How I Feel About Atheists

[LuisDantas]

Uh, yes.
I will not even entertain any further discussion with someone who thinks such as yourself.

As well you should. It is a waste of time to attempt to discuss such matters with the variety of so-called argument that you have employed so far.

It is best not to waste anyone's time any further.

 

[PureX]

Purex, you label yourself an atheist. What exactly is an atheist in terms of your beliefs on the possibility of the existence of a Creator/Intelligent Designer/God ? I don't come to these forums to rebuttal or argue with anyone on this issue. All beliefs are possibilities in this matter. I only state my beliefs and answer other's questions that they may have for me. Is an atheist just a disbelief in a God/Intelligent Designer/Creator ? I can completely understand that thought process. But you don't try to deny the possibility of a Creator, do you ? This is the only flaw I find in what I have known about some atheists. Because neither you nor I can know this, we only believe or don't believe in this. You would agree with that, would you not ? And does an atheist think we came into existence by mere chance or does he not even find it reasonable to contemplate how we came into existence. I'm interested in the thought process of an atheist. I don't want to put all atheists into one category. So I would appreciate if you could convey your beliefs without disregarding the beliefs of creationists in doing so.

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic that chooses to trust in an idea of "God" (as determined by me) whether "God" exists apart from my idea of it or not. I feel that atheism a pointless rejection of possibility based on nothing but an anti-religious, materialist bias. This seems to have 'riled' some of the atheists, here, such that they feel the need to defend themselves. It's unnecessary, of course, and so far has been completely ineffective at changing my opinion of atheism if that was their intent. If anything, their various objections have only reinforced my opinion.

To be clear, atheism is the philosophical (theology being a sub-category of philosophy) position that gods do not exist except as imaginary intities in the minds of some humans. It is not mere "unbelief".

 

[PureX]

How does withholding belief due to lack of evidence show bias?

Withholding belief is irrelevant to this conversation because it's not atheism. Atheism rejects the possibility that gods exist apart from the imagined entities in the human mind.

Isn't withholding belief in anything until sufficient evidence is presented the most reasonable way to live life?

Again, "withholding belief" is irrelevant. Atheism is not the "withholding of belief". Atheism is an irrational and unnecessary rejection of the possibility that God/gods exist.

 

[PureX]

Fine. As long as you recognize it as *myth*, there is no problem. Myths are not true.

Myths are intended to convey ideological truths, not historical facts. As is the case with most forms of fictional story-telling. It's unfair to declare such fiction "untrue", as fiction often can convey more "truth" than most facts can.

 

[LuisDantas]

Withholding belief is irrelevant to this conversation because it's not atheism. Atheism rejects the possibility that gods exist apart from the imagined entities in the human mind.
Again, "withholding belief" is irrelevant. Atheism is not the "withholding of belief". Atheism is an irrational and unnecessary rejection of the possibility that God/gods exist.

By that understanding, atheism is essentially non-existent in practice and you are discussing no one in real life.

Surely that is not what you want to do?

 

[LuisDantas]

Myths are intended to convey ideological truths, not historical facts. As is the case with most forms of fictional story-telling. It's unfair to declare such fiction "untrue", as fiction often can convey more "truth" than most facts can.

By that token, isn't the flaw then with people who insist on presenting myths as if they were objective fact?

 

[PureX]

Consider the possibility that this is because your opinion is being informed by your prejudices.

Perhaps you could point these out to me, rather than just blindly accuse.

 

[PureX]

By that understanding, atheism is essentially non-existent in practice and you are discussing no one in real life.

There are plenty of comments on this thread that indicate their authors have rejected the possibility that any gods exist apart from the human imagination. Atheism is not just skepticism. And few of the self-declared atheists, here, are merely skeptical. They are fully in the camp of having rejected the possible existence of any gods. They just don't like to admit that directly because they know they can't defend it any more than the theists can defend their assertions that gods do exist apart from their imaginations.

 

[PureX]

By that token, isn't the flaw then with people who insist on presenting myths as if they were objective fact?

Many myths have some basis in actual historical events. But it is NOT the purpose of mythology to document or convey historical events. And so even if they begin with some historical event, they are soon morphed and exaggerated to convey the ideals of the cultures that create them. That's what mythology is for: to embody and convey the ideals of the cultures that create and use them. Not to present a factual history.

 

[Mister Silver]

I'm not religious, nor do I promote it. But even I can recognize that it has significant individual and social value. And faith is essential to all of us, every day, in countless ways.

If you are referring to secular faith, then I agree. If you are referring to religious faith, then I disagree.

 

[PureX]

If you are referring to secular faith, then I agree. If you are referring to religious faith, then I disagree.

The same positive results that we gain from "secular faith" can be gained from religious faith, if it's applied properly.

 

[Mister Silver]

The same positive results that we gain from "secular faith" can be gained from religious faith, if it's applied properly.

I will simply have to graciously decline your offer to travel down that rabbit hole; been down it before, didn't like it.

 

[PureX]

I will simply have to graciously decline your offer to travel down that rabbit hole; been down it before, didn't like it.

I appreciate the honesty and grace.

 

[leibowde84]

Withholding belief is irrelevant to this conversation because it's not atheism. Atheism rejects the possibility that gods exist apart from the imagined entities in the human mind.

You have an incorrect understanding of atheism. It includes the "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Since those who are withholding belief "lack belief" (are without belief) in the existence of gods, they are atheists. You are referring to strong atheism, where the belief is held that God cannot exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And as far as evolution , fossils, and humans coming from apes...none of that is fact.

They're all facts. Evolution is a fact. Fossils exist. Human beings are apes.

The more scientists discover the more the idea of evolution is being seen as having many flaws and inconsistencies.

The theory of evolution has no flaws or inconsistencies. The problem arises when trying to decide which creatures were ancestral to which and the timeline of evolution. For example, there are challenges to the out-of-Africa hypothesis and the dates for the earliest humans appearing. We also don't know just which creatures were our ancestors and which were branches from our line that produced cousin species now extinct.

But none of that is a challenge to Darwin's theory that all life on earth extant and extinct derived from a single common ancestral replicator due to natural selection working on phenotypical variation across generations over deep time. That idea will not likely be overturned.

Have you ever stopped to consider the implications of a finding that falsified the theory of evolution? We'd still have all of the evidence that preceded that finding and which so compellingly implied that the theory was correct. A new hypothesis would have to account for it all, and apart from
ideas like last Thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, I can only think of one idea that could do that: Trickster intelligent designers that went to great pains seeding the earth with strata that placed simpler forms below more complex ones complete with adding radioisotopes in ways to make the deeper ones appear older, scattered ring species around the world, and designed the bodies, physiology, biochemistry and genetics of all life in nested hierarchies.

Why did they leave a pre-cambrian rabbit or whatever for us to find and give them away? Maybe as a lark, perhaps in error.

I don't expect any of that to come to pass. A much more reasonable and parsimonious hypothesis is that the scientists are as correct with this theory as they are with their other theories also derived by the scientific method.

Fossils do not show one species becoming another KIND of species

The fossil evidence is exactly what we would expect if species were evolving.

Evolution is not even a theory because it cannot be tested.

There is the fact of evolution and the theory to explain it. The test of the theory is that its predictions be accurate and that it can be used to improve the human condition. Darwin's theory passes both tests.

So a definite conclusion cannot be drawn.

We don't need 100% certainty. What we need is empirical adequacy, that is, that whatever it says about the observable aspects of the world that it addresses is true. It's enough that the idea work.

Science is increasingly pointing to an Intelligent Designer based solely on pure scientific study.

It's actually reducing the role an intelligent designer would have in matters. Science keep showing us that ours is the kind of universe we would expect were it godless. It's on autopilot. The parts interact without Apollo's help moving the sun through the sky or angels to push the planets around. The first wave of scientists showed us a clockwork universe. We don't need a ruler god. From that, deism was born

The second wave of scentists like Darwin and the cosmologists gave us the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory demonstrating that our universe could assemble itself from seeds such as the earliest universe and the first living replicator. It turns out that we don't need a builder god, either.

That doesn't mean that no gods exist or existed, just that there is no evidence for any, and no need to posit one, and really no job except to create those seeds. We have naturalistic hypotheses for the origins of both the early universe and the first life.

 

[PureX]

You have an incorrect understanding of atheism.

No, it doesn't. Not logically. Logically a "lack of belief" , or "withheld belief". is called "skepticism", not "atheism". Atheists promote this idea because they know they can't defend their atheism as they demand theists defend theism. So to avoid having to do so, they pretend their only skeptical, even though they clearly, in most instances, have fully rejected the theist assertion that gods exist. And have adopted the position that no gods exist apart from or beyond the human imagination.

It includes the "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Since those who are withholding belief "lack belief" (are without belief) in the existence of gods, they are atheists. You are referring to strong atheism, where the belief is held that God cannot exist.

All atheists are "strong" atheists, or they are liars. And skeptics are just skeptics, they are not atheists. If they think they are atheists, they are confused.

 

[Stevicus]

Again, "withholding belief" is irrelevant. Atheism is not the "withholding of belief". Atheism is an irrational and unnecessary rejection of the possibility that God/gods exist.

I'm not sure that it amounts to "rejection of the possibility," but there are so many possibilities that one might wonder why someone would simply settle for one such possibility and declare it to be a "true religion" when there are so many other possibilities.

Declaring the possible existence of a creator might be premature, since humans don't really have a clear idea as to "what," exactly, was created (if it was "created"). Many people assume that there must have been some sort of "creator" or "intelligent designer," but we can't even assume that. Our universe and existence could be nothing more than a side effect of an experiment that went awry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, "withholding belief" is irrelevant. Atheism is not the "withholding of belief". Atheism is an irrational and unnecessary rejection of the possibility that God/gods exist.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I have told you that I do not reject the possibility of a god or gods existing. Are you going to tell me that that doesn't qualify as atheism to you? If not, perhaps you should reexamine your definition.

But whatever you choose, you won't be able to get the definition I just gave you out of the dictionaries or out of common usage. You won't stop agnostic atheists like me from calling ourselves atheists. So perhaps you should allow atheists to define themselves rather than telling them what they must believe to call themselves atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

No, it doesn't. Not logically. Logically a "lack of belief" , or "withheld belief". is called "skepticism", not "atheism". Atheists promote this idea because they know they can't defend their atheism as they demand theists defend theism. So to avoid having to do so, they pretend their only skeptical, even though they clearly, in most instances, have fully rejected the theist assertion that gods exist. And have adopted the position that no gods exist apart from or beyond the human imagination.

Wrong again.

Here is the definition of the term "atheism" (atheism definition - Google Search):

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
   synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism

Here's another one (Definition of ATHEISM):

Definition of atheism
:a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

And another one (What is Atheism? | American Atheists):

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

 

[leibowde84]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I have told you that I do not reject the possibility of a god or gods existing. Are you going to tell me that that doesn't qualify as atheism to you? If not, perhaps you should reexamine your definition.

But whatever you choose, you won't be able to get the definition I just gave you out of the dictionaries or out of common usage. You won't stop agnostic atheists like me from calling ourselves atheists. So perhaps you should allow atheists to define themselves rather than telling them what they must believe to call themselves atheists.

He obviously has an incorrect understanding of what the term "atheism" actually means.