I'm an atheist ... swear to God!

[Mercury]

So, as part of my continued philosophical thoughts that I wonder about ... here is another ...

Atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Religious:
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person><religious attitudes
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

One of the greatest debates between those who believe and those who don't is the attempts to prove or disprove either side.

Here is my conundrum ... An atheist will ask, "Can you prove that God exists?" While at the same time, the question "Can you prove that God does not exist?" might arise.

In a sense, isn't absolutely denying the possibility of the existence of a supreme power the same as denying the possibility that one does not exist?

In the scientific sense, one might say, "Well, God doesn't exist because your five senses does not detect God." Which I find somewhat curious as atoms existed but our five senses didn't detect them either (at least for most of our existence.)

I guess this topic is more aimed at those who consider themselves as pure atheists, and it really isn't meant as an attack but rather an attempt to better understand that position. So why do you consider yourself an atheist?

 

[StripedCat]

So why do you consider yourself an atheist?

I consider myself an atheist, because....I am not able to believe in god(s).

And I for one, neither deny the existence of a supreme being or beings nor do I deny that they don't exist. (Does that sentence make sense? :ninja)
The only reason for being an atheist is my sheer incapability to believe. (And sometimes, believe me, I'd be happy if I was able to believe. Imho, it makes life a bit easier every now and then.)

 

[Maulds]

Random thoughts. I heard someone say the two principles of Atheism are 1) There is no God and 2) I hate him. I thought that was kinda funny.

We have more than 5 senses, some we don't even have a name for.

 

[Minor Axis]

So, as part of my continued philosophical thoughts that I wonder about ... here is another ...

Atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Religious:
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person><religious attitudes
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

And there is the middle position, Agnostic believes that if there is a God, it's essence is unknown or unknowable. The Theists and Atheists are both just as far out on opposite limbs. Unfortunately the Theists rely on the thoughts of ancient superstitious humans as their foundation. If that is such a good idea, let's also use their mathematics and science standards too.

 

[Mercury]

I consider myself an atheist, because....I am not able to believe in god(s).

And I for one, neither deny the existence of a supreme being or beings nor do I deny that they don't exist. (Does that sentence make sense? :ninja)
The only reason for being an atheist is my sheer incapability to believe. (And sometimes, believe me, I'd be happy if I was able to believe. Imho, it makes life a bit easier every now and then.)

Wouldn't agnostic be more of what you described?

Random thoughts. I heard someone say the two principles of Atheism are 1) There is no God and 2) I hate him. I thought that was kinda funny.

We have more than 5 senses, some we don't even have a name for.

I tend to believe we have more than just 5 senses as well. However, the scientific mind relies only on the 5.

And there is the middle position, Agnostic believes that if there is a God, it's essence is unknown or unknowable. The Theists and Atheists are both just as far out on opposite limbs. Unfortunately the Theists rely on the thoughts of ancient superstitious humans as their foundation. If that is such a good idea, let's also use their mathematics and science standards too.

Yep, I'm familiar with agnosticism and I wonder if people tend to confuse the two sometimes.

Thanks for the replies all!

 

[Stone]

And there is the middle position, Agnostic believes that if there is a God, it's essence is unknown or unknowable. The Theists and Atheists are both just as far out on opposite limbs. Unfortunately the Theists rely on the thoughts of ancient superstitious humans as their foundation. If that is such a good idea, let's also use their mathematics and science standards too.

For what reason do you state that belief/non-belief systems are linear in relationship and that agnosticism is a median position? ( that's one question, not a two parter)

Unfortunately the Theists rely on the thoughts of ancient superstitious humans as their foundation. If that is such a good idea, let's also use their mathematics and science standards too.

Always with the rhetoric.
The concept of faith is built on unprovable answers in the scientific sense.
Math and science are based upon the study of provable reality........but you've been told that before.
The two concepts ( reality and faith ) are obviously incompatible in studying and defining each other as you are trying to imply, although your implication is only one-way.

 

[Minor Axis]

For what reason do you state that belief/non-belief systems are linear in relationship and that agnosticism is a median position? ( that's one question, not a two parter)

Always with the rhetoric.
The concept of faith is built on unprovable answers in the scientific sense.
Math and science are based upon the study of provable reality........but you've been told that before.
The two concepts ( reality and faith ) are obviously incompatible in studying and defining each other as you are trying to imply, although your implication is only one-way.

Rhetoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

If math and science can be improved with study, why can't faith? Why does Christianity include "reality" stories in it's guidebook of a boat built to hold 2 of each kind of animal, a man swallowed by a whale, our first ancestors being punished for eternity for not following a rule with the primary blame going to the woman, and God taking bets from the devil to test a man by destroying his life? Am I using rhetoric here too? If we can advance our study of reality, and understand that not every storm is an expression of God's anger, shouldn't we be able to question the basic tenants described in the Christian handbook? IMO, for faith, the more generalized the characterizations and standards are, the better. It is these kind of specifics that call the belief into doubt.

Please. I'm not mad at Christianity, just trying to make sense of it.

 

[Stone]

Rhetoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

If math and science can be improved with study, why can't faith? Why does Christianity include "reality" stories in it's guidebook of a boat built to hold 2 of each kind of animal, a man swallowed by a whale, our first ancestors being punished for eternity for not following a rule with the primary blame going to the woman, and God taking bets from the devil to test a man by destroying his life? Am I using rhetoric here too? If we can advance our study of reality, and understand that not every storm is an expression of God's anger, shouldn't we be able to question the basic tenants described in the Christian handbook? IMO, for faith, the more generalized the characterizations and standards are, the better. It is these kind of specifics that call the belief into doubt.

Please. I'm not mad at Christianity, just trying to make sense of it.

Rhetoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

BINGO!!!

If math and science can be improved with study, why can't faith?

Your interests are obviously focused at comparing the two concepts and defining the structure of one by the construction of the other........studying faith using the scientific method.
It's a logical fallacy......a comparison of unequal concepts, apples and oranges.
Fundamentalists make the same mistake in creation science arguments, only the reverse process.

Why does Christianity include "reality" stories in it's guidebook of a boat built to hold 2 of each kind of animal, a man swallowed by a whale, our first ancestors being punished for eternity for not following a rule with the primary blame going to the woman, and God taking bets from the devil to test a man by destroying his life?

And you really don't think you post rhetoric?
Again with the attacks on Christianity and the denigration of believers .
If you chose not to believe those 'reality' stories and still be of Christian faith, fine with me.
Christians have many differing views of the meaning of certain scripture and the Old Testiment is a mine field of differing opinion.
But you aren't interested in 'opinion'......you are addressing the Bible in a secular manner with the idea of scientific questioning, the inclusion of evidence and proof statements.
As pointed out.....'faith' is not a secular consideration and your attacks are illogical from that pov.
And obviously intentional as you keep repeating them for effect in these discussion.

If we can advance our study of reality, and understand that not every storm is an expression of God's anger, shouldn't we be able to question the basic tenants described in the Christian handbook?

I have no issue with you or any one else seeking understanding.
But you are using rhetoric to intentionally discredit rather than understand.
So I call 'bullshit' on you.

Please. I'm not mad at Christianity, just trying to make sense of it.

In the thread on intolerance, you do seem to actively argue humanity would benefit without religion......I do think you are mad, however

 

[Minor Axis]

Me: Rhetoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

BINGO!!!
Your interests are obviously focused at comparing the two concepts and defining the structure of one by the construction of the other........studying faith using the scientific method.
It's a logical fallacy......a comparison of unequal concepts, apples and oranges.
Fundamentalists make the same mistake in creation science arguments, only the reverse process.

Please study the definition of rhetoric. If the authors of the Bible choose to place these stories in them, followers and critics should be allowed to analyze them, no? I'm not exercising rhetoric. I'm not exaggerating anything. If so, please point them out and tell me why what I have described is exaggerated? Secondly- why include them in the Holy Book, if they have no relevancy to our lives, if they factually misrepresent interactions between God and Man? What do they actually tell us about God?

Me: Why does Christianity include "reality" stories in it's guidebook of a boat built to hold 2 of each kind of animal, a man swallowed by a whale, our first ancestors being punished for eternity for not following a rule with the primary blame going to the woman, and God taking bets from the devil to test a man by destroying his life?

And you really don't think you post rhetoric?
Again with the attacks on Christianity and the denigration of believers .

I'm sorry, it's obvious that you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the definitions of "retoric", "attacks", and "denigration". If I can't mention the stories of the Bible without you accusing me of these 3 quoted words, there really is no point continuing with the discussion. Sigh...I get to express that too.

 

[Dana]

So, as part of my continued philosophical thoughts that I wonder about ... here is another ...

Atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Religious:
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person><religious attitudes
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

One of the greatest debates between those who believe and those who don't is the attempts to prove or disprove either side.

Here is my conundrum ... An atheist will ask, "Can you prove that God exists?" While at the same time, the question "Can you prove that God does not exist?" might arise.

In a sense, isn't absolutely denying the possibility of the existence of a supreme power the same as denying the possibility that one does not exist?

In the scientific sense, one might say, "Well, God doesn't exist because your five senses does not detect God." Which I find somewhat curious as atoms existed but our five senses didn't detect them either (at least for most of our existence.)

I guess this topic is more aimed at those who consider themselves as pure atheists, and it really isn't meant as an attack but rather an attempt to better understand that position. So why do you consider yourself an atheist?

Our senses can't detect ALOT of things but that doesn't make them less real ie... carbon monoxide, ultra low pitch sounds, microscopic organisms....

 

[HK]

I consider true atheists just as difficult to agree with as those with true religion.


Both sides are claiming total knowledge that something does or doesn't exist. I consider myself agnostic because I don't think we're capable of knowing either way yet. We haven't even finished exploring our own planet, and we think we can accurately deduce what the rest of the universe contains?

 

[StripedCat]

Wouldn't agnostic be more of what you described?

Admittedly, I've never dealt with all these terms that intensely. I've just always considered an atheist to be someone who does not believe in god. And that's what I am.

However, I've read the wikipedia-article about Agnosticism, and it doesn't really fit, too. But what fits, is one type of agnosticism: --> Agnostic atheismAgnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not believe in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[SUP][19]

I think, that is what describes my attitude best.[/SUP]

 

[Stone]

Please study the definition of rhetoric. If the authors of the Bible choose to place these stories in them, followers and critics should be allowed to analyze them, no? I'm not exercising rhetoric. I'm not exaggerating anything. If so, please point them out and tell me why what I have described is exaggerated? Secondly- why include them in the Holy Book, if they have no relevancy to our lives, if they factually misrepresent interactions between God and Man? What do they actually tell us about God?





I'm sorry, it's obvious that you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the definitions of "retoric", "attacks", and "denigration". If I can't mention the stories of the Bible without you accusing me of these 3 quoted words, there really is no point continuing with the discussion. Sigh...I get to express that too.

Please study the definition of rhetoric.

I fully understand the concept and recognize it when I read it.
You're just not adept at disguising it.

I'm not exercising rhetoric.

Well.....not in that statement.
It's obvious you're trying to rationalize your past transgressions.

I'm not exaggerating anything.

Of course you have.....I've pointed it out as you've made the particular comments.

Secondly- why include them in the Holy Book, if they have no relevancy to our lives, if they factually misrepresent interactions between God and Man? What do they actually tell us about God?

More rhetoric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
excerpt>

Rhetoric is human communication that includes purposeful and strategic manipulation of symbols.

Your purpose appears to be to discredit the concept of the Christian faith and denigrate those that have religious beliefs of that nature.
Rhetoric.......I suggest you read up on it so you know what the hell your talking about when you use the word.

Secondly- why include them in the Holy Book, if they have no relevancy to our lives, if they factually misrepresent interactions between God and Man? What do they actually tell us about God?

You keep forgetting, you aren't addressing a fundamentalist and you simply are not going to get the same response as some one that takes the entire Bible literally.
There is much I don't understand, especially when taken literally. And I have no intention of seeking answers or resolving my questions in a forum designed for debate. I'm well aware you aren't really interested in enlightenment, your presence is rhetorical in opposition to the concept of 'faith'

Your 'reality stories' are mostly allegory and symbolic stories designed to get a point across, imho. And I'm not claiming I understand them. As they aren't part of my core beliefs, their understanding isn't critical to me.

At issue is your smugness, you call scripture you question 'reality tales' as an attempt to discredit the core of Christianity. ( rhetoric )
You have claimed it's not your right or anyone elses to denigrate opinion, and yet, here you are , time and time again, constantly introducing rhetoric designed to denigrate the concept of 'faith'.
I haven't even initiated debate about accepting faith.......you attacked poor little me, right out of the blue.......many months ago....( oh....you forgot? :eek....probably from the verbal beating you've been taking since )

If you want to reject the Bible as a source of information, fine for you.
If you want to learn what certain passages mean, fine for you, but I've already posted there are issues I don't understand and if it's knowledge you seek, go to a teacher of theology, religion or person of acclaimed respectability and request guidance.
I'm not qualified in that capacity. And neither are you.
If you want to look ( I should add.......'more' ) intolerant and biased......just keep it up, in a perverse way, you're doing just fine :clap

I'm sorry

You really think anyone believes that

, it's obvious that you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the definitions of "retoric", "attacks", and "denigration"

Good one.....bet you win a lot of debates with that line

If I can't mention the stories of the Bible without you accusing me of these 3 quoted words, there really is no point continuing with the discussion.

Bailing out after taking another beating?
Taking it like a man by putting me on ignore again? :eek---------> ------->

 

[Minor Axis]

Bailing out after taking another beating?

The only beating is me beating my head against a Stone wall with the associated IQ of a rock.

 

[Mercury]

Our senses can't detect ALOT of things but that doesn't make them less real ie... carbon monoxide, ultra low pitch sounds, microscopic organisms....

Precisely why I am interested in hearing from individuals who consider themselves atheist in how they consider themselves as such. And I am really just interested in the topic and the reasons behind it, but I fear that it may look like I am trying to bait them into giving reasons and then discredit them, which is not my intention.

I consider true atheists just as difficult to agree with as those with true religion.


Both sides are claiming total knowledge that something does or doesn't exist. I consider myself agnostic because I don't think we're capable of knowing either way yet. We haven't even finished exploring our own planet, and we think we can accurately deduce what the rest of the universe contains?

A very good point!

Admittedly, I've never dealt with all these terms that intensely. I've just always considered an atheist to be someone who does not believe in god. And that's what I am.

However, I've read the wikipedia-article about Agnosticism, and it doesn't really fit, too. But what fits, is one type of agnosticism: --> Agnostic atheismAgnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not believe in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[SUP][19]

I think, that is what describes my attitude best.[/SUP]

Okay, I totally understand that. Thanks for responding!

 

[The Man]

The only beating is me beating my head against a Stone wall with the associated IQ of a rock.

Hows that working out for you?

 

[Stone]

The only beating is me beating my head against a Stone wall with the associated IQ of a rock.

Hows that working out for you?

He seems to be down to ad hominems and denial, so I say it looks poorly for him.

 

[Dana]

I consider true atheists just as difficult to agree with as those with true religion.


Both sides are claiming total knowledge that something does or doesn't exist. I consider myself agnostic because I don't think we're capable of knowing either way yet. We haven't even finished exploring our own planet, and we think we can accurately deduce what the rest of the universe contains?

I agree. We spend so much time trying to understand the universe and yet we still have yet to fully understand things on Earth.

 

[Maulds]

I tend to believe we have more than just 5 senses as well. However, the scientific mind relies only on the 5.

Just for the record I didn't mean anything extrasensory as in clairvoyant. Just that we possess other senses that are just as normal as the 5 we all are so familiar with.

 

[Minor Axis]

He seems to be down to ad hominems and denial, so I say it looks poorly for him.

I apologize for the IQ comment. You are an obtuse personality, or you operate in an obtuse fashion by design. Practically every religious critique I offer up is returned with a slight against my motivations and character. That looks poorly for you.

I consider true atheists just as difficult to agree with as those with true religion.
Both sides are claiming total knowledge that something does or doesn't exist. I consider myself agnostic because I don't think we're capable of knowing either way yet. We haven't even finished exploring our own planet, and we think we can accurately deduce what the rest of the universe contains?

Technically I think the official position of Atheists is that they don't believe in God because there is not adequate reason/proof to believe. By inference, they could change their mind if and when circumstances change.