Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[(Q)]

I create feelings.

Great! Create a feeling for me. Thanks in advance.

 

[Zero Point Native]

The "Atheist" (disbelieves or denies an existence beyond reality) finds that the study of that which does not exist is a meaningless pursuit.

Do most or all the atheists on sciforums agree with this definition? Because I’ve noticed different atheists tend to have their own definition that differs from others.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't care that much. For a few decades I would say "I'm not religious enough to be an atheist." Now I just don't bother.

Still like making believers look like morons. The best part is they are unwitting helpers so often.

 

[Zero Point Native]

Still like making believers look like morons. The best part is they are unwitting helpers so often.

Hehe, I have to admit, I do like to challenge people’s extremely tightly held beliefs.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The vast majority of believers have been programmed from birth. My parents weren't religious and I didn't get the brainwashing. (So many believers don't need brainwashing, they're good with a light rinse and a blow-n-go.)

It always amazes me that believers can be blindly selective, picking and choosing imaginary friends from the buck and then saying the rest of the bucket is just silly superstition or the like. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do most or all the atheists on sciforums agree with this definition? Because I’ve noticed different atheists tend to have their own definition that differs from others.

Just like with theists, there are flavours.

For example, I include most metaphysical phenomena - luck, fate, kismet, destiny etc. under the same umbrella as god. Many others might not.

It could be considered splitting hairs though. Whether or not an atheist in luck is immaterial to the question of God. Really, all one can say with confidence about atheists is that they don't believe (or accept) that God exists. That is not the same as saying they believe God does not exist.

Some believe God does not exist. That's a belief, but it's pretty hard to back up.

I, for example, am not convinced God exists, and if I were a betting man, I'd put money on it. However, I would not say I believe he does not exist.

 

[Zero Point Native]

Just like with theists, there are flavours.

For example, I include most metaphysical phenomena - luck, fate, kismet, destiny etc. under the same umbrella as god. Many others might not.

It could be considered splitting hairs though. Whether or not an atheist in luck is immaterial to the question of God. Really, all one can say with confidence about atheists is that they don't believe (or accept) that God exists. That is not the same as saying they believe God does not exist.

Some believe God does not exist. That's a belief, but it's pretty hard to back up.

I, for example, am not convinced God exists, and if I were a betting man, I'd put money on it. However, I would not say I believe he does not exist.

Sounds more like agnosticism.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point et al,

(PREFACE)

By the very nature of the Anti-Theists (opposing belief in this regard) or Atheists (non-believers in such a supernatural power) - have a common component between them; that is - their position holding a positive denial in the exsistance.
SOURCE: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, Volume Athabasca thru Athos, © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Pg 124

​

Do most or all the atheists on sciforums agree with this definition? Because I’ve noticed different atheists tend to have their own definition that differs from others.

(RESPONSE)

Thus the positive denial in the exsistance of The Super Entity or in The Great Deity (AKA: "First Cause," the "Creator," the "Ultimate Intelligent Power of the Universe," or the "Supreme Being") allows all those that follow that path that can define the exsisyence in question in nearly any manner they adopt. That is because no description can be accurate of something that does not exist

(THE EXCEPTION)

In the study of analytic philosophy there is a theory that contridicts the generally accepted notion of "nothing." (A classic illustration might be Heidegger’s supposition that ‘nothing’ must designate something, though a very peculiar something.) Unanimity, especially on the subject that is infinite (like a Super Entity, The Great Deity, and concetsof applied Infinity) is very difficult to achieve.

Most Respectfully,
R
......

 

[Pinball1970]

Sounds more like agnosticism.

They are not mutually exclusive, this a common mistake.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point, et al,

(PREFACE)

Agnosticism is hedging the belief/non-belief. On the roulette Table, it is equivalent to placing a bet n both Red and Black on the same spin.

Sounds more like agnosticism.

(INPUT)

agnosticism •• Doctrine that one cannot know the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of experience. It is popularly equated with religious skepticism, and especially with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought.
SOURCE: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, Volume ageratum - agouti, © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Pg 28

Most Respectfully,
R
......

 

[Pinball1970]

Agnosticism is hedging the belief/non-belief. On the roulette Table, it is equivalent to placing a bet n both Red and Black on the same spin.

I disagree.

I am an atheist I do not believe in the existence of gods and goddesses.

I am not convinced in the arguments for gods heaven hell the soul and the devil.

Do I KNOW there is no god? No, how could I? God may have a sense of humour and make the universe look there is no god, whilst chuckling to himself on a planet in Andromeda.

In that sense, no one actually knows for certain and in terms of god being knowable in the scientific, logical or any other sense, this is clearly not possible.

So I am an agnostic atheist, they can exist together.

For me “agnostic” is therefore redundant but we can stick in there anyway, for fun.

 

[exchemist]

RE: Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point, et al,

(PREFACE)

Agnosticism is hedging the belief/non-belief. On the roulette Table, it is equivalent to placing a bet n both Red and Black on the same spin.


(INPUT)

Most Respectfully,
R
......

This seems quite wrong to me. Agnosticism simply means not knowing.

Not knowing something is not at all the same as "hedging". Hedging is making a provision, or placing a bet, to cover both outcomes, as indeed you indicate with your roulette example. But someone who does not know something is not placing any bets or making any provisions. They just don't know.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I, for example, am not convinced God exists, and if I were a betting man, I'd put money on it. However, I would not say I believe he does not exist.

Have you seen any boojums running around?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
SUBTOPIC: Concepty Distinctions
⁜→ Pinball1970, exchemist, et al,

(IMPORTANT RECAP)

As stated in Response # "Doctrine that one cannot know the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of experience.

Do I KNOW there is no god? No, how could I? God may have a sense of humour and make the universe look there is no god, whilst chuckling to himself on a planet in Andromeda.

(COMMENT)

It's amusing (in a very good way) that you should mention this.

One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist: another, perhaps equally fatal, is to make them fancy that he is obliged to stand quietly by, and not to meddle with them, if they get into true silence.
SOURCE: Le Figaro Newpaper Article Paris, France 1864

(IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES)

The "does not exist" approach is a double-edged sword. This strategy is equally available to both believers and non-believers.

In that sense, no one actually knows for certain and in terms of god being knowable in the scientific, logical or any other sense, this is clearly not possible.

(COMMENT)

Like I said: "Unanimity, especially on the subject that is infinite (like a Super Entity, The Great Deity, and concepts of applied Infinity) is very difficult to achieve." There will always be these subjects for colorful arguments and debates. And very true, the knowledge
________________________
(TRIVIA)

The age of John of Patmos was an age of universal belief in God, if not the God of the Jews or Christians, then the gods of the pagan world. People weren’t necessarily better than they are today, but God’s presence was felt, feared, and worshipped.

Fifteen hundred years later, men and women in general still believed, if often unreflectively, in the existence of God. The human mind hadn’t yet been hardwired to deal with the idea that he didn’t exist; for almost everyone, grappling with such an idea was an impossibility, like talking about what would happen if spring turned into winter.
SOURCE: Isaac Newton - Alchemy, Prophecy, and the Search for Lost Knowledge, Copyright © 2018 by the Chambers Family Trust, Published by Destiny Books One Park Street Rochester, Vermont 05767

This seems quite wrong to me. Agnosticism simply means not knowing.

Not knowing something is not at all the same as "hedging". Hedging is making a provision, or placing a bet, to cover both outcomes, as indeed you indicate with your roulette example. But someone who does not know something is not placing any bets or making any provisions. They just don't know.

(COMMENT)

No argument can undermine your position. "I Don't Know" is the position held by many distinguished Astronomers, Cosmologists, and Physicists on a number of subjects related to the origins and laws of the universe (Grand Unification Theory). But I've heard this explained in many different ways. There is no true definitive opinion that constitutes a single stance on the matter.

Most Respectfully,
R
......

 

[DaveC426913]

Have you seen any boojums running around?

I have not. But I am not omniscient. They could be out there and I may well not know it.

 

[Zero Point Native]

I am an atheist I do not believe in the existence of gods and goddesses.

I am not convinced in the arguments for gods heaven hell the soul and the devil.

Same here, partly.

I do not gravitate toward the belief in the existence of gods, heaven, hell, and the "devil". For me, they are just man-made fantasies. However, I do not consider myself an atheist. For myself, God exists, but not in the same way that ~99% of the global population views God. Just one example as some dude in a white robe sitting on a throne surrounded by angels playing harps in a city paved with streets of gold surrounded by pearly gates and passing judgment on who is worthy to enter into "heaven" or burn in a lake of fire for all eternity. LOL. Quite the fantasy to be sure. I can certainly see why Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea would concoct such a story to maintain control of the population if that indeed did happen.

I don't even like to use the word "God" as it has waaaaaaaaay too much loaded baggage attached to it.

I do gravitate towards the belief that like energy, consciousness cannot be destroyed as I believe that consciousness is also energy, so life never ends.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have not. But I am not omniscient. They could be out there and I may well not know it.

"could be"

 

[Pinball1970]

I do gravitate towards the belief that like energy, consciousness cannot be destroyed as I believe that consciousness is also energy, so life never ends

I am not keen on the idea of existing forever as some sort of disembodied mind.
Luckily no evidence a mind can continue without a functional brain.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BUT sitting at the feet of the being that let you die and singing hosannas to it, what's not to love?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Belief Structure
SUBTOPIC: Causation
⁜→ et al,

In effect, this is a very valid position.

I have not. But I am not omniscient. They could be out there and I may well not know it.

"could be"

(COMMENT)

This "could be out there and I may well not know it" → is called The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The PSR supports the idea that: (paraphrased) everything must have a reason or a cause. It implies that the "reason may be elusive." But being elusive or unknown is not the same as being wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R
......