True atheists?

Jig said:

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

Click to expand...

Atheism does not require omniscience, or near omniscience. That is a lie that is often repeated.

Atheism simply requires a lack of belief. Atheists can, and often do, admit that they could be mistaken about the existence of God. Atheism isn't about knowing that there are no gods, but simply not believing that there are any.

And atheists, such as myself, will often call ourselves agnostic-atheists. I have said this many times at CF, and I've seen plenty of other atheists say the same about themselves. Since atheism is about a lack of belief in divine beings, and agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge in divine beings, there is no conflict between the two. Both labels fit.

Likewise, I am "agnostic" regarding the existence of elves, and "atheist" regarding them as well. I don't know that elves don't exist, but I don't hold any belief in their existence either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Jig said:

Is atheism a choice?

Click to expand...

It wasn't for me. I never chose to become an atheist.

Do you reject theism?

Click to expand...

I do not find theism persuasive enough to compel belief.

It's a lot like my lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster. I'm simply not persuaded that this beastie exists, and so I lack belief until better evidence is available, assuming that ever happens. I don't claim to know that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. I just don't believe.

Do you believe the Christian God exists?

Click to expand...

I have no such belief. I don't believe in Thor or Zeus either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is that so difficult?

The key phrase is "belief". Perhaps a more precise expression would be "taking into consideration all information available to me, and taking into account all reasonings, based on these informations and my personal interpretations, I hold these to statement to be..."

In the case of the Christian God, or any other god-concepts I have ever been presented with, I can state that I "believe" in the above mentioned meanion, that these gods do not exist.

Is that "true atheist" enough for you?


I simply cannot understand why people are trying to make such a statement at all... about "true atheists" and "they are not really atheists, they are 'masked agnostics' ".

Is there something better at being agnostic? Can you sleep better when you believe that all those unbelievers are in truth following your god, but are just afraid to acknowlegde it?

I am an atheist. Deal with it!

Jig said:

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

Yet, I see this CF faith(less) icon floating around the forums.

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

Click to expand...

In anticipation of the way this discussion will inevitably go:

I am agnostic. I am also an atheist. The two terms are not mutually exclusive, with atheism dealing with the existence of God, and agnosticism dealing with whether God's existence can be known. As an agnostic atheist, therefore, I believe that God's existence is unknowable (due to a lack of definition that would permit falsifiability - which may not be a word...) but I am reasonably certain in my belief that a god does not exist (as per the definition of god that I hold) because there is no evidence nor is there any necessity for a god as of the moment. As atheism means without theism, technically anyone who is not a theist is an atheist (before you ask, the opposite of theism is anti-theism, according to the prefixes, at least).

To this, you may reply that my definitions are all wrong and that I'm either an agnostic or an atheist, to which my reply would be that you can call me whatever you want. Changing the name does not change what I am. I hold my definitions because they seem to make the most sense and they are the definitions commonly in use among the two groups concerned. If you hold different ideas of what the definitions are, so be it. I'll answer to both atheist and agnostic.

Also, I like the atheist symbol more than the agnostic one.

Jig said:

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

Click to expand...

Thats not true for the reasons Eudaimonist & Sith gave. However, you believe in God. Do you therefore claim virtual omniscience?

Jig said:

Is atheism a choice?


Do you reject theism?

Do you believe the Christian God exists?

Click to expand...

I think atheism is the natural state of one's mind. It becomes choice later, when knowledge that some people believe there is God reaches them.

True atheist should reject theism, as theism is based upon existence of God.

True atheist will not believe in any God, that includes Christian God.

P.S.: That started to look like the true Scotsman...

Jig said:

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

Yet, I see this CF faith(less) icon floating around the forums.

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

Click to expand...

1. It is false that you need to be omniscient in order to reject a proposition. Regurgitating platitudes doesn't get you anywhere.

2. Playing word games does not get you anywhere either.

Jig said:

Is atheism a choice?

Click to expand...

Not that I've noticed, but then, I've never seen any evidence for god.

Do you reject theism?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by reject? I lack belief in gods. I'm an atheist.

Do you believe the Christian God exists?

Click to expand...

No. I repeat, I'm an atheist.

Jig said:

My position is different than yours. It does not require me to claim virtual omniscience.

Example:
Let say you claim that there are no dogs in existence. It would be impossible for you to search the entire earth (not to mention the universe) to know this.

Let's say I claim that dogs do exist. All I have to do is find one dog to prove my claim. I might not even have to leave my neighborhood.

Click to expand...

But what if you couldn't offer any evidence of this dog? Are we justified in believing that dogs don't exist?

jig said:

Do you believe the Christian God exists?

Click to expand...

No, of course not. That’s what makes me an atheist. An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods.

To help make the atheist’s position more understandable to you, please answer this simple question: do you believe in fairies? Let’s hope your answer is, “no”. The atheist’s lack of belief in gods is the same as your lack of belief in fairies.

Here’s the important question. Why don’t you believe in fairies? If you understand why you don’t believe in fairies then perhaps you will understand why atheists don’t believe in your God or any other gods.

Jig said:

My position is different than yours. It does not require me to claim virtual omniscience.

Example:
Let say you claim that there are no dogs in existence. It would be impossible for you to search the entire earth (not to mention the universe) to know this.

Let's say I claim that dogs do exist. All I have to do is find one dog to prove my claim. I might not even have to leave my neighborhood.

Click to expand...

If you can't provide the proof, that is a good base upon which to disbelieve. If you claim that dogs exist, and then cannot demonstrate to any degree that such a claim is true, then we have good reason to doubt your claims.

Now it is true that this wouldn't be an outright opposite claim, but then that's not what atheism necessarily is. It's disbelief within limits of practicality - we cannot be omniscient, so instead we base our belief on where the evidence lies. If you cannot provide the evidence, we're not going to believe. Burden of proof and so on. Atheism does not require virtual omniscience, only a lack of evidence.

Also, what 3sigma said. That's a very good example of practical disbelief (a term which I just invented, so there may be an actual name for disbelief based on this logic).

An atheist doesn't need to know everything about the universe in order to claim that there is no God. All the atheist needs to do is show that the idea of God being presented is self contradictory.

Thus, we can show that a particular version of God cannot exist if it is self contradictory. We can likewise claim that there are no square circles without needing to search the entire universe, and we can claim that trhere are no even prime numbers greater than two without having to count to infinity.

And I have yet to see a proposed God that is no self-contradictory.

3sigma said:

To help make the atheist’s position more understandable to you, please answer this simple question: do you believe in fairies?

Click to expand...

Actually, no. The evidence for a fairy would be materially based and directly experienced. Therefore, the means, method or way (whatever you want to call it) has to be outlined, and when it is, it is to be fulfilled.

The real questions are do you believe that the sun exists? Why do you believe that it exists? Because it is in outer space. How do you verify that. With a telescope, space travel etc. But thats a different aspect. One closer to the point being made though, is saying that the light in the sky and heat is evidence for the sun. If you're under your bed, do you believe in the sun? According to materialism, no (Yes, that's actually how ridiculous it is)

An even more accurate representation is radio waves. Radio waves are verified through its manifestation as a voice on the radio. The waves themselves are not detectable to the naked eye. The means through which they are verified is through the radio. Do you believe in voices on the radio? (Again yes, that's how ridiculous it is. Luckily, the bind atheism has established with science is not recognized and you are on full display as yourself)

Materialists are merely people who want to turn the invisible, visible, the visible, invisible, the sun under your bed, radio waves directly perceptible. Its the illusion of a power you have granted yourself through your ascent to a God. In reality, it is only one you wish you had. There lies your "wishful thinking" and "delusion" allegations. The power to eradicate that given. Unrecognized. And Romans 1:20 stands. Every man has free will. This is simply where yours has taken you.

Like the sun and radio waves, there is the place, and the means through which they are verified. The means through which God is made known, is as the man. This is only the simplest method. The "start there". The question is do you believe you exist? That's how obvious it is (replacing yourself with a fairy will be bypassed btw).

The supernatural' and natural's relationship are as distant as a man and the material plane. Their interaction as everyday as motion and rest in the man. Called supernatural not for its isolation, but its disposition. In the scope of all of reality, everything is a subject of normal law.

If you want a more accurate comparison with a fairy or Santa Claus, see an organism which has the ability through chance and necessity to go from something like a bacterium, to a man, and the adaptation feature is not recognized.

We could turn it on you on a dime ...if we wanted to. Arguments are sporadic, points scattered, running around seemingly confused. Because you think you're attacking "leprachology".

Tiberius said:

An atheist doesn't need to know everything about the universe in order to claim that there is no God. All the atheist needs to do is show that the idea of God being presented is self contradictory.
Thus, we can show that a particular version of God cannot exist if it is self contradictory. We can likewise claim that there are no square circles without needing to search the entire universe, and we can claim that trhere are no even prime numbers greater than two without having to count to infinity.

Click to expand...

That is the nub. If the idea of god that is presented is contradictory, then that idea can be rejected.

And I have yet to see a proposed God that is no self-contradictory.

Click to expand...

Let "God" be the collective consciousness/self-awareness of the universe.
If all the universe is a figment of my imagination (solipsism) then I am God. Not Gracchus, but ME, the person reading this. Interestingly enough, when Moses asks the burning bush, "Who shall I say has sent me?", the incinerating shrubbery replies, "Tell them I AM has sent you!"
So until there is another claimant, I AM!
As the Hindus say, "Tat tvam asi." ("That thou art!")



(See for instance, "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are", by Alan Watts.)

Greg1234 said:

The real questions are do you believe that the sun exists? Why do you believe that it exists? Because it is in outer space. How do you verify that. With a telescope, space travel etc. But thats a different aspect. One closer to the point being made though, is saying that the light in the sky and heat is evidence for the sun. If you're under your bed, do you believe in the sun? According to materialism, no (Yes, that's actually how ridiculous it is)

Click to expand...

If I'm under my bed, I still have seen the evidence for the existence of the sun. I don't need constant exposure to the evidence - I have something called memory that helps with that.

An even more accurate representation is radio waves. Radio waves are verified through its manifestation as a voice on the radio. The waves themselves are not detectable to the naked eye. The means through which they are verified is through the radio. Do you believe in voices on the radio? (Again yes, that's how ridiculous it is. Luckily, the bind atheism has established with science is not recognized and you are on full display as yourself)

Click to expand...

And the strawman grows. Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just trying to regurgitate a series of lies in order to make us look stupid? Radio waves themselves can be detected and measured, you know. The question also makes no sense and is unrelated to everything else.

Materialists are merely people who want to turn the invisible, visible, the visible, invisible, the sun under your bed, radio waves directly perceptible. Its the illusion of a power you have granted yourself through your ascent to a God. In reality, it is only one you wish you had. There lies your "wishful thinking" and "delusion" allegations. The power to eradicate that given. Unrecognized. And Romans 1:20 stands. Every man has free will. This is simply where yours has taken you.

Click to expand...

Uh huh...

The rest of the post here is nonsense based on the nonsense I've quoted. Look up materialism, look up memory and look up the methods for measuring things that are cannot be directly percieved, and then perhaps you can come up with an argument that isn't a badly constructed strawman.

jig said:

I have a belief that stops me from believing in fairies. Do you have a belief that stops you from believing in God?

Click to expand...

No, I don’t have some other belief that stops me believing in your God or any other gods. I don’t believe in gods because there is no sound evidence supporting a belief in them so there is no sound reason to believe in them.

I thought perhaps you might have said something similarly sensible or reasonable regarding your lack of belief in fairies, but apparently, for you, sound evidence and sound reasoning don’t come into it. Instead, you don’t believe in fairies because some other belief overrides your ability to reason. Tell me, is that other belief supported by sound evidence or sound reasoning? I doubt that because I’m guessing this belief that overrides your ability to reason is your God belief.