Real Athiest?

[Corban]

Just curious, are there any real athiests out there. A recent trend as i've discussed with supposed athiest is that they say, "well i don't deny the existence of God, it just hasn't been proved yet" If you don't deny his existence your not a true athiest, your just undecided.

So is there any one out their that actually has their own opinion and made up there mind, and can firmly say, "I don't believe in God" or is everyone just undecided and likes to talk like their an athiest

 

[Pah]

Just curious, are there any real athiests out there. A recent trend as i've discussed with supposed athiest is that they say, "well i don't deny the existence of God, it just hasn't been proved yet" If you don't deny his existence your not a true athiest, your just undecided.

So is there any one out their that actually has their own opinion and made up there mind, and can firmly say, "I don't believe in God" or is everyone just undecided and likes to talk like their an athiest

I don't believe in God(s).

-pah-

 

[retrorich]

Just curious, are there any real athiests out there. A recent trend as i've discussed with supposed athiest is that they say, "well i don't deny the existence of God, it just hasn't been proved yet" If you don't deny his existence your not a true athiest, your just undecided.

So is there any one out their that actually has their own opinion and made up there mind, and can firmly say, "I don't believe in God" or is everyone just undecided and likes to talk like their an athiest

In my case, I STRONGLY believe that God does not exist--at least not in any form remotely approaching the popular concepts of God. I do not, however, rule out the possibility that I could be wrong. I don't believe any of us has the power to ABSOLUTELY KNOW that God does or does not exist. Since there is no proof either way, it's a matter of opinion--and of faith or lack of faith.

If God does exist as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, I have an extremely low opinion of the way he has used, and failed to use, His powers. I would find it impossible to respect or love Him.

I consider myself to be an atheist. If you prefer to call me "undecided," I have no problem with that.

PEACE

 

[Corban]

In my case, I STRONGLY believe that God does not exist--at least not in any form remotely approaching the popular concepts of God. I do not, however, rule out the possibility that I could be wrong. I don't believe any of us has the power to ABSOLUTELY KNOW that God does or does not exist. Since there is no proof either way, it's a matter of opinion--and of faith or lack of faith.

If God does exist as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, I have an extremely low opinion of the way he has used, and failed to use, His powers. I would find it impossible to respect or love Him.

I consider myself to be an atheist. If you prefer to call me "undecided," I have no problem with that.

PEACE

your a perfect example of what i was talking about. in one breath, "i strongly believe that God does not exist" and in the next you leave open the possibility of Him existing and even define different ways He may. This is what i'm referring to. People need to make up their minds, make a decision and go with it. And no your not an athiest from what you just decribed to me, so don't talk strongly about what your unsure of.

 

[Runt]

The difference, Corbon, is between knowledge and belief. Retrorich, Pah, and I do not believe that some thinking, purposeful, God exists. However, we don't KNOW this without a doubt, and cannot. This is because God has been defined as some omnipotent power, and as such its very nature would be so beyond our comprehension that should it exist we might not be able to wrap our "mere human" intellect around it to be able to accurately determine whether or not it exists. Thus, the "I believe but I do not know" opinion that Retrorich covered and which you seem to so despise. I believe in your religion this is called "faith": belief in a thing despite the fact that you cannot truly know for sure the thing is true/exists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And no your not an athiest from what you just decribed to me, so don't talk strongly about what your unsure of.

It is very easy to be sure. It is equally easy to be pretentious. The problem, of course, is that you excell in impressing no one but yourself. Talk of 'who is the real atheist' is simply juvenile.

 

[Ceridwen018]

LOL, welcome back, Deut!

your a perfect example of what i was talking about. in one breath, "i strongly believe that God does not exist" and in the next you leave open the possibility of Him existing and even define different ways He may. This is what i'm referring to. People need to make up their minds, make a decision and go with it. And no your not an athiest from what you just decribed to me, so don't talk strongly about what your unsure of.

The difference between an atheist and a theist, is that you must prove the existence of god to one, and disprove his existence to another.

Only a fool would 'make up their mind' over something as obscure as truth. I agree with retrorich--I don't believe in god, but if you can prove me wrong, I'll gladly change my mind. I am open to investigation of any and all ideas, as you should be too. Many wars have been started on this earth over closed-minded people who thought they knew best.

 

[Green Gaia]

Is this like a "who's a real Christian" thread, but for Atheists? Interesting... :retarded:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Corban -

If an individual is unsure of whether God exists or not, he is an AGNOSTIC. If he is certain that God does not exist, he is an ATHEIST. You start the thread with a question to Atheists, then describe (by definition) those that are Agnostics. If Retrorich considers himself an Atheist, what is your problem with that? I couldn't care less what label you hang on a person, the label you choose to attach doesn't invalidate their position on a given subject (including the existence on non-existence of God). The argument they put forth should stand (or fall) on its own merit - not the label that is applied to the person presenting it.

For the record - I'm an Agnostic - exactly what you describe in your original post. Does the fact that I call myself an Agnostic and not an Atheist make me a better person, or give my opinions more validity in an argument? Either way, I hope that the fact that someone doesn't fit into your pigeonhole doesn't get you as upset as you seem to be (or maybe I'm misreading the tone of your posts).
TVOR

 

[Corban]

Corban -

If an individual is unsure of whether God exists or not, he is an AGNOSTIC. If he is certain that God does not exist, he is an ATHEIST. You start the thread with a question to Atheists, then describe (by definition) those that are Agnostics. If Retrorich considers himself an Atheist, what is your problem with that? I couldn't care less what label you hang on a person, the label you choose to attach doesn't invalidate their position on a given subject (including the existence on non-existence of God). The argument they put forth should stand (or fall) on its own merit - not the label that is applied to the person presenting it.

For the record - I'm an Agnostic - exactly what you describe in your original post. Does the fact that I call myself an Agnostic and not an Atheist make me a better person, or give my opinions more validity in an argument? Either way, I hope that the fact that someone doesn't fit into your pigeonhole doesn't get you as upset as you seem to be (or maybe I'm misreading the tone of your posts).
TVOR

I appreciate your response. And a person may give themself whatever label they choose, the problem arises though when a person who is truly agnostic and not athiests, contends from the view point of being an athiest, it closes the doors of open discussion. if one claims to be an athiest what chance is there for open discussion, they have made of their minds, they deny the existance of God, and therefore when one is talking to an athiest one may assume it is not an open discord to further investigate an unkown and unproven assumption, one would assume the athiest is only defending what he has already decided and closed his mind about.

So if one is still open to discussion, and is actually an athiest, for the perpose of discussion and open discord, and therefore the purpose of this site, it should be known, whether 1. they are an athiest have made up their minds and are merely deffending what they have already decided. or 2. they are actually agnostic, they may sway toward not believing in God but still fall in the camp that is searching and therefore open to discussion and further debate.

that is my purpose in this thread. i want to really know who i am talking to when i discuss things with someone.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Is this like a "who's a real Christian" thread, but for Atheists? Interesting... :retarded:

*ponders this thought* Well, we could always have a 'The god(s) I don't believe in are stronger than yours' debate...
:bonk:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Corban-- 1)Characterizing all atheists as closed minded and not open to discussion is a bit like characterizing all theists as closed minded and not open to discussion. There are people with open minds on both sides of the fence.

2)I am very confident that Zeus does not exist, as I'm sure you are. But, do you--like me--admit that, however inconceivable it may be, we could be wrong--Zeus could exist (let's call this "the Matrix scenario")? Since neither you nor I are all-knowing, I think we both have to concede that the existence of Zeus is "possible", even if we are confident in his nonexistence.

Here's my point: I am very confident the Judeo Christian-Islamic God does not exist--that makes me an atheist. However, I recognize that I am human and my knowledge is imperfect, so I could be wrong about anything (that the sky is blue, that the tooth fairy isn't real, etc). Admitting that one could be wrong about something makes one open minded, not agnostic.

 

[meogi]

Well said Mr. Sprinkles.

I'd go as far to say that the main reason I'm not agnostic, is that I believe we, as humans, will be able to show the existance of a supreme being, if there is one. So far, that hasn't been done, so I remain atheist.

2. they are actually agnostic, they may sway toward not believing in God but still fall in the camp that is searching and therefore open to discussion and further debate.

that is my purpose in this thread. i want to really know who i am talking to when i discuss things with someone.

Forgive me, but that sounds really preachy... so when you say 'open minded' are you talking about being open minded about faith, or just open minded in general? I tend to think I'm a very open minded person, but when the issue of faith is brought up, it doesn't seem to strengthen an argument or debate any. So I tend not to agree with issues of faith. So I hope that helps you understand who I am, and I hope that doesn't turn you off to debating me in the future.

that the sky is blue

I tend to think of it as the sky is every color, except blue.

 

[thomasedison]

It does require a person to be omniscient to know the truth. I don't believe in God because reason and logic dictate otherwise. I would gladly change my mind if I have missed something. It is only the militant atheists who are not open to discussion --- just like militant theists. By militant I mean those who intentionally refuse to consider logic in their discussion. And just because a person is wrong or right on one issue does not make him similarly wrong or right on each and every other issue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

if one claims to be an athiest what chance is there for open discussion, they have made of their minds, they deny the existance of God, and therefore when one is talking to an athiest one may assume it is not an open discord to further investigate an unkown and unproven assumption, one would assume the athiest is only defending what he has already decided and closed his mind about.

Such an assumption would be ignorant and self-serving. An atheist need only deny that s/he has been offered sufficient evidence to warrant belief in Deity.

 

[retrorich]

Corban-- 1)Characterizing all atheists as closed minded and not open to discussion is a bit like characterizing all theists as closed minded and not open to discussion. There are people with open minds on both sides of the fence.

2)I am very confident that Zeus does not exist, as I'm sure you are. But, do you--like me--admit that, however inconceivable it may be, we could be wrong--Zeus could exist (let's call this "the Matrix scenario")? Since neither you nor I are all-knowing, I think we both have to concede that the existence of Zeus is "possible", even if we are confident in his nonexistence.

Here's my point: I am very confident the Judeo Christian-Islamic God does not exist--that makes me an atheist. However, I recognize that I am human and my knowledge is imperfect, so I could be wrong about anything (that the sky is blue, that the tooth fairy isn't real, etc). Admitting that one could be wrong about something makes one open minded, not agnostic.

Extremely well stated, Mr. Sprinkles!

If I were closed minded about my lack of religious beliefs, I wouldn't participate in these debates. I enjoy discussing issues with people whose opinions are different than mine. Debating with people who were carbon copies of me would be purposeless and boring.

 

[Pah]

that is my purpose in this thread. i want to really know who i am talking to when i discuss things with someone.

Put me in the closed mind column. Over forty years of growth and thought, I've found what really works for me. My purpose in discussion is not to change another's mind, it is only to defend and strengthen my own. It is in discussion that thoughts find expression and realization comes that, in honest discussion, one determines what one really believes.


I see and feel a dignity in the individul worth and rights of each of us. It's a higher purpose, if one has to have purpose, than myself. I'm not into establishing my philosophy of life but to live with what I've found.

Don't look for any "sea changes" for me. Put any label you like on that.

-pah-

 

[Engyo]

Corban -

I am a Buddhist (and have been for over 22 years). I do not believe the Abrahamic God exists.

The other interesting point I wanted to inteject here is that Buddhism views gods and demons (paraphrasing names) as unenlightened beings, just like humans. They are also capable of attaining enlightenment, if they choose to enter the Path.

 

[linwood]

Corben,


I think the problem is with your definition of Atheism.

As I said before and atheist is not necessarily one who says "There is no god" but one who says "I don`t believe in god".

The difference is that the first is closed to any possibility but the second will be dropping to his knees praying like a madman as soon as you show him enough evidence.

If "theist" is one who holds belief in gods then "atheist" is one who holds no belief in gods.

Just like I don`t believe in Santa