• 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?:)

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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.
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.
Well, here am I - a gnostic atheist. I know that Ahur Mazda / Yahveh / God / Allah are all human imagination.
Similarly, I am 100% certain that we are a matrix because there is nothing in the universe other than fundamental forces.
Children will believe just about anything.
Children or ignorant people.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, here am I - a gnostic atheist. I know that Ahur Mazda / Yahveh / God / Allah are all human imagination.

imo, the "gnostic" part also includes all gods or other such entities we haven't even thought of yet.

I'ld say there's a great deal of specific gods that we can rule out with rational certainty, simply because they can be shown to be inconsistent with observable reality.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
The word worship and God is just what we value or exalt or respect or love the greatest compared to other things. Atheists replace God as in the Creator with other things they value and love.

It's impossible there being an Atheist unless you believe there is no value to the universe or a person chooses not to value anything.
Sorry, but you already admit that it's possible for there to be atheists for reasons other than, "believe there is no value to the universe or a person chooses not to value anything."

I'm an atheist and I replaced a god that I don't believe exist, with my love of seeing idiots trying to be smart and end up being proven that they are in fact idiots simply by showing what they wrote. See, it is possible for to be an atheist and still have something to value, which is, my love of seeing idiots proving themselves to be idiots. And it is of great value because it shows you what you should avoid doing in order for you to not be an idiot. :thumbsup:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The word worship and God is just what we value or exalt or respect or love the greatest compared to other things. Atheists replace God as in the Creator with other things they value and love.
It's wrong to think that this is about replacement.
People value many things.
Believers just add their religion to the mix.
It's impossible there being an Atheist unless you believe there is no value to the universe or a person chooses not to value anything.
Do you realize that you're arguing with the people you claim don't exist?
That very act acknowledges our existence.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
imo, the "gnostic" part also includes all gods or other such entities we haven't even thought of yet.
You cannot rule out physical energy, that was the only thing that we started with at the time of Big Bang. That alone exists or perhaps sometimes does not exist - Existence and non-existence.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That is what can be called "Brainwashing program finished".
I try (though sometimes fail) not to be too hard on them for this. I have trouble relating to theistic positions, too.

I have to say, though - if someone's trying to start from a position of strength, opening with something that can be paraphrased as "you can be 99.99% sure I'm wrong, but no more than that!" isn't exactly putting your best foot forward.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.
Once again with the labels, and worrying about what they mean and who fits them.

I don't care.

Ultimately, my position is this: Whatever YOU state that you know about "God," by default I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, and so, to convince me, you will have to produce sufficient evidence of your claims. Evidence that is inter-subjectively verifiable (that is, can be examined and verified by anyone), or reproduce-able (meaning it does not only "work once" and you can't get it to appear/work again), and you would have to cogently demonstrate the truth of all aspects you expect a person to believe (such as demonstrating the realm that God exists within, the "supernatural," or what a "miracle" is and how you can know it is distinctly attributable to God).

You don't have that? Then you don't have anything in my opinion. I will cease to listen to you unless it is to thereafter berate you for maintaining very poor standards of evidence.
 
Last edited:

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
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?

Even worse! 2+2=10 in base 4 math.

In base 3? It is 11.

One must be careful of one's definitions-- which is why a skeptic asks "which god, where, and what does 'god' mean anyhow?"
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"I can pretty easily fathom why both believers and atheists believe how they do. Each is seeing things through their particular filters that colorizes the question of God into their respective belief structures. Both are looking at the God question, and coming out with a different take on the same question."

You insist on calling it a "question of God". You can't understand that it's not about god, it's about belief. The discussion would be the same if we'd talk about alien abduction.
Beliefs about God are theological views. You cannot say you believe God does not exist, if you have no idea of how others define God. You are starting with a picture of God, which makes it theological. Theology is what gives you the starting definition.

You can't just say you reject beliefs, if those beliefs have no content (they wouldn't be beliefs if that were true). You would say, "I don't understand the question here". But you do understand the question. And your answer to the question is, it doesn't add up for you. You're working with a theological view, and that is what you question as being true or not.

I realized that "god" is a word without meaning. So the question has no meaning.
What you say here is senseless. Of course it has meaning. Otherwise you could never say you don't believe it. I've never heard anyone claim the word God has no meaning. It's in the damn dictionary! :) It obviously has meaning in order for it to appear there.

I think what you mean to say is it has no value to you. That's a very different thing. Traditional theistic theologies of God aren't believed in or have value to a great many folks, myself included. There's a great saying I think fits in here. "The God you don't believe in, doesn't exist".

I don't have an image of god. Believers may or may not have one.
Your denialism here is amazing to me. All believers in God, and all non-believers in God, have to have an image of God they are working with to either believe in or not believe in. It's incredibly simple to understand. If you said to me, "Do you believe X is real", and then never tell me what X is, my response would be obvious, "I can't affirm belief or disbelief in something if I don't have any idea of what it is you are asking me".

But if you then explained the meaning of what X stands for, then I have a mental image of it to now examine and give you my opinion about it. And that you claim to have no idea of what God means, about how people believe about God, then you are being flatly dishonest, first with yourself. You would never identify as an atheist, if you had no idea what God means in people's beliefs. Why would you? That would be ridiculous. Do you ever weigh in with your opinion on things when you have no idea what others mean by them?

Most think they have one but buckle when questioned. And when they have one it is an individual one that has no resemblance to the next one's. Talking about god with believers is a game of "I think of a thing ...".
Considering there are entire institutions centered around beliefs in God, you obviously have some degree of general consensus going on there. Obviously, there are difference in how individuals interpret it, but that is true of any and all commonly held beliefs, regardless of the nature of them. If you are going to say those differences equal nobody believing the same things, then that applies to 100% of everything everyone believes. No two are 100% alike, on any topic.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
catchy...but wrong. "One god less than you do' Still means that anybody who believes in any god is NOT an a (against/not) theist (believer in some 'higher power/deity"

The thing that I find, however, is that many atheists aren't truly atheist...they are just mad at Him.
I know this is something theists like to tell themselves ....

It's difficult to be mad at something you don't think exists.
Do you withhold belief in leprechauns because you're mad at them, or because you've not seen any evidence convincing you that leprechauns exist in the first place?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I know this is something theists like to tell themselves ....

It's difficult to be mad at something you don't think exists.
Do you withhold belief in leprechauns because you're mad at them, or because you've not seen any evidence convincing you that leprechauns exist in the first place?
I think that you will find some theists that temporarily "do not believe in God because they hate Him". There are people that are atheists for bad reasons. They will claim not to believe in God, but being mad at God belies that claim. If one is mad a God that person can arguably said not to be an atheist. Perhaps that is where the poster's error arose from.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And therein lies my problemo numero uno!

At absolute minimum, God, to be creator and sustainer of all reality, must have cognition, along with both creative impulse and creative power.
Again, all of these are theological views. Based upon your logic you are using, God must be understood in certain ways. That's theology. That is what theology does.

What you are doing here is arguing theologies of God. Not everyone who believes in God, defines God as you are here, and would find themselves agreeing with your conclusion about God, as you defined it theologically.

I think you are mistaken in all of that, because of your strong urge to ascribe "theological" thinking to everybody. but the core is those letters I highlighted: "natural systems don't need a supernatural God." For me, there is nothing to suggest that natural systems need support for their existence at all, and therefore I do not assume one.
My basic premise is all of these ways you are seeing God, and finding fault with them, are theological views. That is not mistaken, and I continue to demonstrate why pointing to how you have a view of God as defined theologically, which you reject. You're not rejecting nothing. You're rejecting a belief about something that has definitions about God. Those are theological because they are about defining the nature of God. You did it in the last post, and you are doing it here as well. There is no mistake here.

Now, as far "Natural systems don't need a supernatural God", I was paraphrasing your argument that you use against God because you defined God as "supernatural". That was your word to define God. I was repeating it back to you. God is supernatural, is a theological view. A pantheist's theology for example does not make that statement. You are starting with the theology of traditional theism.

It doesn't matter what that basis for you argument against that is, that nature doesn't need God, etc., because you have already stated a theological view that God is supernatural, which is the theology of traditional theism. You started with a theological view as the cornerstone of everything that follows. And that has been my point all along. You're not saying anything that demonstrates otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

God is an atheist
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
With all do respect, bull ****.

I am anti-willful ignorance.
Meaning I am against willful ignorance.
Nothing more, nothing less,
I do not have to take any actions to be against willful ignorance.

Yes you do. Simply saying that you are 'against willful ignorance' is an act, especially since in order to be against willful ignorance, you have to define what you think people are willfully ignorance of, and what you think is the "truth" of which 'they' are indeed 'willfully ignorant."

BTW, one cannot BE 'WILLFULLY' ignorant. That requires that one be aware of truth, and simply refuse to acknowledge it. That's not ignorance, willful or not.

............sorry.....had a 'squirrel' moment there. I'm back now. ANYway...


No comment on the anti-theist Christians?
It is not possible to be an anti-theist Christian. Christians are theists. For them (and for every other believer in any other belief system) it is only possible to be anti-EVERY OTHER theist.

So...yeah, it's possible to be a christian and to be anti-Catholic, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Mormon, anti Semetic, anti-just about any OTHER belief system, but NOT 'anti-theist."
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
This has been said to believers so many times it's ludicrous. They cannot understand the concept. It is beyond their capacity, or beyond their willingness, to understand.

So...those who really do 'believe that there is no God' are not 'true atheists?"


Is there a list of requirements one must have in order to be 'True atheists?" one of which is that one must ONLY lack a belief in gods, but must not believe that there isn't one? (and yes, there IS a difference!)

What else must be on the list?

In order to be a 'true atheist,' must one be utterly pacifist, perhaps, NOT belong to an atheist society that devotes itself to the eradication of theism (American Atheists) however mild the methods?

What IS on the list?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I have no idea how can come to that conclusion since it stated nothing of the kind.
In fact, it states that atheism is merely lack of a belief that god(s) exists and that some people who lack a belief that god(s) exist have another belief, that has \nothing to do with atheism, in that god does not exist.

Your inability to understand the difference is a you problem.

I understand, and you just restated the claim; that 'strong' atheists....those who believe that there is no god, aren't really atheists. At least, you don't acknowledge them as such.

The thing is, one cannot believe that there is no god UNLESS they also 'lack a belief in god,' which even according to you, is atheism. Therefore these people are ATHEISTS. A subset, yes, but atheists......EXACTLY the way Catholics or Muslims are ALSO theists. They cannot be Catholic or Muslim UNLESS they are theist. It's a requirement.

Not all atheists are 'strong' atheists, but
all 'strong' atheists are atheists.

Not all theists are Catholic, but
believing Catholics are theists.

Get it yet? Sheesh.
Until such time as Christians can come to a consensus...
Of course, with all the God "approved/backed/sanctioned/commanded/etc" opinions being touted as the one and only way... I shant be holding my breath.

You are equating Christianity with the whole of theism? You have just committed the fallacy you are accusing me of. I am not saying that all atheists are strong atheists, y'know. Just that strong atheism is a valid subset OF atheism.

But you have just equated Christianity with all of theism.
Except that that was all in you mind that you added to what was actually posted.

I read the words. Those words are all that 'was in my mind.'

Theists are the ones I see making the claims that those who believe differently are not people.
Some even go so far as to claim there are not even humans.

Now THAT is eisegesis indeed. I haven't made any such claims, y'know. I simply state that 'strong' atheists are 'real' atheists, and you are saying that no, they aren't.
 
Top