Atheism

[Lord Emsworth]

Recently I have become fascinated by Atheism and Atheistic philosophy.
I want to ask you guys (the Atheist community here) what should Christians know about Atheism?

Are you a weak Atheist or strong Atheist in your terms of views?

Strong.

What are your opinions on strong Atheism or weak Atheism?

Much ado about nothing.

What are your opinions on Religion?

Varied. On average neutral to slightly pro.

What are your opinions on some of the more famous figures in Atheism today? E.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Micheal Shermer, Stephen Hawkings, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris.
Have you ever experienced any discrimination for being an Atheist?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There are no true atheists, even if a so-called atheist is deceived into thinking he is. Dawkins' mistake is transparent. He touts the certitude that empirical verification provides, and yet he has no empirical verification for believeing that there cannot be a non-empirical realm, which by definition is unreachable via the empirical senses and thus can never be empirically verified. He must remain an agnostic, but prefers to add arrogance to his uncertainty of which I am sure deep within, he is aware.

Non-empirical != God

 

[juvenissun]

Did you just say the hindu gods are not powerful enough to stand up to Jehovah in the end?
I might have missunderstood.

Yes. You are right. I do mean that.

 

[Ayersy]

I used to be an atheist. And I can only attest to my feelings at that point in my life.

I was insecure, lonely, bitter, and mean all because I didn't know God and Jesus like I should have.

Just because something makes you feel better, doesn't make it true. It's not about fun, it's about the truth.

I wasn't particularly happy when I was a Christian, and I'm pretty much the same now that I'm an atheist, just older and wiser.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Yes. You are right. I do mean that.

Could you elaborate alittle on this?

Like, do you think they are actually other gods, who are who they claim to be in their holybooks. Just that Jehova is the more powerful one so he will win the war of the gods?

Or do you think that other religions are actually worshipping satan who decieved them into thinking he is their god?

Or something else entirely?

 

[Davian]

A realm that transcends this physical empircal world would be "transcendent."

That certainly clarifies things.

I prefer to remain ignostic on things that cannot be defined (by definition).

Whether it is non-existent has been the subject of the part of the thread I have been involved in since I entered it.

If you think they are synonymous, you are only declaring,

"I don't believe there is anything beyond this physical world," which whether true or not, is not a very interesting statement, since by defintion it is a statement that any atheist would make.

Which begs the question, what is meant by "beyond this physical world"? Where would that be?

Are circular statements such as "A realm that transcends this physical empircal world would be "transcendent."" more interesting?

 

[juvenissun]

Could you elaborate alittle on this?

Like, do you think they are actually other gods, who are who they claim to be in their holybooks. Just that Jehova is the more powerful one so he will win the war of the gods?

Or do you think that other religions are actually worshipping satan who decieved them into thinking he is their god?

Or something else entirely?

Good questions. But I am not going to answer them as they are. I take it one at a time. So here is the first one:

They are spiritual beings (you may even call some of them as ghosts). People take them as their gods. That is why I said that Jehovah is more powerful than them.

 

[stiggywiggy]

My point is; just because millions believe something to be true, doesn't mean it should be given an ounce of credibility

I wish I shared that belief. It would sure save me from future jury duties.

 

[stiggywiggy]

That certainly clarifies things.

Sorry. You asked the meaning of a word that most people here ALREADY KNOW the meaning of. If my definition amuses you, I suggest you consult the dictionary to further your education.

I prefer to remain ignostic on things that cannot be defined (by definition).

Not me. For example, I cannot define the attraction I have for women, but I can't be agnostic about it, since I know it's true.

Which begs the question, what is meant by "beyond this physical world"? Where would that be?

If you're able to answer WHERE this particular reality, this particular all-encompassing cosmos that we now live in IS LOCATED, perhaps I'll take a stab at your question. At least mine axiomatically acccepts spatial coordinates (the substance of "where") as endemic to the reality under discussion.

Are circular statements such as "A realm that transcends this physical empircal world would be "transcendent."" more interesting?

No, it's not one bit interesting. Unfortunately, it was an answer to YOUR question, when you expressed your ignorance as to the meaning of "transcendent." Sorry if the answers to your questions bore you so.

How would you define it? Let me guess. You can't, so it must not exist, right?

 

[RobinRobyn]

The remote possibility of what?

You just put it up there:

that a testimony of someone who claims to have EXPERIENCED X should even be considered.

I ask again: the remote possibility of what? That the testimony should be considered? That would depend on who is considering it. Or the remote possibility that the experience was real? There is no way to tell, so there is nothing to weigh.

You know of ancient Greeks who claim to have experienced the reality of Zeus? Who?

Now you're being obtuse. Have you never heard of Greek Mythology? It was the belief system of the Greek culture in ancient times.

Again, I know of NO ONE (ZERO: ZILCH) who claims to have gotten a dime from that Nigerian scheme, and yet I know hundereds (and there are millions I don't know) who claim to have experienced the reality of Christ.

And I know of NO ONE (ZERO: ZILCH) who can prove to me that Jesus is still alive. But that isn't what I asked you. You said that the number of people who believe in Jesus Christ should give more weight to their claims, so I asked if the number of people who claim to be Nigerian princes offering you money gives more weight to their claim, making it more believable. Please answer that question.

 

[Davian]

Sorry. You asked the meaning of a word that most people here ALREADY KNOW the meaning of. If my definition amuses you, I suggest you consult the dictionary to further your education.

No need to apologize. I have looked myself, and did not encounter any robust definitions for the word that would differentiate it from 'non-existant' or "unknowable'. If it is unknowable, how could we know about it?

Not me. For example, I cannot define the attraction I have for women, but I can't be agnostic about it, since I know it's true.

I said, 'ignostic', not 'agnostic'. A notable difference.

And it's not like the attraction we feel towards others cannot be scientifically studied.

If you're able to answer WHERE this particular reality, this particular all-encompassing cosmos that we now live in IS LOCATED, perhaps I'll take a stab at your question. At least mine axiomatically acccepts spatial coordinates (the substance of "where") as endemic to the reality under discussion.

You are the one positing there is something other/something else/somewhere else than this reality. Stab away, or retract.

No, it's not one bit interesting. Unfortunately, it was an answer to YOUR question, when you expressed your ignorance as to the meaning of "transcendent."

So you expressed yours?

Sorry if the answers to your questions bore you so.

Again, no apologies required.

How would you define it? Let me guess. You can't, so it must not exist, right?

To be more precise, *you* can't, so the term is meaningless in the context of this discussion. How can one decide if something 'transcendent' exists or not unless a robust definition is provided first? What are we talking about?

 

[KCfromNC]

Superior because they have greater numbers? But you already said numbers don't matter.

Where did I say that?

But yeah, I'd say if you give equal weight to Buddhism as you do to a flying Elvis, you'd be a fool.

Just to be clear, should we give Buddhist testimony more or less weight than testimony from a belief with fewer followers (be it flying Elvis or American non-denominational Christianity)?

 

[KCfromNC]

Since science deals with the empirical realm, it would be a strange thing indeed if empirical methods could be employed to verify the existence of that which by definition transcends the empirical.

How do you know god transcends the empirical?

 

[Ken-1122]

I wish I shared that belief. It would sure save me from future jury duties.

If you are the type of person who simply goes along with what the majority says rather than looking at the evidence and deciding on what you believe is the truth; you should not be allowed on a jury

Ken

 

[stiggywiggy]

I ask again: the remote possibility of what? That the testimony should be considered?

Correct. I've said that several times now.

That would depend on who is considering it.

You. Me. John Doe. Anyone.

Or the remote possibility that the experience was real?

Yes. Yes!

There is no way to tell, so there is nothing to weigh.

To tell? No way to tell? Dang, I thought you had it there for a minute. Since when does considering the remote possibility that phenomena X can be real, tell us whether or not it is real? If a juror hears two witnesses relay very unbelievable testimonies, they are INSTRUCTED to consider them, not use them "to tell" if they are true.

Now you're being obtuse. Have you never heard of Greek Mythology? It was the belief system of the Greek culture in ancient times.

I'm not even being abstruse, much less obtuse. It was a simple question. What testimonies have you read from ancient Greek citizens which relay personal experiences with Zeus or Minerva?

And I know of NO ONE (ZERO: ZILCH) who can prove to me that Jesus is still alive. But that isn't what I asked you. You said that the number of people who believe in Jesus Christ should give more weight to their claims, so I asked if the number of people who claim to be Nigerian princes offering you money gives more weight to their claim, making it more believable.

Of course not. I never even implied it would. Your analogy will work only if you can show me someone who claims to have had a personal experience with the Nigerain scheme actually working. You can't, so I suggest you drop the analogy.

 

[stiggywiggy]

No need to apologize. I have looked myself, and did not encounter any robust definitions for the word that would differentiate it from 'non-existant' or "unknowable'.

I serously doubt if you found a defintion which equates it with "non-existent."

Let's see it.

If it is unknowable, how could we know about it?

Who said the transcendent is unknowable? You?? I'm supposed to accept your unproven axioms and argue accordingly? No.

And it's not like the attraction we feel towards others cannot be scientifically studied.

You can scientifically study it all you want, but no science will explain why, for example, the curvature of a woman's body attracts me. That is a completely irrational (or a-rational) phenomenon.

You are the one positing there is something other/something else/somewhere else than this reality. Stab away, or retract.

And yet I posited no such thing. I was speaking merely of how irrational it is to posit the contrary.

To be more precise, *you* can't, so the term is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

So if something cannot be defined, it is therefore meaningless to discuss it? What do you base that on? I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I still sometimes discuss it with my family.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Just to be clear, should we give Buddhist testimony more or less weight than testimony from a belief with fewer followers (be it flying Elvis or American non-denominational Christianity)?

Ask a prosecuting attorney or a defense lawyer. He or she will explain to you why one should give greater consideration to the testimony of five, than one would to the testimony of two. I'll let you extrapolate the numbers outward, and then you can apply it to Buddhism, Christianity, abominable snowman claims, whatever.

 

[stiggywiggy]

How do you know god transcends the empirical?

Can Shakespeare NOT transcend his own works?

 

[quatona]

So if something cannot be defined, it is therefore meaningless to discuss it?

Yes.

What do you base that on?

On the fact that a common definition provides the agreement on the meaning of a term used in a discussion.

I cannot define the love I had for my wife, but I still sometimes discuss it with my family.

I am wondering about the nature of those "discussions". Are there family members who doubt that you loved your wife? Are there family members who don´t believe in love? Are there family members who don´t believe your wife existed?

 

[stiggywiggy]

If you are the type of person who simply goes along with what the majority says rather than looking at the evidence and deciding on what you believe is the truth; you should not be allowed on a jury

Ken

Well, since I am not that sort of person and since I surely never typed a sentence on this forum implying I was, I guess I know now why I've had to serve on two juries in four years.