failure to believe in something that is an irrational belief is neither (a) a belief, nor is it (b) irrational.

Now its true that believing there is no god is also unprovable. But the burdern of proof on the believer. Not on the nonbeliever. Its on you prove your assertion that there IS a God. Not on Atheists to prove their failure to assert that there is a god. Just like its not up to a "unicorn denier" to prove the non existence of unicorns, and that it is on the unicorn believer to provide evidence for the existence of unicorns.

Um...if you expect me to believe there is no God, it’s YOUR job to prove that to me. It’s not my job to prove something to myself that I already know is untrue. One HUGE problem atheists have is their refusal to accept the premise of God existing while at the same time expecting Christians to accept the premise that God doesn’t. Classical arguments always start from the position that God does NOT exist and proceed to prove the opposite. If you already know something to exist or to be true, why would you ever assume the opposite even for the sake of argument? What you find is those kinds of arguments are a waste of time.

And no, it’s not double talk. It’s addressing a problem from multiple angles. If an unbeliever rejects God because of circumstance, it’s a response to pain rather than a logical response. “How can there be a God if this happened to me?” If an unbeliever rejects God because they see a logical argument as sufficient for disproving God, that’s a completely different situation. Neither, of course, is rational. But it makes no sense to argue with someone who is suffering. It’s the suffering that must be addressed FIRST in order to heal the sufferer. Once that is out of the way, that person MIGHT be reasoned with. The second case requires a different, appropriate response.

What you find is that it is impossible to argue burden-of-proof because, like other arguments, this carries an assumption that the opponent is arguing from a rational mind. You cannot make an atheist argument without the assumption that there is no God. Yet it is this very thing you must prove if you intend to show the Christian he is wrong. The atheist argument is inherently circular and, therefore, irrational.

That was the second case I was referring to. The first case was that rejecting God in the first place often has to do with negative experiences within a religious community. I’ve known ex-Mormons whose experience was too painful for them to even consider going to any church, much less a non-LDS one or even having any faith at all. There are also those who experience loss or pain who blame God to the point they give up on the idea of God at all. Sometimes people like that latch onto classical counter arguments as a means of finding comfort.

There are two problems with that: First, it’s a conclusion reached from bias, therefore it’s emotional rather than rational. Second, they’re coming from a position where they already know God exists, which means they are in denial.

My failure to convince anyone has nothing to do with any supposed lie. It has to do with an unbeliever’s blind reluctance to accept truth. Rational arguments cannot succeed when the opponent doesn’t have a rational mind to argue with.

When it comes down to burden of proof, again, the assumption is that if I made a logical proof or gave you evidence, your rational mind is capable of understanding the evidence and making the only rational conclusion that there is. When such arguments fail, many Christians assume they’ve done something wrong, and sometimes even doubt their own faith. They don’t see that the problem is the unbelieving mind. They might even see the evidence as working in favor of the skeptic.

Those Christians should ask the atheist a very important question, something all Christians should ask: As an atheist demanding evidence that God exists, if God Himself came down right now, revealed Himself to you in such a way you couldn’t possibly deny, would you worship Him? Often, the answer is “no,” that given mankind’s history with God, He’s not worthy. While that’s still not a very good answer, at least it’s an honest one. It also shows, barring God personally showing up, no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient.

And no amount of burden of proof will work, either. The reason for that is if evidence alone tips the scale in favor of belief or non-belief, then any time I present evidence or logical proof that God exists, you are COMPELLED to believe it and become a Christian. But what about me? Well, I’m compelled to become an atheist, same reason. The problem here is only one of us is right. So how do we know from evidence which one of us is right? And that’s when you have to admit that your assertion that God doesn’t exist has nothing to do with evidence, nor will any amount of evidence change your mind. For me, knowing that God exists, it’s irrational to assume otherwise, and the only evidence there is only points to revealing that God does exist. Dependency on evidence ultimately results in “we cannot know for sure,” and neither Christians nor atheists will ever accept that. I don’t believe “maybe God exists.” I believe “God DOES exist.” For the atheist, there is no such certainty. If God doesn’t exist, how can you be so sure?

Heck, leave God out of it. How can you be so sure of anything at all? What you find there is you can’t leave faith or God out of the equation, metaphorically speaking, for very long. Faith in God, after all, requires fewer assumptions than disbelief.