Are you an atheist?

[Brianwarnock]

Although education may reduce ones belief in religion that does not equate to one becoming an atheist.

The really intelligent position is agnostic as we do not know, but mankind has always wanted to believe, whether because it wants somebody to blame or because it doesn't understand, or just because it hopes that death is not the end, the reason doesn't matter, mankind wants to believe, but he doesn't know therefore agnostic is the default position.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

There absolutely could be a higher power running the show. I believe it's impossible to speak in absolutes about such things. To claim in absolute, that there definitely is a God or that there definitely is not, means you know. Obviously, it's impossible for any of us to truly know. Then there's this "faith" idea. You can't win when someone uses the "faith" card as their evidence of a God. Faith is an absolute. When I'm debating with someone on the existence of their version of "God," it almost always comes to that word, in which case, the debate is over. If someone is completely refusing to look or think outside of their "faith" bubble, there is no reason to discuss anything further.

Absolutes don't belong in society. Science doesn't have absolutes, so for science to say there is NO God is just as ignorant as someone who says their religion is the one true way and no one should believe anything else. The point of science is that it's constantly expanding. The requirements and definitions of life and thought are constantly expanding. 100 years ago, you would have believed it impossible for someone to live with lungs, hearts, or livers from another person, yet here we are, constantly improving the procedures. We are even on the verge of harvesting your own stem cells you have today to create perfect match organs for you in case something fails. It might be a long way off, but it's pretty well recognized as possible in the future.

I believe that if there is a God or some benevolent being, I believe we have no way of understanding it. I believe all religions of the Earth are completely made up. How can they not be? Their own religions texts, such as the Holy Bible, say that people are not perfect and God is. If people aren't perfect, maybe they misinterpreted the word of "God" when it was written? Who's to say that they didn't completely miss the point when God was talking to them? We already know the Bible has been altered with books and passages lost, added, removed, editted, etc... throughout the years. We know that religious holidays are a mashup of historical pagan holidays. We adapt and grow, which is how it should be. To think that the Bible is the one word and that's the way it always should be is just ignorant in itself. It's changed too many times over the years for us not to continue to change it to fit modern times, such as women rights, gay rights, etc...

I love studying religions. I especially love debating the topic in a professional and insultless manner. Unfortunately, people tend to get tricky when they have a closed mind. I welcome any thoughts on the matter.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The really intelligent position is agnostic as we do not know, but mankind has always wanted to believe, whether because it wants somebody to blame or because it doesn't understand, or just because it hopes that death is not the end, the reason doesn't matter, mankind wants to believe, but he doesn't know therefore agnostic is the default position.

To me, atheists and agnostics are one and the same. The term "atheist" has been drug through the mud so much that many people don't like to claim the title. Agnostic is sort of a polite form of non-belief.

If we define atheist to be the same as poll option #1, I imagine virtually no one is an atheist. In my experience, atheists tend to be non-believers based on logic, studying various world religions, etc. As logical people, they are bound by reason.

If:

1. A being appeared that was able to break the natural rules of the world (for simplicity sake, lets say it used magic),
2. Claimed it was the god of this or that religion, and
3. Proved it to the atheist's agreement

Then every atheist I ever met would start following that religion, as it would be the most logical thing. As such, poll option #2 is what I would consider a run-of-the-mill atheist.

I love studying religions. I especially love debating the topic in a professional and insultless manner. Unfortunately, people tend to get tricky when they have a closed mind. I welcome any thoughts on the matter.

Well said. Studying religions in the academic sense is very interesting to me. I usually study them in the context of seeing how the various religions came to be. If you compare the various religions that have existed or still exist today, you start to notice many patterns. To me it is another example that humans are more alike across the globe than they are different.

 

[Vassago]

To me, atheists and agnostics are one and the same. The term "atheist" has been drug through the mud so much that many people don't like to claim the title. Agnostic is sort of a polite form of non-belief.

I disagree on this one. Agnostic to me is accepting the possibility of a supreme being, but not accepting the socially accepted beliefs that exist. You also accept that there is a possibility one exists. You accept that we just don't know. I fall into this category. I don't really consider myself Atheist. Atheists place an absolute value of no possibility of a God.

If we define atheist to be the same as poll option #1, I imagine virtually no one is an atheist. In my experience, atheists tend to be non-believers based on logic, studying various world religions, etc. As logical people, they are bound by reason.

If:

1. A being appeared that was able to break the natural rules of the world (for simplicity sake, lets say it used magic),
2. Claimed it was the god of this or that religion, and
3. Proved it to the atheist's agreement

Then every atheist I ever met would start following that religion, as it would be the most logical thing. As such, poll option #2 is what I would consider a run-of-the-mill atheist.

I don't think they would wholly accept a being that could do this. Sure, there would be some who would accept it and change their beliefs, just as they would in all religions or lack of religion stances, but the fact that they are atheists would lead them to search for a logical explanation as to what happened. The norm would be, we don't have enough understanding of this yet, so let's break it down, just like they always have over the years.

Well said. Studying religions in the academic sense is very interesting to me. I usually study them in the context of seeing how the various religions came to be. If you compare the various religions that have existed or still exist today, you start to notice many patterns. To me it is another example that humans are more alike across the globe than they are different.

So very true! There are far too many similarities between many religious texts to believe they didn't come from a single source that had been modified throughout the years. This brings me back to the fact that humans make mistakes. One person misinterprets something that is written, writes it differently, and so forth until you have formed a whole new religion, even if the foundation is the same.

 

[Dick7Access]

I haven't read all the post as there are so many, but has there been or are there any out there that can say they are 100% sure that there is not such thning as God.

 

[Galaxiom]

Well the thread poll is currently showing that about 16% are 100 percent sure there is no god.

Personally I don't believe one can be absolutely sure of anything. However I can say on the balance of evidence (or more precisely the complete absence of it) that there is no god.

Meanwhile 38 percent have indicated that they are absolutely sure that their god is the only god and definitely exists despite not having one iota of evidence to support that assertion.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Agnostic to me is accepting the possibility of a supreme being, but not accepting the socially accepted beliefs that exist.

But "not accepting the socially accepted beliefs that exist" changes based on where you are geographically. So, based on your interpretation, can you be agnostic towards one religion or philosophy but an atheist towards another?

I don't think they would wholly accept a being that could do this.

I don't follow. One of the stipulations was:

Proved it to the atheist's agreement

Basically the reason that a non-believer is a non-believer is that they have a lot of doubts. If you prove it to the atheist's agreement, then that means all of their doubts have been answered. I'm not sure how a person would not wholly accept a being if that being proved their "powers" to that person's agreement.

Personally I don't believe one can be absolutely sure of anything. However I can say on the balance of evidence (or more precisely the complete absence of it) that there is no god.

I agree. But you probably still consider yourself an atheist, I would imagine? That's what I meant earlier about the atheists and agnostics being basically the same.

An atheist says "there is no god", and could explain their reasons for not believing a god or god(s) exist. An agnostic says "I don't know if there is a god", and could explain their reasons for why they are unsure.

But in my experience, neither are married to their position. They simply are of that position based on their education, research, logical thinking, application of common sense, etc.

If new definitive evidence came to light (my previous example was a god presents its self and answers all of the non-believer's questions, maybe parts a sea or brings someone back from the dead, etc), then both atheists and agnostics would become believers, at least in the sense that they believe that being is supernatural.

To suggest that an atheist or agnostic would remain a non-believer even after presented with concrete, irrefutable evidence presupposes that the non-believer is the same as the believer (as in, their position is based on faith, not evidence), which does a disservice to non-believers IMO.

 

[Lightwave]

Guys I'll buy you a drink when we get to the pearly gates and we can all have a laugh about how much we didn't see this coming.

 

[Alc]

I haven't read all the post as there are so many

I wouldn't worry. Pick any dozen or so and read those, the conversation goes in circles anyway.

 

[Vassago]

But "not accepting the socially accepted beliefs that exist" changes based on where you are geographically. So, based on your interpretation, can you be agnostic towards one religion or philosophy but an atheist towards another?

You can't be agnostic toward one religion and atheist toward another. If you're agnostic, you believe that absolutely no religion is 100% right or wrong, but you don't discount the possibility of a God. You believe we just don't know.

Being atheist, you believe there is absolutely NO God, and you know without a doubt there is no God. This is the position of more Science, but in my opinion still too closed minded. We learn in science every day. Things we thought were impossible become possible. For anyone to believe something without proof is no different than any religions of the world. They haven't proven there is no higher being just because they haven't proven there is.

I don't follow. One of the stipulations was:

Proved it to the atheist's agreement

Basically the reason that a non-believer is a non-believer is that they have a lot of doubts. If you prove it to the atheist's agreement, then that means all of their doubts have been answered. I'm not sure how a person would not wholly accept a being if that being proved their "powers" to that person's agreement.

I don't follow this one. A non-believer has doubts, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't accept it if it was proven. Atheists believe they aren't just doubts, but certainties. They sort of have their own "faith" in their belief that a higher being does not exist.

I agree. But you probably still consider yourself an atheist, I would imagine? That's what I meant earlier about the atheists and agnostics being basically the same.

An atheist says "there is no god", and could explain their reasons for not believing a god or god(s) exist. An agnostic says "I don't know if there is a god", and could explain their reasons for why they are unsure.

But in my experience, neither are married to their position. They simply are of that position based on their education, research, logical thinking, application of common sense, etc.

If new definitive evidence came to light (my previous example was a god presents its self and answers all of the non-believer's questions, maybe parts a sea or brings someone back from the dead, etc), then both atheists and agnostics would become believers, at least in the sense that they believe that being is supernatural.

To suggest that an atheist or agnostic would remain a non-believer even after presented with concrete, irrefutable evidence presupposes that the non-believer is the same as the believer (as in, their position is based on faith, not evidence), which does a disservice to non-believers IMO.

[/QUOTE]

Nope. I consider myself agnostic. I have too much of an open mind to speak in certainties. To me, there is a huge difference.

On another note, who decides who is God? What if an alien being came to Earth tomorrow and claimed to be God? What if they had technology that allowed them to provide miracles? Would we accept it? Who or what sets the standard as to what a "higher being" really is? What if it's just a more advanced technology that allows our "spirits" to be transfered via energy to another "realm." What if they had technology like this?

 

[Lightwave]

You can't be agnostic toward one religion and atheist toward another.

We're all a little bit crazy... some more than others...

We're pre-disposed to believe in ideas that enable us to get through the day with confidence.

What exactly is the difference between Santa Claus and God? People believe in one and not the other all the time.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Being atheist, you believe there is absolutely NO God, and you know without a doubt there is no God.

If that is the definition you're using, I imagine there are only a handful of atheists in the world. I've spoken with many non-believers that identified as atheists, were in their local atheist club in college, etc., and none professed this level of "faith" in their non-belief.

Most would say they don't believe, and explain why. They might pick apart the bible's inconsistencies, or explain how something in the koran couldn't logically happen, etc.

But if there was proof - concrete, irrefutable proof, they would accept it, because at their core they are logical people. I think this definition (or perhaps, interpretation of a definition) is far too narrow.

Atheists believe they aren't just doubts, but certainties. They sort of have their own "faith" in their belief that a higher being does not exist.

I guess this is just a difference of terminology. By this definition, I've never met an atheist .

Nope. I consider myself agnostic. I have too much of an open mind to speak in certainties. To me, there is a huge difference.

Actually, this question was directed at Galaxiom. I know he has been vocal in his non-belief on these forums in the past, and I was curious if he considered himself an atheist, even though he said:

Personally I don't believe one can be absolutely sure of anything. However I can say on the balance of evidence (or more precisely the complete absence of it) that there is no god.

On another note, who decides who is God? What if an alien being came to Earth tomorrow and claimed to be God? What if they had technology that allowed them to provide miracles? Would we accept it? Who or what sets the standard as to what a "higher being" really is? What if it's just a more advanced technology that allows our "spirits" to be transfered via energy to another "realm." What if they had technology like this?

Sounds like an episode of Star Trek.

I think a large majority of the religious people in the world would immediately accept the being as god (Christians in particular). They've been waiting for the return of their deity for quite a few years now.

Non-believers would probably be skeptical at first, but if the being was able to create the type of miracles that occurred in the bible (parting seas, plagues, etc), then I imagine a vast majority of them would accept the being as well.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

What exactly is the difference between Santa Claus and God? People believe in one and not the other all the time.

The gifts received from God are far more valuable than those from Santa.

To an athiest there is no differance? Thats worrying and a little sad!

 

[Lightwave]

The gifts received from God are far more valuable than those from Santa.

I seek no rewards and hope I take satisfaction in the beauty and wonder of the world. That is enough for me.

 

[Vassago]

If that is the definition you're using, I imagine there are only a handful of atheists in the world. I've spoken with many non-believers that identified as atheists, were in their local atheist club in college, etc., and none professed this level of "faith" in their non-belief.

Most would say they don't believe, and explain why. They might pick apart the bible's inconsistencies, or explain how something in the koran couldn't logically happen, etc.

But if there was proof - concrete, irrefutable proof, they would accept it, because at their core they are logical people. I think this definition (or perhaps, interpretation of a definition) is far too narrow.

I guess this is just a difference of terminology. By this definition, I've never met an atheist .

That's exactly my point. Most people who identify themselves as atheists are actually agnostic, they probably just don't realize it. However, your example of "proof" holds true for any religion. If Odin suddenly ended up on Earth with Thor and the other Gods, and said they were the true Gods, people would suddenly believe in the Norse Gods, no matter how "faithful" they were to their original religions. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. Faith can be trumped by proof, but I don't think any religions or lack thereof have broken the barrier of proof yet.

Sounds like an episode of Star Trek.

I think a large majority of the religious people in the world would immediately accept the being as god (Christians in particular). They've been waiting for the return of their deity for quite a few years now.

Non-believers would probably be skeptical at first, but if the being was able to create the type of miracles that occurred in the bible (parting seas, plagues, etc), then I imagine a vast majority of them would accept the being as well.

People are naturally skeptical. I believe you are correct though. I think even Christians would be skeptical, because as much as they "believe" and have "faith" in their religions and religious texts, they brush off anyone claiming to be a messenger of God as crazy, etc... Think of the old guy holding the sign saying the world will end and Jesus will return two months ago. If they had abilities that belonged to their faith, they would believe.

The gifts received from God are far more valuable than those from Santa.

To an athiest there is no differance? Thats worrying and a little sad!

Obviously, I know Santa is not real. I believe that God could exist, but if he did, anything that happens in the world is not a gift from him. We are left to our own destinies. I believe in human nature, mankind, and kindness to others. I believe the way we live our lives and the way we treat others is what life is really about. Lightwave kind of nailed it. I think as long as we live a relatively good life, show remorse for our wrongs (to an extent as some people physically can't), it won't matter what happens when we are no longer living it. Hail marys and praise Allahs shouldn't be necessary to leave a positive mark and gain entry into some kind of paradise, whatever that may or may not be.

 

[Brianwarnock]

The gifts received from God are far more valuable than those from Santa.

!

Was this said tongue in cheek? If not what are the gifts we receive from God?

I'm inclined to believe that if there is a God then he plays no part in what takes place on this planet, basically because if He does exist and does influence events then I am seriously worried about meeting Him.

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

I am seriously worried about meeting Him.
And well you should be!

 

[Brianwarnock]

You took a phrase out of context making it a general sweeping statement, so please explain why I should be afraid of meeting a God of love and mercy.

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

Your right I did intentionally take it out of contents just for a little fun. If you’re offended I apologize. You see I haven’t put many post on the tread just for that reason. This topic and dialog is as old as man. People can get offended easy on both sides of the fence. I believe there is a God, I know his name, and I know what He expects of me. I also know that besides being a God of love, He is also a God of justice. If someone chooses to believe there is no god, or that maybe there is a god, but he is mean, or that he is only a god of love, that is ok with me.

 

[Rabbie]

Of course on a very strict definition no-one can be an atheist because it is not possible to prove that a god does not exist. It is equally impossible to prove that Santa Clause or the tooth fairy don't exist either.

However there is no evidence to show that the god described in the Bible exists. There is a passage in one of the gospels (too lazy to look it up) where Jesus says "Which of you when his son asks for a fish gives him a stone" and suggests prayers will answered because God will react in the same way. ANy other reaction from a loving God would be perverse. The amount of prayers that are not answered is for me sufficient evidence of the nonexistence of a god as described in the New Testament.