But they wouldn't know they were Atheists
Conversation
What are you?
Atheists
What is a Atheists?
Someone who does not think god exists
What's a god?
So the minimum knowledge required is the existence of the concept of god
None of the above
- Thread starter Ted Grant II
- Start date
But they wouldn't know they were Atheists
Conversation
What are you?
Atheists
What is a Atheists?
Someone who does not think god exists
What's a god?
So the minimum knowledge required is the existence of the concept of god
But they wouldn't know they were Atheists
Conversation
What are you?
Atheists
What is a Atheists?
Someone who does not think god exists
What's a god?
So the minimum knowledge required is the existence of the concept of god
Right that they would not know they are atheist.
The word atheist would not exist. The word theist would not exist. They could not answer with atheist.
Atheist simply means not theist. Everyone who is not a theist is an atheist.
Atheism is not an ism. The whole point of the word is not theism.
There is no knowledge or belief required.
<>
......everyone would be atheist
tag onto this - but they wouldn't know itand there would be a few less post in this thread
The theist requires deliberate actions and choice to learn, study and explore the nature of God. The atheist does not have to do anything, along these line to be an atheist. He only need to avoid all efforts, along these lines. This ease of the anti-path is one reason atheism is appealing to many people.
An analogy is an athlete may work out and practice many hours each day. He may need to regulate his diet and deny himself indulgences, so his body is optimizes for physical activity. This is a parallel to the theist. The atheist is more like the couch potato, who does none of these things and convinces themselves, the path of the couch potato is better.
The coach potato defines itself based on what it does not have to do. He is an anti-athlete. This can be appealing, if you wish to appear to be more than you are, without having to do anything, but complain and criticize. The movie critic could never star, write, produce or direct a good movie, but he gets to pretend to know more than anyone else. People seem to respect the verbal bull, due to lazy conditioning.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
astrology,
pyramid power,
quantum healing,
trepanation,
blood letting...
There are a nigh-infinite number of things that do not need to be studied beyond a certain degree, in order to conclude that time is better spent elsewhere.
To be unable to choose between fruitful avenues of exploration and barren avenues of exploration would be to be utterly paralyzed.
The hypothesis of theism does not meet the criteria of sufficient evidence or a working model to pursue beyond hypothetical stage when there are so many real things to be explored in the universe.
Really?
I mean really really?
WHAT'S to study - learn, study and explore the nature of God
Class open your book at the first page
god did it in 6 days and then rested
Now you have
learnt that there is no need for
study, unless you like to sit there for 2 minutes and let the wisdom seep in or
explore the nature of god by going outside and sit on the nature grass
If you do sit on the grass make sure you put on a hat and sunscreen on exposed skin otherwise you might get skin melanoma cancer, created by god, from ultra violet radiation, also created by god.
Couch potato Atheists and scientist actually THINK about WHY ultra violet radiation causes melanoma
(god is and god did it does not add any knowledge how to prevent skin cancer)
So go study your 2,000 year old book of fairy tales and let the grown ups
learn
study
explore the real world not the 6 day version
Your attempts at analogy are ridiculous.
I think I have never replied to you because your posts are not even worth reading. You are clearly severely biased against atheists while actually knowing nothing about them.
No knowledge or belief is required to not believe in elves & fairies. That does not mean you are a lazy, do nothing couch tomato.
Actually theism does not require knowledge or doing anything except believing in silly yet cruel fables. That does not necessarily make theists frigging couch tomatos.
You are biased & unfairly prejudiced. Once you decide to believe in things you cannot know are true, nothing you say can be trusted.
Wake up, open your eyes & face reality.
<>
Seaman
Registered Member
I don't understand your comment about math, but it does sound deeply profound. Perhaps simple minded people like myself require more education on this topic. As regards your first comment, assuming you have some concept of God then you must either believe he exists or not. Animals and babies probably sit in between, but I cannot accept that adult humans can do so. For myself, I believe for very a very simple reason.
Regardless of whether or not God exists, the Universe we live in is the Universe we live in. And we don't like what the math tells us; people die. The stories we tell about possibilities of endlessness or eternity help some people feel better about the fact that they will eventually die.
That's a bold statement. What concept of God must one believe or not?
The functional problem about your statemnt is that the requirement exists only in your postulation, much like the definitions of "God", "believe", and "exist".
Still, though, you might notice the hyperlink in what you quoted; it refers to another post, circa August, 2016↗, from which that statement was extracted, and is derived from an odd discussion involving a comparison of some sort having to do with believing in "male".
It's easy enough to accept that people exist. Ironically, we Americans went through this weird chapter where it turns out a man named John Barron never actually existed.
Do I believe people exist? Yes.
Do I believe John Barron exists? Not that particular John Barron. While there are real people in the world named John Barron, the record persuasively suggests this particular person named John Barron did not actually exist.
Do I believe Yazata exists? How about Jan Ardena? Yes. Do I believe you are human beings? I mean, actually people? Yes. Indeed, anyone who proposes otherwise will be offering an extraordinary proposition: Nothing about the produce of either of your postings suggests you are bots. Is it possible that neither of you exist as individuals? It is possible that you are composite characters authored by multiple people for each name, but that would be an extraordinary assertion. It is easy enough to believe that Yazata exists. It is easy enough to believe that Jan Ardena exists.
Do I believe in God? It's a tricky question, but only because of market demands about the answer. I acknowledge the word "God" describes something that must be accounted for. The closest thing to divinity that would include is akin to an Unmoved Mover or Unnamed Namer, and in that context the actual name of God will be written as a mathematical formula. As it is, "God" is a three-letter, one-syllable word that, in its abstract monotheistic context represents a valid factor in philosophical calculation. Until we find a better word, certain statements like, "God works in mysterious ways", and, "We are fashioned in God's image", can actually be construed as true. (To the one, we are finite beings; to the other, chaos constrained reflects its constraints.) But that's it. Monotheism, to me, becomes inherently panentheistic; anything else limits God, thus making a the concept of boundlessness and oneness into a finite and severely delineated concept.
Do I believe in the monothestic godhead named Jehovah? No. Allah? No.
I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us.
Do I believe people exist? Yes.
Do I believe John Barron exists? Not that particular John Barron. While there are real people in the world named John Barron, the record persuasively suggests this particular person named John Barron did not actually exist.
Do I believe Yazata exists? How about Jan Ardena? Yes. Do I believe you are human beings? I mean, actually people? Yes. Indeed, anyone who proposes otherwise will be offering an extraordinary proposition: Nothing about the produce of either of your postings suggests you are bots. Is it possible that neither of you exist as individuals? It is possible that you are composite characters authored by multiple people for each name, but that would be an extraordinary assertion. It is easy enough to believe that Yazata exists. It is easy enough to believe that Jan Ardena exists.
Do I believe in God? It's a tricky question, but only because of market demands about the answer. I acknowledge the word "God" describes something that must be accounted for. The closest thing to divinity that would include is akin to an Unmoved Mover or Unnamed Namer, and in that context the actual name of God will be written as a mathematical formula. As it is, "God" is a three-letter, one-syllable word that, in its abstract monotheistic context represents a valid factor in philosophical calculation. Until we find a better word, certain statements like, "God works in mysterious ways", and, "We are fashioned in God's image", can actually be construed as true. (To the one, we are finite beings; to the other, chaos constrained reflects its constraints.) But that's it. Monotheism, to me, becomes inherently panentheistic; anything else limits God, thus making a the concept of boundlessness and oneness into a finite and severely delineated concept.
Do I believe in the monothestic godhead named Jehovah? No. Allah? No.
I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us.
What book? Why is God in a book?
That sounds a bit circular, or something. It is if we all sit around arguing about what is or isn't in the book . . .