I also think that there is no default state for a person, because we start out identifying with our parents. It takes time to individuate from them and to build our own personalities. Theories of personality that I respect will account for this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism doesn't exist?:)
- Thread starter Rabbi Daniel
- Start date
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Easy! Use the same "math" that people who claim 100% chance of god use.
Pull it out of thin air, and declare: WINNER. Then shoo the pigeon off the chessboard, and get out the cleaning gear...
Scientists tend to find examinable evidence, repeatable experiment, and well-reasoned and transparent argument a potent combination. What do you say they're missing, precisely?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Emphasis by me.
No. Or not yet. We don't even know if the universe is "created" or eternal or cyclical or embedded into a multiverse.
And even if the universe has a starting point, we don't know what could have been the reason for the start.
The universe could be a simulation. Would you call the programmers of the simulation gods?
In M-Theory universes are created whenever membranes collide. If a multidimensional equivalent of a cow kicked the brane we are on, would you call that cow god?
You are looking for a god and you don't even know what a god is. If you have to contemplate if a cow or a team of programmers (or whatever you want to call) could be that what you are looking for, you may want to go back to the definition phase.
If you immediately said "Yes" to the cow and the programmers you got yourself a world-creator with the property "creates worlds" - and nothing else. Then you aren't a theist, you are a deist (and, if I'd want to be nitpicky, an a-theist).
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Their own physical self presence, for they claim that just their thoughts own everything that exists, as it is the words of science that claimed that science owned everything.
A rational human living on Earth says, when the stone O planet says it existed first and owned no beginning and no end....as what a science male quoted, as he stood upon that body...then he did.
Males claim that consciousness of self is the atmosphere, therefore they said Consciousness is not God, for you do not own speaking on behalf of a history that would burn you to death...for that is the natural history of God.
Yet a male says I cannot be standing upon burning....why he said to self so logically I am not Satan.
When a male says I am going to create as if creation is going to be created, then where is his well reasoned argument as a combination, when he claims it does not yet exist?
And that is the situation that spiritual males argue against science males...for it is irrational thinking to claim that a Universe does not exist, when he knows it does, and then infers that the Universal thinking will be a machine reaction.
The design machine did not come out of the physical God body reactive history, it came from a thinking non physical design concept that his thoughts in a non stone presence of matter was thought upon.
As radiation owns no design, his study concept to realise design he says was God.
The concept of which he says is fusion and removal of fusion...so he got the design of God being destroyed in holy dust nuclear reactions....as a statement about God.
That concept is not creating from a reaction, it is destroying natural history.
Of course 2+2 (modulo 3) = 1.
And if I pour two pints and two pints into a three-pint pot, 2+2=3.
So maybe be careful with words like 'absolute', hein?
Jim
Nets of Wonder
I don’t have any belief in the reality or existence of any supernatural God or gods. If that makes me an atheist, then I’m an atheist. I take what some scriptures say about the God of Abraham and what He says and does as useful metaphors. If that make me a theist, then I’m a theist.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
A clear choice does not involve suppression of any other thought, it is very straight-forward.
With some truth, you accept a whole lot of untruth. And the good is not something uniquely created by these scriptures. It has been around for all human history.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Strange thing to say. It's a pretty binary thing, actually. You either believe or you don't.
This scales refers to knowlede, not to belief.
No, I'm not "100% certain there is no god". I am, however, 100% certain that I don't believe in a god.
In the same way, I'm not "100% certain" that we don't live in the matrix. But I'm 100% certain that I don't believe we do.
False.
You're confusing atheism (nonbelief) with gnosticism (knowing).
You can be a gnostic atheism ("i believe and know there is no god") or an agnostic atheist ("i don't believe there is a god, but I don't know").
I personally don't know a single gnostic atheist
Yes. Because atheism pertains to lack of belief, not to knowledge.
It doesn't matter. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's a ridiculous position which assumes you know someones thoughts and beliefs better then they do themselves.
I could just as easily say that that many theists aren't truly theist because deep down they know they don't really believe.
Depends on what universe you're talking about. If you mean our universe ─ the world external to the self aka nature aka the sum of things with objective existence (&c) ─ then that's where you'll find science.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with what one finds valueable.
It only pertains to nobelief of supernatural entities.
If you are going to posit that not believing that supernatural entities are real, means that that person thinks that nothing has value and nothing matters, then you're just going to be incorrect.
I, as an atheist, value a great many things.
False. I don't "worship" anything. Well, I guess it would depend on how you use that word off course... But in my understanding of the word, I don't "worship" anything.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Children will believe just about anything.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Heyo
Veteran Member
Nope.
You, as an atheist, don't have any values.
You, as a person who happens to be an atheist, do have many values.
And I'm pretty sure that was what you wanted to say.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I'm not pretty sure, but we'll know pretty soon
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I get the feeling that it seems almost impossible there being a Theist not belittling Atheists (as inferior human beings). That I find really remarkable.
See quote below. It's that simple. No need to superimpose any other mindstuff on Atheists
Why would that matter?
There are lots of ridiculous, clearly fabricated claims that we can't say with 100% certainty are false.
If God isn't any more supported than, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Kempenfelt Kelly*, then why should I give God any more regard than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Kempenfelt Kelly, two claims that I give no regard to at all?
*the lake monster that was invented as a tourist draw for Lake Simcoe, just north of Toronto: Lake Simcoe Living | Lake Simcoe's own monster | news
On a good day, I tend to assume that they're so entrenched in their own theistic belief system that they just can't relate to a belief system that doesn't include God. It seems like many of them just aren't equipped to even have a conversation about atheism, to say nothing about actually seeing the world from an atheist point of view.
Obviously, it can't be said that you didn't read the entire post. But what can be said is that you didn't understand the post because of what you claimed as being stated. It is possible that someone can still not understand something eventhough it was clearly stated.
The difference here is that, atheism/atheist only has one THING in order to be true. And that one particular thing is, "lack of belief in the existence of a god." So it doesn't matter if an atheist have any additional beliefs, those additional beliefs are not what makes an atheist, an atheist. If someone qualifies, with the minimum requirement, as an atheist, then they are an atheist. You can't believe that, "no god exist" without the "lack of belief in the existence of a god."
Remember one thing, someone can misunderstood a statement and think that it is ironic eventhough it's actually not if understood correctly. And someone can be shown that they are wrong even if they don't agree to it. What it means is that they are wrong regardless whether they agree to it or not, they simply just can't accept the fact that they are wrong.