• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

No Such Thing as Atheism.

KEBO12345

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2015
46
2
New Zealand
✟22,677.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Think everything we want to understand requires logic and reason, otherwise we are just pee-ing into the wind with our imagination.

Belief is how we run our life. Having faith that our bus will be at the stop,
tht we will still have a job come Monday, that the sun will rise tomorrow.
These are 'True beliefs' but do not always come true as we know.

Then there is something called 'false beliefs'
and I put some atheists and other adherents in this category.
False beliefs tend to be mixed in with true beliefs to make them more
plausible. EG. My bus will be at the stop, the sun will rise tomorrow AND
JC might come with rapture and take me under his wing for eternity.
Or I will have a job tomorrow and there is no God!

Then this is all auto reinforced, programmed and rebanked overnight which perpetuates and strengthens the belief as does every religious prayer, hymn, affirmation conversation etc. A maintenace of the trance. (the trances we live). It becomes word.

If we went for a walk in any atheists' mind, to the impression memory where
beliefs about this and that are stored, we would find that there would be a file marked 'beliefs about God. I mean, Who has not thought about a creator?
To say so would be a lie. If you have an open file with contents you have a belief set in god wether in the positive negative sense or what ever.
To say you have no belief set would be dishonest.

The file is set up in the impression memory, and not the factual files
(since no one has met God in conscious mind language I know of).
This means it is part of a believers/non believers attitude or opinion...
which is their imagination.The imagination and will trick us into thinking
we do not have a belief when we probably have many billions of trillions of bits of information stored on that very subject

Skeptics will argue some BS about we cannot prove a no belief but do they really hold that position? Why shouldnIbelieve them when I share the same biology and mindset. So that I am not so easily thrown off the trail scent of all Atheist causation.

Our mind being the false, can present whatever view it likes as word to the observer. We are not party to the internal muse that underlies this position.
We each have a dual honesty and within limits it is permitted as our falseness
which the mind must balance with sincerity in being human with all the complexities of humanity.

Few atheists would be stupid enpugh to consider that there was no causasion in the universe or cosmology The causation they internally hold, becomes the creator or God. Thus a poor discrimination (lack of knowledge) of nature would provide a poor estimation of the creator (if an atheist had one.)
__________________

Summary about theists real reasons, any of these could be apply
1. Anti Judist, Christian or Muslim semitism taken as pa protest.
2. Have not comprehended that one cannot NOT have a view about God
if they have been discussing it.
Here atheists are logically and rationally assigned one regardless as a
collective God as default for the people who think they do not believe in
Gods.
The God of the atheist mind is the God of Absolute Materialism.
3. Some side with science as a high ground debating starting point,
while not needing to know anything much of science. Just that
the 'G' word would seem to be outside the mandate of science so can easily
be defended in layman's debates.
4 Insincerity. where one beief is held at public or at work and another
practised behind closed doors. EG a paid clergy who is really an atheist
or a paid astrophysicist who is Muslim = paid yay or nay sayers.
5. In trance where someone can hold two opposing veiws at the same time.
6. From Phobia or Previous life negative experience.
&. ??
 

KEBO12345

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2015
46
2
New Zealand
✟22,677.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
From Grim's Signature...
I think about "God" more now that I don't believe in him. Because it means I can openly examine what this "God" is supposed to be.

So far, not much.




Hi
Guess I am trying to say it is impossible in actuality to NOT have a belief
if you are here. And even if you somehow one didn't hold a belief one is assigned by default
in accordance with your beliefs about causation.

Think your signature says it all but with a change to the last line...
So far, not enough? Kebo
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟182,802.00
Faith
Seeker
Hi
Guess I am trying to say it is impossible in actuality to NOT have a belief
if you are here. And even if you somehow one didn't hold a belief one is assigned by default
in accordance with your beliefs about causation.
So the thread title was just meant to get our attention?
Cause last time I checked "atheist" didn´t mean "a guy who holds no beliefs".
 
Upvote 0

GrimKingGrim

The Thin Dead Line of sanity
Apr 13, 2015
1,237
177
Isle of Who?
✟17,968.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
From Grim's Signature...
I think about "God" more now that I don't believe in him. Because it means I can openly examine what this "God" is supposed to be.

So far, not much.




Hi
Guess I am trying to say it is impossible in actuality to NOT have a belief
if you are here. And even if you somehow one didn't hold a belief one is assigned by default
in accordance with your beliefs about causation.

Think your signature says it all but with a change to the last line...
So far, not enough? Kebo

Oh the copy pasta of my own signature. Without using the quote feature.

Anyway. An atheist by definition is someone who either does not believe in a deity. It generally in America is defined by someone who hears the claim that there is a God and rejects that claim. Why they reject that claim is their reasoning.

Another definition is someone who does not believe in the idea of a deity at all; someone who is ignorant to the claim and concept altogether. Those exist. And please don't go fundamentalist on me and claim rocks are atheist.

And even if you somehow one didn't hold a belief one is assigned by default

Not true.

I don't have a belief about asdngniuregnbigbiuenfo being real.

You know why?

What is asdngniuregnbigbiuenfo?

What is that?

Why was I assigned a belief about asdngniuregnbigbiuenfo if I am not aware of asdngniuregnbigbiuenfo's existence?

In order to form a belief about something I must have knowledge about said subject first.

General Atheists I know of fall under definition one as mentioned above. We hear a claim, and we reject it. We do not believe in deities or your specific deity. That makes us Atheist.

It doesn't assign us a belief in the negative claim because that makes no sense. Do you believe you have milk in your fridge? No? So you believe in no milk in your fridge. It's silly to play that game. And I made sure to use this example to illustrate that.

:yawn: Why am I awake? ... :yawn:
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
I really don't understand why some people are so set upon showing that atheists don't exist.

I could understand people trying to show why atheists are wrong... but that they don't really hold the position they claim to hold...?

Seriously... do you feel so threatened by the very existence of people who disbelieve if deities that you need to call them liars?
 
Upvote 0

single eye

Newbie
Jun 12, 2014
840
30
✟23,669.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
KEBO, what you are describing is called ambivalence. The cure is to stop lumping people into groups and putting labels on them like, theist or atheist. There are usually more than two options on any given issue. Lack of better options is what causes ambivalence.
 
Upvote 0

KEBO12345

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2015
46
2
New Zealand
✟22,677.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Anyway. An atheist by definition is someone who either does not believe in a deity. It generally in America is defined by someone who hears the claim that there is a God and rejects that claim. Why they reject that claim is their reasoning.

Another definition is someone who does not believe in the idea of a deity at all; someone who is ignorant to the claim and concept altogether. Those exist. And please don't go fundamentalist on me and claim rocks are atheist.



In order to form a belief about something I must have knowledge about said subject first.


General Atheists I know of fall under definition one as mentioned above. We hear a claim, and we reject it. We do not believe in deities or your specific deity. That makes us Atheist.

It doesn't assign us a belief in the negative claim because that makes no sense. Do you believe you have milk in your fridge? No? So you believe in no milk in your fridge. It's silly to play that game. And I made sure to use this example to illustrate that.

:yawn: Why am I awake? ... :yawn:

Kebo: Go to sleep or is this bugging you? Its only about 10pm here.
I said above that you would not 'be here' (in this forum) unless you had
some so called knowledge(= opinion = attitude or imaginations about God.

How many definitions does it take to define an atheist?
Is a rock an atheist? A rock would not be a good candidate for Atheism (if it
existed) since a rock does not judge what is and what
isn't God in the same way humans do.

No atheist is stupid enough to consider there is no causation otherwise
How did our Sun come about? What is your mechanism for its causation ?
Gravity, accretion, fusion etc. right? that becomes your God otherwise you have
no causation belief! = no god belief. An this is not a sustainable position for
a logical person.
The sun responsible for our existence but the
sun had causation sequence and so the search for the creation agent
marches back in time by default by science and into the quantum zone
where new science of QM attempts to describe causation, (God)?
.

Broadly speaking there are 2 different camps within scientist fraternity.
1: Those who think that the complexity we see is a contingency of the big
bang. = Absolute Materialism=The god of the atheist mind, (in many cases).
2: Those who think that the complexity we see is a not a contingency of the
BB. That matter/energy is self creative - (Panpsychism).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KEBO12345

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2015
46
2
New Zealand
✟22,677.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I really don't understand why some people are so set upon showing that atheists don't exist.

I could understand people trying to show why atheists are wrong... but that they don't really hold the position they claim to hold...?

Seriously... do you feel so threatened by the very existence of people who disbelieve if deities that you need to call them liars?



Hi,

It takes big nuts to wander in and call all atheists that they are
mistaken about themselves and the universe.

Atheists either are:
1. Remaining ignorant about themselves and their true position in the cosmos.
These believers fall under the accommodating wings of 2 below since they
donot really understand science for themselves.
2. Who are scientific and can understand and accept the limitations of an
absolute materialism philosophy.
The God of Absolute materialism becomes the god since that is the
mechanism of causation.
3 Or who perhaps otherwise are avoiding stuff or are being
insincere for whatever reason.
4.Perhaps you really do believe in the God of no causation but I think we know
more than that.


Not threatened by atheist or adherent.
Call it a survey, What really really makes you tick the atheist box on census night? Please do not say.. I have no attitude about god

I have learnt atheists do not appreciate the likes of me poking around in their stuff very much. The faster and more vehement the response - the bigger the attitude.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Hi,

It takes big nuts to wander in and call all atheists that they are
mistaken about themselves and the universe.

Atheists either are:
1. Remaining ignorant about themselves and their true position in the cosmos.
These believers fall under the accommodating wings of 2 below since they
donot really understand science for themselves.
2. Who are scientific and can understand and accept the limitations of an
absolute materialism philosophy.
The God of Absolute materialism becomes the god since that is the
mechanism of causation.
3 Or who perhaps otherwise are avoiding stuff or are being
insincere for whatever reason.
4.Perhaps you really do believe in the God of no causation but I think we know
more than that.


Not threatened by atheist or adherent.
Call it a survey, What really really makes you tick the atheist box on census night? Please do not say.. I have no attitude about god

I have learnt atheists do not appreciate the likes of me poking around in their stuff very much. The faster and more vehement the response - the bigger the attitude.

Well, personally I believe in the God of structured posts, politeness and slightly fermented applejuice.

The problem I have with posts like yours - attitude like yours - is that you have to keep ignoring the guidelines of human language and conversation.

You keep talking about "God of absolute materialism" and "God of no causation" and stuff like that. But in doing so you make two errors: a) you introduce the term "God" into unrelated concepts and b) you ignore that common definitions and connotations of the term "God".

The "God" may include in its definition the concept of "mechanism of causation"... but it is not limited to that, and it cannot be used in the opposite direction: not every "mechanism of causation" is "God".

What you are doing here is using your own special definition of "God", apply it to others, who may or may not agree with this definition and then place your prefered label onto them.

Others can play that game: not only is there such a thing as atheism... you are an atheist.

God is an old man with a white beard and robe living in the sky. You don't believe that? Then you are an atheist! q.e.d.

Why now am I calling myself an atheist?

In conversations with theists, of all directions, at some point their view of God includes "a personal (like humans are) being". It can include other things like "relating to humans / the universe in a personal way" and similar concepts... down to "loves you, gives commandments, and hates shrimps".

In any those cases that I have ever been confronted with, I was always able to sincerely state: No, I don't believe that this is correct / the truth / exists.

That makes me an atheist.

In cases like yours... people who want to use the highly complex term of "God" and reduce it to "cause"... I can sincerely ask: why do you need to involve the term "God" here at all, when there are other, better terms that describe that concept.

And I really do wonder why you feel that need.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Not threatened by atheist or adherent.
Call it a survey, What really really makes you tick the atheist box on census night? Please do not say.. I have no attitude about god

What makes me tick the 'atheist' box on the census? The fact that I do not believe in gods.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, personally I believe in the God of structured posts, politeness and slightly fermented applejuice.

The problem I have with posts like yours - attitude like yours - is that you have to keep ignoring the guidelines of human language and conversation.

You keep talking about "God of absolute materialism" and "God of no causation" and stuff like that. But in doing so you make two errors: a) you introduce the term "God" into unrelated concepts and b) you ignore that common definitions and connotations of the term "God".

The "God" may include in its definition the concept of "mechanism of causation"... but it is not limited to that, and it cannot be used in the opposite direction: not every "mechanism of causation" is "God".

What you are doing here is using your own special definition of "God", apply it to others, who may or may not agree with this definition and then place your prefered label onto them.

Others can play that game: not only is there such a thing as atheism... you are an atheist.

God is an old man with a white beard and robe living in the sky. You don't believe that? Then you are an atheist! q.e.d.

Why now am I calling myself an atheist?

In conversations with theists, of all directions, at some point their view of God includes "a personal (like humans are) being". It can include other things like "relating to humans / the universe in a personal way" and similar concepts... down to "loves you, gives commandments, and hates shrimps".

In any those cases that I have ever been confronted with, I was always able to sincerely state: No, I don't believe that this is correct / the truth / exists.

That makes me an atheist.

In cases like yours... people who want to use the highly complex term of "God" and reduce it to "cause"... I can sincerely ask: why do you need to involve the term "God" here at all, when there are other, better terms that describe that concept.

And I really do wonder why you feel that need.

It's an interesting tactic - defining atheism away. First, the apologist defines 'God' as X and Y. Second, he gestures toward the fact that X and Y are commonly believed by everyone and argues that therefore everyone believes in God; ergo, there are no atheists, on this definition of 'God'.

Here is an example of the trick in action: "'God' is defined as reality. Everyone believes that reality exists. Therefore, everyone believes God exists; ergo, there are no atheists, on this definition of 'God'. Theology is therefore the study of reality, on this definition."

Supposing that we grant this definition, and we are all magically transformed into 'theists' by it, what does the apologist gain? Has he provided a compelling reason to adopt the theological commitments of his religion? No, not by a long shot.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

True Scotsman

Objectivist
Jul 26, 2014
962
78
✟24,057.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Think everything we want to understand requires logic and reason, otherwise we are just pee-ing into the wind with our imagination.

Belief is how we run our life. Having faith that our bus will be at the stop,
tht we will still have a job come Monday, that the sun will rise tomorrow.
These are 'True beliefs' but do not always come true as we know.

Then there is something called 'false beliefs'
and I put some atheists and other adherents in this category.
False beliefs tend to be mixed in with true beliefs to make them more
plausible. EG. My bus will be at the stop, the sun will rise tomorrow AND
JC might come with rapture and take me under his wing for eternity.
Or I will have a job tomorrow and there is no God!

Then this is all auto reinforced, programmed and rebanked overnight which perpetuates and strengthens the belief as does every religious prayer, hymn, affirmation conversation etc. A maintenace of the trance. (the trances we live). It becomes word.

If we went for a walk in any atheists' mind, to the impression memory where
beliefs about this and that are stored, we would find that there would be a file marked 'beliefs about God. I mean, Who has not thought about a creator?
To say so would be a lie. If you have an open file with contents you have a belief set in god wether in the positive negative sense or what ever.
To say you have no belief set would be dishonest.

The file is set up in the impression memory, and not the factual files
(since no one has met God in conscious mind language I know of).
This means it is part of a believers/non believers attitude or opinion...
which is their imagination.The imagination and will trick us into thinking
we do not have a belief when we probably have many billions of trillions of bits of information stored on that very subject

Skeptics will argue some BS about we cannot prove a no belief but do they really hold that position? Why shouldnIbelieve them when I share the same biology and mindset. So that I am not so easily thrown off the trail scent of all Atheist causation.

Our mind being the false, can present whatever view it likes as word to the observer. We are not party to the internal muse that underlies this position.
We each have a dual honesty and within limits it is permitted as our falseness
which the mind must balance with sincerity in being human with all the complexities of humanity.

Few atheists would be stupid enpugh to consider that there was no causasion in the universe or cosmology The causation they internally hold, becomes the creator or God. Thus a poor discrimination (lack of knowledge) of nature would provide a poor estimation of the creator (if an atheist had one.)
__________________

Summary about theists real reasons, any of these could be apply
1. Anti Judist, Christian or Muslim semitism taken as pa protest.
2. Have not comprehended that one cannot NOT have a view about God
if they have been discussing it.
Here atheists are logically and rationally assigned one regardless as a
collective God as default for the people who think they do not believe in
Gods.
The God of the atheist mind is the God of Absolute Materialism.
3. Some side with science as a high ground debating starting point,
while not needing to know anything much of science. Just that
the 'G' word would seem to be outside the mandate of science so can easily
be defended in layman's debates.
4 Insincerity. where one beief is held at public or at work and another
practised behind closed doors. EG a paid clergy who is really an atheist
or a paid astrophysicist who is Muslim = paid yay or nay sayers.
5. In trance where someone can hold two opposing veiws at the same time.
6. From Phobia or Previous life negative experience.
&. ??

Here's what's in my god belief file: The concept "God" is an invalid concept.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
It's an interesting tactic - defining atheism away. First, the apologist defines 'God' as X and Y. Second, he gestures toward the fact that X and Y are commonly believed by everyone and argues that therefore everyone believes in God; ergo, there are no atheists, on this definition of 'God'.

Here is an example of the trick in action: "'God' is defined as reality. Everyone believes that reality exists. Therefore, everyone believes God exists; ergo, there are no atheists, on this definition of 'God'. Theology is therefore the study of reality, on this definition."

Supposing that we grant this definition, and we are all magically transformed into 'theists' by it, what does the apologist gain? Has he provided a compelling reason to adopt the theological commitments of his religion? No, not by a long shot.

It allows (some) people to say: See, you believe in God - I believe in God... you believe the same as me, so you cannot say that I am wrong.

In a way, I like that tactic: that's why I changed my custom title some time ago. It is just too amusing to see those people react when you turn this tactic on themselves.
 
Upvote 0

KEBO12345

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2015
46
2
New Zealand
✟22,677.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Don't think you quite get my drifts here.

1. Think it is ok to serially classify atheists according to their reasons for
believing the stuff they do about themselves and the universe.
Look at all the different types of Christianity, each having a point of
difference yet in the same boat. That's how the mind works in
social circles and atheism is no different. People like to fit in but add
a twist of their personality on the subject matter.


Also maybe a way through to a real persons mind who can't stop
repeating No means No (when it comes to gods)

2. Think it is definitely OK to link Causation, cosmology and Gods
in the same sentences without semantics.

look at all previous religions I can think of
e.g. the Abrahamic big 3 have the Torah heading up the first books
of scripture with a detailed causation account.
Why should the atheist religion be any different or treated specially?

e.g2 In Maori creation accounts the North Island of NZ was snagged
when a Maori anthropocentric god went fishing in his canoe.

3 All I am doing is finishing off the atheists' thought train where it has
come to a halt for no reason, and bringing this to your attention, if you
don't mind? It is only words on a page.

The disclosure of nature is the greatest clue to our cosmology,
(our cause of everything).

Science and new science has given us a cosmology
that is very detailed and verified. A wonderful achievement.
So we have a modern atheist with a very rich cosmology which points to
some genuine causation options.

So we have the causation (options) and the cosmology but WHOOPS
someone stole the God of it all and the atheist God has not been seen since.

But the God of that causation did not go anywhere, just the mind
of the atheist came to a standstill.
The atheist knows he/she has had causation
eg our higher elements were made in nebulas and alike,
but denies it in the same
breath. (by saying there is no cause for causes period).

So what is the atheist God by default when you take this thought
forward (though atheists will avoid this step).

Well, the God would be the forces of nature acting together
to produce the complexity we see. But without any intervention or help
on an omnipotent plane.

Matter is designed to gain complexity by simply bumping into each other is
possible and helped along by all the other forces of nature.

The God becomes the random god of probability driven by the asymmetry
of matter and the universe by default. This is the god, atheists think
they do not (or refuse to) believe in.

Not believing in it does not make it go away.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Belief is how we run our life.

I have plenty of beliefs. None of those include a belief in the existence of God (or gods). That is what makes me an atheist.

Few atheists would be stupid enpugh to consider that there was no causasion in the universe or cosmology

I should hope so.

The causation they internally hold, becomes the creator or God.

I can't take that claim seriously. If causation is purely natural, there is nothing there to assume the supernatural or transcendent role of a God. You are really reaching for straws here.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

agua

Newbie
Jan 5, 2011
906
29
Gold Coast
✟23,737.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
I can't take that claim seriously. If causation is purely natural, there is nothing there to assume the supernatural or transcendent role of a God. You are really reaching for straws here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's jargon to say that this becomes the god of athiesm ( natural causation ), not that it implies a literal being.
 
Upvote 0