For Atheists

[Mythunderstood]

Never said it didn't.
The religion of Judaism uses the OT and Judaism predates Christianity by 1000's of years.

KJV) Leviticus 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

Yeah, and Hinduism predates Judaism, so what's your point?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Yes, I am an atheist​

No, I do not believe "there are no gods"​

I think that means you are agnostic.

Atheist = There are no gods

Agnostic = I'm not sure waether there are god(s) or not.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

No worries there The noob upstart is so out of his depth he doesn't even realize how ridiculous his insistence for evidence is. Any bets on how long that might take? Here's starters:

Mattew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

OK......wot?

It says that God exists in the Bible. Is that your evidence?

It would say that wouldn't it. It says that the victory of Communisim is inevitable in the Communist manifesto. So what?

From an accademic poin tof view the Bible/body of Theology is a theory. That is it's an idea. I don't think it's a very consistant idea. But if you have strong repeatable evidence then I will be forced to change my mind. I did not like the theory of thermodynamics but I have to acept it because it is the idea which alows jet engines and car engines to be designed so I guess they have it right. What does the Christian theory explain or make possible to work?

 

[sidhe]

I think that means you are agnostic.

Atheist = There are no gods

Agnostic = I'm not sure waether there are god(s) or not.

No, (a)gnosticism is a claim of knowledge, (a)theism is a claim of belief. It's a continuum.

Gnostic theism: A claim of certain knowledge that deity(ies) exist.

Agnostic theism: Based on current evidence, there is a reason to believe in deity(ies), but there is no absolute certainty possible.

Agnostic atheism: Based on current evidence, there is no reason to believe in deity(ies), but that there is no absolute certainty possible.

Gnostic atheism: A claim of certain knowledge that deity(ies) do not exist.

Literally, to be agnostic utterly on the subject would mean to have no position on the existence of god(s), and state that the evidence is not persuasive either way, so no knowledge is possible.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

I think you are splitting hairs.

 

[hikersong]

I think you are splitting hairs.

I don't think so. The same explanation was presented to me, and it was a definite gap in my understanding.

I'm actually coming to think that this whole issue is a personality thing though, which sometimes can become a little bit like semantic warfare. Personally I prefer to use the word agnostic, because for me it doesn't have such an "all or nothing" look about it. I don't want my first contact with "the world" many of whom are believers to be: I deny your belief. Which, for better or worse and whether or not it is fair, is what many believers take the word atheist to be: a stance AGAINST all that they hold dear. The truth is that, technically, I fit in the agnostic atheist bracket. Which means I'm an atheist. But I'm not against anything in the world of faith. I don't care what people believe, unless it is used to harm myself or others.

Some people, often those who have an academic or scientific outlook in particular i think, feel that using the exact meaning of the word is more important than avoiding upsetting people. I respect that stance, but I honestly don't think it matters much in the end. Sidhe is correct though.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I think you are splitting hairs.

Nope sidhe is right. If you do not believe in gods, you are an atheist. If you claim to KNOW there are no gods, you are a gnostic atheist or a strong atheist.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Some people, often those who have an academic or scientific outlook in particular i think, feel that using the exact meaning of the word is more important than avoiding upsetting people. I respect that stance, but I honestly don't think it matters much in the end. Sidhe is correct though.

Fair point. The reason I am here and too be honest take a fairly combative approach is exactly because these religious types are doing huge harm.

Vacination is reduced because they don't like it. Thus diseases infect not only their children which is it's self evil, but also some vacines are partially effective so they cause the rate of transmission to be below 1. If there are unvacinated people out there it will continue, if not then the disease will die before it can evolve to overcome the vacine.

The USA has banned research useing stem cells. This is very evil. To stop the clever people from doing very significant research into cancer or whatever is wrong. The deployment of the fruits of this science will be delayed. Think of millions of unnecessary deaths per year due to this. OK so the deaths have not happened yet but the only reason it's delayed not stoped is that the science is happening elsewhere.

 

[hikersong]

Fair point. The reason I am here and too be honest take a fairly combative approach is exactly because these religious types are doing huge harm.

Vacination is reduced because they don't like it...

...The USA has banned research useing stem cells. This is very evil....

Not everyone with faith would ban the research you are mentioning. Which suggests to me that their isn't a direct link between faith per se and, um, banning things. Better, in my opinion, to speak up for stem cell research and see who opposes you. Then address their arguments specifically.

No point in painting Faith as the culprit, when the real causes are probably a bit more complicated.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What do athiests think of the soul? How do you account for it?

I'm pretty sure others have supplied lots of answers to these questions, but I think it won't hurt if I add my own:

I do not need to account for the "soul" because I do not conceive of it as a kind of immortal, supernatural spirit-pilot that's temporarily housed in our bodies.

Our psyche (which is but the Greek term for "soul") is inextricably tied to our physical existence, deriving from higher brain functions. Experiences, memories, habits, moods - it's all biochemistry. Organic computers, if you will.
We are the sum total of nature and nurture, and if there was some way to divorce our consciousness from our body, our very being would change on such a fundamental level that "we" would hardly resemble ourselves any longer.

Now, I do believe that nothing is ever lost in this universe, and I do believe that there might be an overarching "hyper-consciousness" that is truly immortal, a product of the sum total of all consciousnesses throughout the universe and more, and we all live within that. But once our organism ceases to exist, everything that is identifiable as our "self" is gone along with the rest.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Not everyone with faith would ban the research you are mentioning. Which suggests to me that their isn't a direct link between faith per se and, um, banning things. Better, in my opinion, to speak up for stem cell research and see who opposes you. Then address their arguments specifically.

No point in painting Faith as the culprit, when the real causes are probably a bit more complicated.

You can oppose the specif, and I do, or you can oppose the general cause of wrong headed thinking.

The religious lobby is powerful and will constantly try to excercise this power. The exact things it does do not actually matter to them it's just a justification for the structure of the lobby group/church to continue and raise money. Putting anit-God ideas into the areana does greatly reduce the capacity for non-sensable thinking. At least that's my tactic.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

OK......wot?

It says that God exists in the Bible. Is that your evidence?

It would say that wouldn't it. It says that the victory of Communisim is inevitable in the Communist manifesto. So what?

I have a book that talks about gods too, other gods, WHICH ONE DO I BELIEVE?!?!?!

 

[Paulos23]

Why would that be a game changer for atheists? Atheists don't believe in gods, period. This does not preclude them from believing in spirits, astrology, reincarnation, etc.

Well (if it was true) it would be prof of forces outside of the natural world. Though it doesn't prove that gods exists, it would open a line of inquiry to find out about the supernatural.

But so far there is no evidence for spirits, reincarnation, etc.

 

[Mythunderstood]

I think that means you are agnostic.

Atheist = There are no gods

Agnostic = I'm not sure waether there are god(s) or not.

I see that others have already explained the difference b/w atheism and agnosticism to you. I am an agnostic. An agnostic atheist!

 

[sidhe]

I think you are splitting hairs.

Not at all. Theism and gnosis refer to separate claims. To treat them as dependent is imprecise philosophically.

 

[sidhe]

Fair point. The reason I am here and too be honest take a fairly combative approach is exactly because these religious types are doing huge harm.

"These religious types" is also imprecise. Multiple religions involving multiple viewpoints necessitates precision in language.

Vacination is reduced because they don't like it. Thus diseases infect not only their children which is it's self evil, but also some vacines are partially effective so they cause the rate of transmission to be below 1. If there are unvacinated people out there it will continue, if not then the disease will die before it can evolve to overcome the vacine.

Actually, that wasn't religiously motivated to begin with. It was motivated by greed and a desire for fame. Now it's entered into urban mythology and that's far harder to erase. After all, there's mercury in vaccines and it causes autism/Asperger's/etc....just like you risk adopting a rat if you buy a chihuahua in Mexico, and Bloody Mary will appear if you say her name 3 times in a mirror.

The USA has banned research useing stem cells. This is very evil. To stop the clever people from doing very significant research into cancer or whatever is wrong. The deployment of the fruits of this science will be delayed. Think of millions of unnecessary deaths per year due to this. OK so the deaths have not happened yet but the only reason it's delayed not stoped is that the science is happening elsewhere.

I thought the stem cell research ban had been lifted? If not, well, that's pandering to the LCD, and that's never a good idea.

 

[Beechwell]

Not at all. Theism and gnosis refer to separate claims. To treat them as dependent is imprecise philosophically.

Actually I would agree that this is indeed splitting hair. In colloquial use at least atheism and agnosticism are still pretty much used in the way Tim defined them. And before coming to this site I had never heard of all these extra categories (agnistic atheism etc.) either.

I can only assume that they were either invented, or amde popular, by those attacks from believers on the atheistic position, about the lack of absolute proof on the non-existance of a god; and the discussion about what qualifies as belief and what not.
None of which I see as constructive to be honest.

 

[sidhe]

Actually I would agree that this is indeed splitting hair. In colloquial use at least atheism and agnosticism are still pretty much used in the way Tim defined them. And before coming to this site I had never heard of all these extra categories (agnistic atheism etc.) either.

I can only assume that they were either invented, or amde popular, by those attacks from believers on the atheistic position, about the lack of absolute proof on the non-existance of a god; and the discussion about what qualifies as belief and what not.
None of which I see as constructive to be honest.

Surely you've heard of "hard" and "soft" atheism, correct? It's a matter of clarification of position - do you claim that no gods exist, or do you claim not to believe in the existence of gods? One is a positive claim requiring, by logical standards, proof. The other is a statement based on interpretation of the available evidence. Similarly, theists can either claim that gods exist, or claim to believe that gods exist. One is positive and requires proof, the other is a statement of belief based on interpreted evidence. "Hard" atheism has an issue in claiming to have proof of a negative, and gnostic theism is attempting to prove an intangible with subjective evidence. "Agnosticism" is a claim of no knowledge either way, and is correctly used colloquially, but there are varying degrees and forms of both atheistic and theistic belief.

 

[Jesusluvr12345]

Hey everyone, I'm really glad to be in this great community and I really appreciate everyone's tolerance and general genial attitude to everyone else

But anyway I've heard a lot of talk about God and I've seen some people who are open to the idea of God, yet not truly convinced. I'll do my best to convince you! First let's talk about proof for God. Most people have a misconception of God, they believe that he is a magic man in the sky who constantly defies the laws of nature.

This is totally false, although the laws of nature may be defied for the special occasions of miracles it wouldn't make sense for God to break the laws of nature.

Think about it!

God is perfect, therefore everything he creates is perfect. God created man and until the fall we were perfect, God created the Earth and the Earth is perfect for life, and so we can logically conclude that because God created the laws of nature there is no reason that he would violate his own perfect creation (except for miracles, but that's another story)

Because of this reasoning we know that evolution, the Big bang, and science in general can completely agree with God. When I doubt this I like to think about what one of my friends said a long time ago, "God's a scientist, not a wizard"

So hopefully I've answered that question, if anyone has questions please ask them. I'll try to cover proofs for God next time!

 

[Fizzywig]

Hey everyone, I'm really glad to be in this great community and I really appreciate everyone's tolerance and general genial attitude to everyone else

But anyway I've heard a lot of talk about God and I've seen some people who are open to the idea of God, yet not truly convinced. I'll do my best to convince you! First let's talk about proof for God. Most people have a misconception of God, they believe that he is a magic man in the sky who constantly defies the laws of nature.

This is totally false, although the laws of nature may be defied for the special occasions of miracles it wouldn't make sense for God to break the laws of nature.

Think about it!

God is perfect, therefore everything he creates is perfect. God created man and until the fall we were perfect, God created the Earth and the Earth is perfect for life, and so we can logically conclude that because God created the laws of nature there is no reason that he would violate his own perfect creation (except for miracles, but that's another story)

Because of this reasoning we know that evolution, the Big bang, and science in general can completely agree with God. When I doubt this I like to think about what one of my friends said a long time ago, "God's a scientist, not a wizard"

So hopefully I've answered that question, if anyone has questions please ask them. I'll try to cover proofs for God next time!

No particular questions at the moment, but welcome to the forum.

Its quite comforting to know that God is not some sort of magic man in the sky.

Bless you.