What would it take to disprove atheism?

[Archaeopteryx]

How is what I said even remotely contradictory to my position? I gave the basic definitions for theism, atheism, and agnosticism, then asked you why you prefer to call yourself an atheist. What in the world is contradictory there?

How is it contradictory?

You purport to agree with this definition, among the others listed there:

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]

But then you go ahead and make statements like this:

Why are you attached to the term "atheist"? If you lack belief in gods, then are you agnostic. If you believe there are no gods, then you are atheist. What is it that draws you to being called an atheist, rather than an agnostic?

Describing yourself as an atheist, when you are most certainly an agnostic (or agnostic atheist), is misleading. You say you lack a belief, which is agnosticism. Someone like Dawkins strongly believes there to be no divine, thus he is an atheist, though he accepts some degree of agnosticism (describing himself as a 6 on a scale to 7).

If someone were to say "I'm an agnostic because I lack a belief in deities and I cannot definitively declare there are or are not deities," would you agree with them? I would, because that sounds exactly like an agnostic to me, and very little like an atheist.

So be it. You view yourself as an atheist, I think you are more accurately called an agnostic. Either way, we are not so far apart.

Atheism and theism are both gnostic positions. Every position one takes is gnostic. This is why individuals without a belief one way or another will say "I am an agnostic." How many people would say they are a "gnostic"? They wouldn't because it is a given, a redundancy, etc.

Every time an atheist describes lacking belief in deities, but does not claim to know that there are no deities (consistent with the definition of 'agnostic atheist' given above) you go on the same tirade, apparently oblivious to how you are contradicting yourself.

 

[BL2KTN]

Not believing and not being sure are two different things. If you do not believe then you disbelieve. An agnostic, if asked whether he/she believes in god, would say "I am unsure." An agnostic atheist would say "I do not believe, but I do not have clear evidence for my opinion." An atheist would say "I do not believe."

Agnosticism is lack of belief one way or another, not "not believing" or "believing" one way or another. Agnosticism is being unsure and making no determination. If you do not believe in the divine but have no persuasive reason, you are an agnostic atheist. If you do not believe in the divine and you feel you do have persuasive reasons, then you are simply an atheist. Being an agnostic theist or atheist is difficult in that it requires you to think your own opinion is based on folly.

Every time an atheist describes lacking belief in deities, but does not claim to know that there are no deities (consistent with the definition of 'agnostic atheist' given above) you go on the same tirade, apparently oblivious to how you are contradicting yourself.

Quote a single time I have went on a "tirade". I simply remind people that atheism is the disbelief in the divine, agnosticism is the lack of belief, and theism is the positive belief in the divine.

 

[Freodin]

That was my fault. I should've worded that better. I thought I was being clear about what I meant by "nothing" but since lots of people have objected, I must have misjudged. My apologies. I didn't mean "nothing" in the literal sense, that "Gee atheists believe that nothing really exists!" but that atheists believe there is nothing (for us) beyond the end of our physical lives, there is nothing that exists in any spiritual realm, there is no Divine Plan or greater morality, etc.

Sorry for not doing a better job.

No problem... that is what communication is for.

What you are doing right here in this post is what I was aiming for when I asked you to be more specific. That is much more interesting that a simple "nothing" (a rather difficult philosophical term).

Basically, all that atheists deny / reject / do not believe in is "deities" - and here it is always a theistic concept that is presented to them by a believer that is rejected.

Many (most? propably!) atheists also reject any "supernatural" concepts, but there are those who believe in an afterlife, objective morality or "spirituality" (another of these vague concepts). A "divine plan" though should be out for all atheists, as it refers to a deity.

Personally, I do not believe in any of those. In my view...

... our life is physical / material / natural. To ask what "for us" exists after this life is analogue to asking what happens to the pulse when there is no blood.

... there isn't any "spiritual realm" outside of our physical reality. As I said, "spiritual" is very vague in its meaning, and everything that is claimed to by "spiritual" can be included in our physical existence. After all, if it was "independent" from our physical realm, it would still have to work somehow... thus making it nothing but a different physical realm.

... a greater morality is another of these vague terms. There is no objective standard of measurement for morality, and thus there is no way to say which morality is "greater". Also, I see morality as the judgements that moral agents make, so there is no way "morality" could exist without moral agents.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not believing and not being sure are two different things. If you do not believe then you disbelieve. An agnostic, if asked whether he/she believes in god, would say "I am unsure." An agnostic atheist would say "I do not believe, but I do not have clear evidence for my opinion." An atheist would say "I do not believe."

Not quite. An agnostic atheist would say, as per the definition you "agree" with, "I do not believe in the existence of a deity, but I do not claim to know if a deity exists or not." Note the two elements: the lack of theism (i.e., atheism) and the agnosticism.

Agnosticism is lack of belief one way or another, not "not believing" or "believing" one way or another. Agnosticism is being unsure and making no determination. If you do not believe in the divine but have no persuasive reason, you are an agnostic atheist. If you do not believe in the divine and you feel you do have persuasive reasons, then you are simply an atheist.

Please see the definition you purport to "agree" with for further clarification.

Being an agnostic theist or atheist is difficult in that it requires you to think your own opinion is based on folly.

How so? It is simply based on the recognition that one does not know if a deity exists or not. Again, see the definition you "agree" with and start using it.

Quote a single time I have went on a "tirade". I simply remind people that atheism is the disbelief in the divine, agnosticism is the lack of belief, and theism is the positive belief in the divine.

And when people correct you on that, posting definitions that you purport to agree with, you go on a tirade, as in the previous thread mentioned and, now, in this one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Martymer 81 has an excellent video dealing with the definition of atheism. It's in response to an article written by a Christian who argues that atheism is a religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgqh-tWhqGA

 

[Deidre32]

I was a Christian most of my life, and a rather devout one for a long time. Now living as an atheist after a long journey away from Christianity, I can't say that I don't believe there is "nothing" as opposed to "something," in terms of what might have created us/the universe. But, I just don't believe in the "versions" that have been handed down over the centuries trying to convince people of who or what god might be. (I believe all religions are man made inventions.)

I think that a god may exist, of some sort perhaps, but I don't believe there is any proof of one. If there were, there would be no requirement to have faith. Faith is the belief in things unseen...unproven. ;-)

None if us knows with certainty whether a god exists or not. No matter how hard we wish to believe or disbelieve. I'm content in not knowing and not having to know, any longer, if that makes sense.

So, to prove a god exists would not be possible through human means. My humble opinion.

 

[Aldebaran]

I was a Christian most of my life, and a rather devout one for a long time. Now living as an atheist after a long journey away from Christianity,

Was there anything in particular that made you journey away from Christianity?

 

[Gladius]

Was there anything in particular that made you journey away from Christianity?

Look out Deidre they're coming for you again....

 

[Gladius]

Question for the group: If you are an atheist, what would it take to convince you that there truly is "something" rather than "nothing"?

Or is it possible? (I have a feeling that some loathe the concept of God so much, they could watch the seas part & they would STILL find a reason to doubt.....)

This would convince me.

1. God appears on earth in whatever non-human form he/she chooses, whilst still communicating in a human language. He/she agrees to be examined by a panel of 100 of the world's most eminent physicians, biologists and zoologists.

2. He/she proceeds to destroy the moon instantaneously on command.

3. He/she waits a month (while we verify via scientific observation that it is actually gone), then brings the moon back, also instantaneously.

Even if he/she isn't God, we'd be pretty stupid not to start worshipping him/her as one.

 

[Aldebaran]

Look out Deidre they're coming for you again....

It's just a question seeking an answer. Isn't that what we're here for?

 

[bhsmte]

This would convince me.

1. God appears on earth in whatever non-human form he/she chooses, whilst still communicating in a human language. He/she agrees to be examined by a panel of 100 of the world's most eminent physicians, biologists and zoologists.

2. He/she proceeds to destroy the moon instantaneously on command.

3. He/she waits a month (while we verify via scientific observation that it is actually gone), then brings the moon back, also instantaneously.

Even if he/she isn't God, we'd be pretty stupid not to start worshipping him/her as one.

To add to this, if God can make the Cub's win the world series, I'm in.

 

[Aldebaran]

This would convince me.

1. God appears on earth in whatever non-human form he/she chooses, whilst still communicating in a human language. He/she agrees to be examined by a panel of 100 of the world's most eminent physicians, biologists and zoologists.

2. He/she proceeds to destroy the moon instantaneously on command.

3. He/she waits a month (while we verify via scientific observation that it is actually gone), then brings the moon back, also instantaneously.

So basically, you want God to be someone you can do tricks for you on command and meet your definition of what He is, rather than being what He is and you accepting Him as He is.

Even if he/she isn't God, we'd be pretty stupid not to start worshipping him/her as one.

That's exactly what people will be saying as they worship the antichrist.
Revelation 13:1-2 "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"

Wouldn't you rather believe in and worship the true God?

 

[Freodin]

So basically, you want God to be someone you can do tricks for you on command and meet your definition of what He is, rather than being what He is and you accepting Him as He is.

One of the arguments from the link you gave in another threat is called "The Argument from Miracles".

A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
There are numerous well-attested miracles.
Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
Therefore God exists.

How do you assume to have your (at least, the ones you linked to) arguments taken serious, if you deny them as soon as they are turned back towards you?

 

[bhsmte]

So basically, you want God to be someone you can do tricks for you on command and meet your definition of what He is, rather than being what He is and you accepting Him as He is.



That's exactly what people will be saying as they worship the antichrist.
Revelation 13:1-2 "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"

Wouldn't you rather believe in and worship the true God?

In regards to your last sentence.

I can't do that right now, because it would require me to just fool myself and I don't do that well.

If a reason comes along that compels me to believe, I will.

 

[Aldebaran]

One of the arguments from the link you gave in another threat is called "The Argument from Miracles".



How do you assume to have your (at least, the ones you linked to) arguments taken serious, if you deny them as soon as they are turned back towards you?

I haven't denied anything. Read that part of the article--not just the beginning, but all the way through that section.

 

[Aldebaran]

In regards to your last sentence.

I can't do that right now, because it would require me to just fool myself and I don't do that well.

If a reason comes along that compels me to believe, I will.

What about the possibility of living in Hell for all eternity because you refused to believe? Wouldn't that at least cause you to see if maybe there is some possibility of God's existence?

 

[bhsmte]

What about the possibility of living in Hell for all eternity because you refused to believe? Wouldn't that at least cause you to see if maybe there is some possibility of God's existence?

Intimidation or fear coming from a story, is not compelling to me. It may have worked on people long ago, because their knowledge of the world was so limited, but it has little impact today, unless someone is one to be taken by this sort of thing.

If a loving, caring all powerful God has to intimidate people to get them to believe in him, that is sad and simply, not reconcilable to me.

 

[Freodin]

What about the possibility of living in Hell for all eternity because you refused to believe? Wouldn't that at least cause you to see if maybe there is some possibility of God's existence?

"refused to believe"? I'd say such a phrasing shows a major flaw in your reasoning.

I do not "refuse" to believe... I just do not believe. Belief is not a choice.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What about the possibility of living in Hell for all eternity because you refused to believe? Wouldn't that at least cause you to see if maybe there is some possibility of God's existence?

I am exactly as scared of going to Hell as you are scared of going to Tartarus.

 

[Chany]

What about the possibility of living in Hell for all eternity because you refused to believe? Wouldn't that at least cause you to see if maybe there is some possibility of God's existence?

Pascal's Wager. Yay.

First, most atheists come from religious backgrounds. I would say plenty of atheists were actively religious at one point (I was considering going to a seminary during the height of my religious life). The majority of atheists you meet will come from Christian homes in Western (religiously Christian) societies.

In other words, most atheists you'll ever meet were Christians at one point. Many of us believed in God, or some form of god, and many of us searched for the true religion. We've searched, and came out empty. For whatever reason, we cannot accept any god claims.

Also, don't use false dichotomies and appeals to emotion. They're fallacies for a reason.