A few things atheists are not...

[MarkFL]

For example, I'm an agnostic when it comes to life beyond the Earth simply because there is - to date - insufficient grounds to affirm that there is.

Why would you be agnostic about this, but not about the existence of the supernatural for which there is also insufficient evidence? There is actually much more reason to believe that there must be life in other solar systems than that there must be a creator.

 

[Josiah]

Why would you be agnostic about this, but not about the existence of the supernatural for which there is also insufficient evidence? There is actually much more reason to believe that there must be life in other solar systems than that there must be a creator.

Faith has little to do with evidence..... I BELIEVE in God. For exam,ple, I'd GUESS that perhaps 99.99% of those boarding planes today don't know how planes fly (this largely includes those who THINK they do but.... don't), yet they still board the plane. I bought an egg burrito this morning on my way to work and had NO knowledge as to its safety but I ate it anyway. I drove to work without even looking at my tires, brakes, etc. Faith has to do with what you trust - and it often is not documented or understood. I had surgery when I was a boy.... I served as the best man at a friend's wedding on Saturday.... big steps done by faith. Now, you can argue there is INADEQUATE faith for YOU to do some things (thus, you perhaps never fly or would never agree to surgery or marriage; perhaps you never ate food you did not prepare) and I "get" that. But I hope you see my point.


To your question: From a KNOWLEDGE standpoint, there is ZERO evidence for life beyond the Earth (well... there is Methane on Mars but it could be from other sources). ZERO! Yet, you do find a great many atheists (NO god!!!!) agnostics (Inadequate proof of God's existence or lack thereof) who believe there is life out there.... an affirmation from ZERO evidence, absolutely NOTHING.... interesting! Something that has absolutely NOTHING - nothing whatsoever - to support it, these atheists and agnostics seem to dogmatically embrace (makes me wonder, lol).


In any case, you of course may define your words ANY way you personally feel like at the moment (I will not debate your ability there) but IMO, you are going to be consistently misunderstood - especially in theistic contexts - if you use "atheist" rather than "agnostic" and ergo will either find yourself in frustrating conversations or need to CONSTANTLY point out that you use your term in an unusual way. IMO, there is a huge, enormous difference between an atheist and an agnostic - not only in their position but often in their attitudes, approaches and actions, in my experience.


Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[tango]

Hello all,

I was raised Baptist, but after much study and inner-reflection realized I am an atheist at about the age of 16. So, as an atheist, I wanted to dispel some popular notions about atheists.

Atheists are not:

• Haters of God - we simply do not find sufficient reason to believe in God, or anything on faith alone. We cannot hate that in which we do not believe.
• Sad or depressed about not believing in life after death - I consider myself very fortunate to be alive, that all of the events necessary for my existence took place, and only want to make the best of the life that is mine.
• Inhernetly amoral - we do not feel that since we do not believe in God this gives us free license to behave any way we want. Treating others the right way is something that should be done simply because it is the right thing to do.
• Naturally smarter than anyone else - I get really irritated at other atheists who come off like those who choose to have faith are somehow less intelligent than them, because it is simply not true and gives others a bad impression of atheists as a whole.
• Worshipers of science - Science does not, nor will it ever, have all the answers, but what makes science so important is that it is an ever increasing and self-correcting system aimed at finding the truth about the natural world. Science, by its very definition, has nothing to say about the existence of God. Science is not, nor could it ever be, a replacement for God.

Those are just a few off the top of my head, but please feel free to give your honest thoughts on atheism, and I will try to address them

I think a lot of the issues you raised are things that people associate with the most vocal of atheists and assume the vocal minority represents the whole. In many ways it's really no different to people looking at the likes of Westboro Baptist Church and assuming all Christians think that way, or some of the flamboyant excesses of some of the Gay Pride marches and assume that all gay people are in-yer-face about their sexuality.

One question I always find myself asking people who identify as atheist is whether they have an active belief in the non-existence of God, or merely lack an active belief in the existence of God. In other words, if their statement of belief is "I believe God does not exist" as opposed to "I do not believe God exists". I have heard it referred to as the difference between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism.

As a list I don't dispute that it's untrue to say that all atheists are all the things you imply. Some atheists tick some or all of the boxes, just as some Christians are judgmental and hypocritical. But atheists, just like Christians (or any other identifiable group) don't all think the same way.

 

[psalms 91]

I would really enjoy knowing what you do believe in and if when you look at this creation you cant help but think there has to be something higher than man. I know as a child I would liook at the stars and think about how it all came about until my mind just couldnt wrap around it any more and I knew that there was something bigger and better than man out there

 

[MarkFL]

To your question: From a KNOWLEDGE standpoint, there is ZERO evidence for life beyond the Earth (well... there is Methane on Mars but it could be from other sources). ZERO!

But given the sheer number of stars within each galaxy and the sheer number of galaxies in the visible universe, wouldn't you say it must be extremely unlikely that life would only arise here, on our unremarkable little speck of dust?

That right there gives me reason to believe it is most likely true that there is life elsewhere, whereas what compelling reason do I have to believe in something so extraordinary as a deity?

Yet, you do find a great many atheists (NO ***!!!!) agnostics (Inadequate proof of ***'s existence or lack thereof) who believe there is life out there.... an affirmation from ZERO evidence, absolutely NOTHING.... interesting! Something that has absolutely NOTHING - nothing whatsoever - to support it, these atheists and agnostics seem to dogmatically embrace (makes me wonder, lol).

I, as an atheist (not a theist...do not believe there is a god, but do not claim there cannot be a god), only feel it is highly likely, I do not claim to have proof.

In any case, you of course may define your words ANY way you personally feel like at the moment (I will not debate your ability there) but IMO, you are going to be consistently misunderstood - especially in theistic contexts - if you use "atheist" rather than "agnostic" and ergo will either find yourself in frustrating conversations or need to CONSTANTLY point out that you use your term in an unusual way. IMO, there is a huge, enormous difference between an atheist and an agnostic - not only in their position but often in their attitudes, approaches and actions, in my experience.

My use of the terms is pretty mainstream...check out Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. Many atheist prefer to be called agnostic simply because the word "atheist" causes more shudders of revulsion than the phrase "serial killer" here in the U.S.

I think a lot of the issues you raised are things that people associate with the most vocal of atheists and assume the vocal minority represents the whole. In many ways it's really no different to people looking at the likes of Westboro Baptist Church and assuming all Christians think that way, or some of the flamboyant excesses of some of the Gay Pride marches and assume that all gay people are in-yer-face about their sexuality.

One question I always find myself asking people who identify as atheist is whether they have an active belief in the non-existence of ***, or merely lack an active belief in the existence of ***. In other words, if their statement of belief is "I believe *** does not exist" as opposed to "I do not believe *** exists". I have heard it referred to as the difference between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism.

As a list I don't dispute that it's untrue to say that all atheists are all the things you imply. Some atheists tick some or all of the boxes, just as some Christians are judgmental and hypocritical. But atheists, just like Christians (or any other identifiable group) don't all think the same way.

I couldn't have said it better myself, on all counts. The title of my list would better be labeled "A Few Things Not Necessary To Being An Atheist."

 

[Josiah]

Faith has little to do with evidence..... I BELIEVE in God. For example, I'd GUESS that perhaps 99.99% of those boarding planes today don't know how planes fly (this largely includes those who THINK they do but.... don't), yet they still board the plane. I bought an egg burrito this morning on my way to work and had NO knowledge as to its safety but I ate it anyway. I drove to work without even looking at my tires, brakes, etc. Faith has to do with what you trust - and it often is not documented or understood. I had surgery when I was a boy.... I served as the best man at a friend's wedding on Saturday.... big steps done by faith. Now, you can argue there is INADEQUATE faith for YOU to do some things (thus, you perhaps never fly or would never agree to surgery or marriage; perhaps you never ate food you did not prepare) and I "get" that. But I hope you see my point.


To your question: From a KNOWLEDGE standpoint, there is ZERO evidence for life beyond the Earth (well... there is Methane on Mars but it could be from other sources). ZERO! Yet, you do find a great many atheists (NO god!!!!) agnostics (Inadequate proof of God's existence or lack thereof) who believe there is life out there.... an affirmation from ZERO evidence, absolutely NOTHING.... interesting! Something that has absolutely NOTHING - nothing whatsoever - to support it, these atheists and agnostics seem to dogmatically embrace (makes me wonder, lol).


In any case, you of course may define your words ANY way you personally feel like at the moment (I will not debate your ability there) but IMO, you are going to be consistently misunderstood - especially in theistic contexts - if you use "atheist" rather than "agnostic" and ergo will either find yourself in frustrating conversations or need to CONSTANTLY point out that you use your term in an unusual way. IMO, there is a huge, enormous difference between an atheist and an agnostic - not only in their position but often in their attitudes, approaches and actions, in my experience.




.

But given the sheer number of stars within each galaxy and the sheer number of galaxies in the visible universe, wouldn't you say it must be extremely unlikely that life would only arise here, on our unremarkable little speck of dust?

Respectfully, perhaps you missed my point. You seem to affirm there is ZERO - zip - nada - nothing that evidences that life exists beyond this singular, individual planet. We have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates otherwise. And yet - in this absolute vacuum of evidence - both atheists and agnostics will often claim "but it's likely" if not insist that it's probably true. How interesting.... how revealing.... how contradictory. Just ONE example.

I, as an atheist (not a theist...do not believe there is a god, but do not claim there cannot be a god), only feel it is highly likely, I do not claim to have proof.

So, you need no evidence for your dogmatic insistence of "THERE IS NO DIVINE" but another must have proof for the equal but opposite claim "THERE IS THE DIVINE?" Hum....

My use of the terms is pretty mainstream...check out Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. Many atheist prefer to be called agnostic simply because the word "atheist" causes more shudders of revulsion than the phrase "serial killer" here in the U.S.

They mean two ENTIERLY different things.... and in my experience, are used in two ENTIRELY different ways, as I previously pointed out. My point to you is simple: IF you would like to be understood - including in a Christian context, a discussion with Christians - you either need to use the words in their standard and accurate way OR be prepared to either be misunderstood or to CONSTANTLY and PERPETUALLY note that you mean your term in a unique and personal way. But yes, that's up to you.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I would really enjoy knowing what you do believe in and if when you look at this creation you cant help but think there has to be something higher than man. I know as a child I would liook at the stars and think about how it all came about until my mind just couldnt wrap around it any more and I knew that there was something bigger and better than man out there

I do believe there likely is something more advanced than us somewhere out there, but not supernatural. Whether or not this universe was created is a question for which there is no evidence to say either way, and so until there is, I will choose not to believe one way or the other.

Respectfully, perhaps you missed my point. You seem to affirm there is ZERO - zip - nada - nothing that evidences that life exists beyond this singular, individual planet. We have NOTHING that REMOTELY indicates otherwise. And yet - in this absolute vacuum of evidence - both atheists and agnostics will often claim "but it's likely" if not insist that it's probably true. How interesting.... how revealing.... how contradictory. Just ONE example.

You are not reading my posts thoroughly...I never once claimed there is no God, simply that I have no reason to believe there is...that's HUGE distinction. And to say that I have a dogmatic insistence is way off. There is no reason for me to make any claim regarding the supernatural, except that there is no reason to believe one way or the other.

You however, have to account for the contradiction of choosing to be agnostic about one thing, yet gnostic about another, when there is an equal lack of evidence for both, and the thing for which you choose to be gnostic about is far more unlikely. That is truly revealing.

So, you need no evidence for your dogmatic insistence of "THERE IS NO DIVINE" but another must have proof for the equal but opposite claim "THERE IS THE DIVINE?" Hum....

Please show me where I insisted there is no divine.

They mean two ENTIERLY different things.... and in my experience, are used in two ENTIRELY different ways, as I previously pointed out. My point to you is simple: IF you would like to be understood - including in a Christian context, a discussion with Christians - you either need to use the words in their standard and accurate way OR be prepared to either be misunderstood or to CONSTANTLY and PERPETUALLY note that you mean your term in a unique and personal way. But yes, that's up to you.

I use the terms the way they are actually defined...as tango pointed out, there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists. The way I see it, we are all agnostic regarding the supernatural, because there simply is no compelling evidence to justify gnosticism either way.

 

[tango]

I use the terms the way they are actually defined...as tango pointed out, there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists. The way I see it, we are all agnostic regarding the supernatural, because there simply is no compelling evidence to justify gnosticism either way.

We might have a belief based on limited knowledge and therefore be agnostic in the strictest sense of the word, but there's a significant difference between a statement of active belief (with or without evidence) and a statement of passive disbelief.

I often use a bridge as an analogy. If we look at a rickety old bridge we might take an active stance "I believe the bridge will take my weight", which might be a statement of faith in the absence of any evidence but is still a statement of active belief. We might take a statement of not knowing - "I don't know if it will take my weight" - in which case we might put increasing loads on it before deciding to trust it by walking across. Or we might take an active stance of "I don't believe that bridge will support me" and refuse to cross.

If the bridge is a couple of feet over a shallow stream it's not a big step of faith to trust it, on the other hand if it's a long rickety bridge 1000 feet above a raging torrent at the bottom of a ravine we might be a little more thoughtful before trusting it.

Admittedly where the bridge is concerned we may be able to speak from a position of knowledge, having either seen someone cross it or seen someone fall through it, but I'm sure you get the picture.

 

[MarkFL]

If I am sitting somewhere and someone looking out a window, through which my view is blocked, states that he sees a dog running by, I will believe him without needing evidence...I too have seen dogs and know they are a part of our world and so I do not find this to be an extraordinary claim requiring proof. However, if that same person, even someone I have known all my life and within whose hands I would trust my life, told me he just saw a Pegasus fly by, I would need to see that for myself before I would believe it (and even if I clearly saw it I would quite thoroughly look for other explanations). This is an extraordinary claim, and requires compelling evidence before I would consider giving it any credence.

I would need for the Pegasus to be captured and studied by zoologists and confirmed that yes, it is a horse that can actually fly, before I would be convinced.

 

[Josiah]

I never once claimed there is no God, simply that I have no reason to believe there is...that's HUGE distinction.

Correct. If you stated you are an agnostic, then you define yourself as one who concludes there is insufficient evidence for the divine. But you stated you are an atheist, which means you define yourself as one who dogmatically insists there is no divine. Yes, there is a HUGE distinction.

I noted I find it.... curious..... that you seem to hold to some belief that there is life beyond the Earth and yet seem to admit there is zero, nada, NOTHING whatsoever to evidence such.... so, it seems evidence or the absolute lack thereof has nothing to do with what you accept or reject, which seems to undermine your whole point about the importance of evidence to you.

Please show me where I insisted there is no divine

Read the title you gave to this thread. Read the opening post. An atheist is one who insists there is no divine.




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Ugh, okay...if you adhere to that definition. You are focusing on a trivial ambiguity rather than on the actual meat of the conversation.

From Wikipedia:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

I am using the broad definition, while you are using the narrower one. Now we can (hopefully) dispense with that.

We see that life has happened here on Earth. In just that part of the universe we can see, we find something on the order of 10[SUP]29[/SUP] stars...don't you think it is irrational to think it is not likely that at least one other solar system has the condition sufficient to harbor life? That's ALL I am saying. You are trying to read more into what I say than is there. I can make a fool of myself just fine on my own, I certainly don't need any help.

And you conveniently never addressed the issue of selective gnosticism. :scratchchin:

 

[Josiah]

We see that life has happened here on Earth. In just that part of the universe we can see, we find something on the order of 10[SUP]29[/SUP] stars...don't you think it is irrational to think it is not likely that at least one other solar system has the condition sufficient to harbor life?

I find that most interesting and revealing. In an ABSOLUTE VOID of evidence.... with nothing whatsoever to indicate such..... with not a single thing to remotely support such..... with ZERO evidence..... you support the ida of life beyond the Earth. Yet your whole position is that we should reject an idea that lacks SUFFICIENT proof in the singular, current opinion of you yourself. Evidently, ZERO is more than sufficient for you; in my opinion, that negates your whole point, which is why I raised that - to reveal that.


As for the definition, AGAIN, if you insist on using the word "atheist" as in this thread in that unique way - that's okay with me, again, it is your right to define your words ANY - absolutely any - way YOU currently choose. But - and this was my sole point - you either need to accept you will be misunderstood by that insistence or you will need to note your definition each time you use it.

IMO, some of your observations apply to agnostics but not to atheists. I find atheists to be an ANGRY people who constantly show that they reject the very point they insist upon - namely, that there must be "sufficient" empirical evidence for faith/trust/belief when they often embrace that NONE WHATSOEVER is needed, as you too revealed.



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I give you the definition of atheist...you ignore it.

I give you the reason for my belief in the possibility of life elsewhere, and you ignore it.

I asked you more than once about your selective gnosticism, and you ignore it.

I think we are done here.

 

[tango]

If I am sitting somewhere and someone looking out a window, through which my view is blocked, states that he sees a dog running by, I will believe him without needing evidence...I too have seen dogs and know they are a part of our world and so I do not find this to be an extraordinary claim requiring proof. However, if that same person, even someone I have known all my life and within whose hands I would trust my life, told me he just saw a Pegasus fly by, I would need to see that for myself before I would believe it (and even if I clearly saw it I would quite thoroughly look for other explanations). This is an extraordinary claim, and requires compelling evidence before I would consider giving it any credence.

I would need for the Pegasus to be captured and studied by zoologists and confirmed that yes, it is a horse that can actually fly, before I would be convinced.

That makes a lot of sense.

When I look at the world around me and listen to the assorted explanations different groups offer for how it came into being, there are a few options. I realise it's a huge simplification of what is presented but essentially there are some groups that say "God created it" and some groups that say "it evolved from nothing". If we look at the first few words of the Bible we see "In the beginning God", which (if we're willing to be a little flexible over what "God" actually means) covers the first group. The second group essentially say "In the beginning, not-God".

The first explanation (and I'll use a small g for "god" to denote one or more deities that may or may not represent the God described in the Bible) explains things in a way that works because god did it.

The second explanation requires an absence of deities and every which way we turn we run into more and more problems. Evolution works on the surface but struggles to explain irreducibly complex biological systems and requires an original living thing in the first place. So evolution passes the baton to a concept of abiogenesis to explain how something that wasn't living spawned something that was. And then abiogenesis has to pass the baton again to figure out how that non-living thing appeared in the first place.

Of the two options I can't believe the second one, I just don't have enough faith.

 

[Josiah]

I give you the definition of atheist...you ignore it.

No. I specifically and repeatedly said you may give ANY definition to ANY words you use that suits your fancy at the time.... I ONLY noted that since you insist on using an unusual definition, you thereby set yourself up to be misunderstood OR you'll need to define the word you insist on using every time you do.

I give you the reason for my belief in the possibility of life elsewhere, and you ignore it.

I did not ignore it, I carefully noted it - because it negates your whole point about the necessity of EVIDENCE. You seem to agree that is NO evidence whatsoever for life beyond the Earth.... none, nada, zip.... a complete and absolute VOID of any evidence whatsoever. And yet..... you think such a belief is sound. I brought up that specific example because it too reveals the contradiction of atheists who don't accept their own foundational point: if a position can be sound with an absolute, complete, total ABSENSE of any evidence at all - and you insist that's the case - then there goes the whole point of atheists; it simply documents that you don't accept your own point. Which was my obvious point.


To your question, in my experience, ATHEISTS tend to be a contradicting, egotistical and above all angry group. Agnostics, however, tend to be respectful even supportive; and they tend to acknowledge that life often includes faith, at least in the cases known to me.




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

That makes a lot of sense.

When I look at the world around me and listen to the assorted explanations different groups offer for how it came into being, there are a few options. I realise it's a huge simplification of what is presented but essentially there are some groups that say "God created it" and some groups that say "it evolved from nothing". If we look at the first few words of the Bible we see "In the beginning God", which (if we're willing to be a little flexible over what "God" actually means) covers the first group. The second group essentially say "In the beginning, not-God".

The first explanation (and I'll use a small g for "god" to denote one or more deities that may or may not represent the God described in the Bible) explains things in a way that works because god did it.

The second explanation requires an absence of deities and every which way we turn we run into more and more problems. Evolution works on the surface but struggles to explain irreducibly complex biological systems and requires an original living thing in the first place. So evolution passes the baton to a concept of abiogenesis to explain how something that wasn't living spawned something that was. And then abiogenesis has to pass the baton again to figure out how that non-living thing appeared in the first place.

Of the two options I can't believe the second one, I just don't have enough faith.

But then we run into Occam's razor...what then created the creator? And what then created the creator's creator, and so on...if something as complex as the universe requires a creator, then surely this creator would be much more complex that its creation and even more so requires a creator, and so forth.

I would choose to allow science to continue the ongoing investigation of cosmology to eventually (hopefully) explain the origin of the universe rather than simply saying, it must have had a supernatural cause. Following the ongoing investigation requires no faith. Throwing in the towel and saying science doesn't satisfactorily explain it therefore we must invoke the supernatural does require faith.

 

[psalms 91]

Faith is the very essence of belief, without it there is no faith

 

[MarkFL]

No. I specifically and repeatedly said you may give ANY definition to ANY words you use that suits your fancy at the time.... I ONLY noted that since you insist on using an unusual definition, you thereby set yourself up to be misunderstood OR you'll need to define the word you insist on using every time you do.

Again, I am using the accepted definition...you are the one demanding your narrow definition be the only one accepted. But that's your prerogative. I'm not going to change my perfectly accepted and mainstream use of the word to suit one person.

Now, suppose I give each of the 7+ billion people on Earth 5 dice each, and tell everyone to roll them. I have good reason, based on the laws of probability, to expect that at least 1 person rolled 5 sixes. However, I don't know that anyone did. By your reckoning, we would have to close our mind completely to the very possibility that at least one quintuple of sixes happened becuase we did not go from person to person until we found one.

 

[80sChild]

Baptist... No wonder you're a atheist now! lol [emoji6]


[emoji252]JFN[emoji252]

 

[Josiah]

what then created the creator?

You assume that the Creator is a creature.

if something as complex as the universe requires a creator

Of course, your insistence would be that the assumption - your "if" - be proven. Let's see you do that.

Let's say no one PROVES - to your own personal, current, individual satisfaction - that anything was "before" the Big Bang, would that negate the Big Bang - impossible for something to come from nothing?

I would choose to allow science to continue the ongoing investigation of cosmology to eventually (hopefully) explain the origin of the universe rather than simply saying, it must have had a supernatural cause. Following the ongoing investigation requires no faith. Throwing in the towel and saying science doesn't satisfactorily explain it therefore we must invoke the supernatural does require faith.

I have a Ph.D. in science..... Science ASSUMES very much and ultimately rests on THEORIES it cannot prove [or at least has not], in some cases THEORIES we don't even think are ultimately the thing we assume but just the best we have for now. And we prove previous positions wrong all the time. But here is what I find so interesting: you seem to support the belief that there is life beyond the Earth while seeming to admit that there is a COMPLETLE, ABSOLUTE void of any evidence whatsoever for such. There is NOTHING in science at this point to support your position - nothing whatsoever, nothing at all. So you don't look to science.... you aren't concerned with evidence.... not at all, not a bit. You insist that we should reject what is not shown to be true by "evidence" and "science" and yet you accept something that has NO evidence at all, and NO scientific support whatsoever. Obviously, evidence has nothing to do with anything for you, obviously science has nothing to do with anything for you. Perhaps you reject your own foundational point?


As for requiring faith.... I can think of FEW things that don't. I take that back, I can't think of anything that doesn't require faith.



To the point: My experience is that Atheists tend to be egotistical, contradictory and above all angry people who clearly don't accept the very thing they insist upon. Agnostics, however, in my experience, then to be respectful of people and of faith, even supportive of such. MAYBE most of the scientists I work with are agnostics but most know of my strong Christian faith and they totally respect that and [I find this always revealing] have at times asked me to pray for them; I've personally NEVER had an Agnostic in any way or sense "challenge" my faith or the role of faith, none promoting the things you are. There is a HUGE difference between atheism and agnosticism, between atheists and agnostics.



Thank you.


- Josiah