Atheists, what do you believe in?

originally posted by: randyvs

I'm not religious

Obviously. Aside from your dedicated defense and promotion of one specific God and Religious Viewpoint. Other than that, you're not Religious. I get it.

I'm sure you would rather and I'm sure your explanation for our existence is
just as obsurd.

I'm still keeping my options open when it comes to explaining our existence actually.

BTW, that was nice the way you completely missed the point of what I was saying and quoted me out of context to avoid answering my questions. Very impressive.

a reply to: mOjOm

The point of what you were saying became moot with my reply.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: mOjOm

If you're any example of what Religious

I'm not religious

Coulda fooled me.

a reply to: Annee

I know it may seem confusing Annee but if you will,
what I mean by that is fairly simple.
I'm simply a believer in Christ
While that makes me a Christian I don't religiously attend or prescribe
to any church or sect of Christianity. (Baptist Penticostal etc. etc.)
Never have and was never coached by my parents as to what to believe.
It just seems to make sense out of the nonsense of us even being here in
the best way for me.

a reply to: Ghost147

The best thing I know is when my opinions are challenged and proven completely wrong. When I get a real "Aha" moment. Not small things but big things, like if you just found out that Napoleon actually never existed.

It's so fun and refreshing.

One can have a pretty clear picture of how things are, but we should always be open to new things. And be humble enough to realize that we don't know what we don't know.

probability will tell you aliens exists. and most likley smarter than us. just like we play with genetics and able to clone sheep, i feel that we are made up of spliced geentic make up. in which case god would exist but its an alien entity not a spooky beared man that judges you each day. basic religion of christianty etc is all based on Epytian teachings and re-packaged.

Plus if hilary and trump are able to make it to the finals - then anything is possible.

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not atheist I'm agnostic, but what I believe in is that, there are a great many things I will never know. In fact I don't believe I can ever truly "know" anything. All I can do is discern what I believe to be most likely based upon my own perceptions and experiences, and base my decisions off that. I don't keep this in the forefront of my mind though. I mean mostly I just live my life doing what I feel is right.

What does agnostic mean?

What is the difference between agnostic and atheist?

a reply to: Annee

Atheist means firmly one does not believe in a God of any sort. It's a complete denial.

Agnostic, however, does not deny the possibility that there is or is not a deity.

Atheist is "I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD!!!"

Theist is "I KNOW THERE IS A GOD OR GODS!!!

Agnostic is "I have no possible way to "know" either of those things are true."

I may be biased but I think being agnostic is the most logical conclusion of the three. I mean when dealing the ultimate mystery and secrets underlying the fabric of reality and existence. It seems to me to require a bit of arrogance to think you're assumptions about it is the ultimate truth but everyone else's are wrong... I mean HOW do you know it beyond a reasonable doubt?

I get so frustrated when like I've run into Christians before that have said, "No you don't understand, Christianity isn't a religion, all those are things are." "What do you mean it's not a religion?" I ask. "It's not a religion because it's a fact it's true. All those other things are not, it's why they're religions." They answer. "How do you know it's fact?" I ask. "Because the bible..." and it just gets crazy from there. Snipped of an actual conversation.

Is probably one of the major issue I have with Abrahamic religions they seem to have this built in defense mechanism that it's followers must blindly accept it without doubt. Which is actually something most other religions do not have. For example Hinduism: "there are many paths to Brahmin, and Christianity may be such a path." Christians: "Heathens, you're wrong, there's only God and there's only one path to him and that's through Jesus. Period, end of story."

Fortunately that's a very small minority of Christians. Most even if they do believe they are right, don't push the issue to a crazy degree. They accept others have different faiths without feeling the need to insult them for it. I have no problem with the Cghristian believe if only they could accept that they could be wrong, even the tiniest bit so, many can at least accept that possibility that it's their faith and not fact. I've no problem with such Christians.

What I have issues is the ones that move beyond it being their personal faith and a fact calling anyone who doesn't share it wrong.

I guess in a way I'm a militant agnostic, "I don't know the truth and neither do you."

As an atheist, I do not believe, I am certain that humans are as important in the universe as a single grain of sand in the Sahara is.

But I also, therefore, understand why some find that hard to accept and seek religious beliefs.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

Atheist means firmly one does not believe in a God of any sort. It's a complete denial.

Agnostic, however, does not deny the possibility that there is or is not a deity.

Atheist is "I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD!!!"

Theist is "I KNOW THERE IS A GOD OR GODS!!!

Agnostic is "I have no possible way to "know" either of those things are true."

I may be biased but I think being agnostic is the most logical conclusion of the three. I mean when dealing the ultimate mystery and secrets underlying the fabric of reality and existence. It seems to me to require a bit of arrogance to think you're assumptions about it is the ultimate truth but everyone else's are wrong... I mean HOW do you know it beyond a reasonable doubt?

Those definitions seem reasonable to me. In fact, I'm quite sure I've used them at one point or another. Maybe even yesterday. Who knows.

But alternate definitions exist (and some of these have been posted in this thread).

Hard Atheism: I know there is no God.
Soft Atheistm, or Agnostic Atheism: I do not believe in God because God has not been proven, but do not rule out the possibility.

To me, these are semantic differences. I actually think it's much simpler to define the words a you have.

That's one reason why I think it's important to clarify (as you have done) what one means when they say ATHEIST or AGNOSTIC.

By the way, I agree with you. Science is Agnostic, and so am I.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Well if I take my Christian hat off
Alien abductions, way to many people have suffered and face ptsd from these reports, so aliens by default must exist
Ghosts, yep, I have seen way to much evidence, seen tv shows and read books as well as official documents recording strange happenings
Sasquatch animals, again, just way to many people have told storys, to many people for me have sited and recorded these things

Loch Ness monster, again so much documentation going back so long

Though now my Christian beliefs have explained much of that and in my opinion confirms my faith

Now, that doesn't mean I am the enemy, just have a different opinion, you will just have to accept that

It's a good and timely thread, I have enjoyed much of it

If you don't believe in God, then I wish you luck

I am not sure about luck, I know a guy who couldn't stop winning at a card table, then onto a roulette wheel, some 70 thousand dollars in one nigh, just couldn't lose
Don't know about that, lucks interesting

Thanks for the humble response. It's a very refreshing change

I know a lot of Christians whom feel the same about alien life, too.

Their existence seems like a very likely possibility. Hopefully within our lifetimes there will be conclusive confirmation

a reply to: Puppylove

I'm surprised no one starred your definition post. I have now.

I asked on purpose. Because its something that keeps coming up.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can be atheist without also being agnostic.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

Atheist means firmly one does not believe in a God of any sort. It's a complete denial.

This actually only applies to some atheists, not all. Most atheist have no "anti position" to god at all, but simply lack a belief.

That's the most basic form of atheism, a lack of belief in gods.

For instance. I am an atheist? I don't outwardly state that "there is no God" because you can't Prove a negative in this context. However, I have concluded through my own research and others' that the universe we see around us can form naturally without the need for an all mighty being, and therefore there is no reason to believe a God exists. That's not to say that a god definitely doesn't exist, but that there is no evidence to suggest one does exist, so it's irrational to consider it likely.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee
Atheist is "I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD!!!"

This only applies to what's known as "hard atheism"

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee
Theist is "I KNOW THERE IS A GOD OR GODS!!!

This only applies to what is considered "hard theism". There are in fact theists who simply state "I don't follow any religions, but I believe a god probably exists"

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee
Agnostic is "I have no possible way to "know" either of those things are true."

Absolutely correct.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee
I may be biased but I think being agnostic is the most logical conclusion of the three.

I'm not so sure. I think stating "there is no way to know" is just like saying "nothing can possibly change my mind".

If, let's say, the Christian God were to make a global appearance and provide indisputable evidence that all the stories in the bible were real, and provide more evidence of their omniscience and omnipotents (and how having both is even possible) then I would instantly change my position. I would be even more accepting of it if I were to die and the proof continued with the whole heaven and hell bit.

I would certainly have a lot of questions, and it would require a great deal of proof and transparency, but I wouldn't continue to say "it's impossible to know"

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Puppylove

I'm surprised no one starred your definition post. I have now.

I asked on purpose. Because its something that keeps coming up.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can be atheist without also being agnostic.

The hallmark of hard atheism (for lack of a better term) is a strict materialist philosophy. It is the belief that everything that exists is empirical; everything non-empirical exists only in our minds.

a reply to: Ghost147

In your scenario I might be 99% convinced or maybe 95% who knows depends on how it feels. Is always possible I've been slipped some kind of drug, am in some kind of weird coma, or this being is lying and selling us a falsehood that looks real.

Just because I'm willing to concede my own perceptions, opinions, and mind could be faulty and my perceptions wrong, does not mean I'm being illogical. I feel safe making decisions based on high percentages.

You seem to confusing assuming I could always be wrong, with not being willing to look at things and weigh them most likely true, or at minimum something worth basing my decisions off of.

I don't see why accepting things as indisputable fact is a good thing. It means being unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary if it presents itself. Not very scientific. I'm willing to concede that things are mostly likely true, but I'm also open to being proven wrong no matter how convinced I was in the original information.

Again, it really helps to make sure we're all using the same definitions. These words are very slippery.

To some, atheism means "The belief that it is not possible to know whether there is a God."

To others, it simply means "I do not know if there is a God."

I actually fall into the first camp because God is strictly non-falsifiable. The day someone discovers a way to falsify God, I'll change my mind. I'm not holding my breath.

P.S.

In the scenario above where God makes a physical appearance, he would stop being a non-falsifiable hypothesis and becomes an actual EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION. That would change everything, of course, especially if he'd sit still long enough to be subjected to our experiments.

But generally, when someone claims it is not possible to know in this lifetime whether God exists, one is speaking of God strictly as an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which is what God has always been.

Now I will admit I lean strongly towards the atheistic side of the spectrum. It's possible I'm a soft atheist in some ways I suppose.

Mostly cause I have difficulty with the terms God and supernatural. I mean... God is such an odd word. What is a god? Some would say Zeus is a god, but is that accurate? I'm sure Zeus is powerful in theory, but he has brothers and sisters, a whole pantheon of other gods, and he too is a child of Chaos who they threw down or something, and these gods die and kill each other, so... are they gods or just powerful entities? What's special about a god? Or is a god more like Brahman or Yahweh, an overarching entity that encompasses all creation or all that is? Well at their core. Is that a god? It's all kind of weird. I mean I guess if something did create or is literally all things that could be a god. A lot of being a god seems odd words semantics and play. I tend towards powerful entities as god has weird implications I don't quite think are relevant. I mean by some definitions we could be considered gods to ants.

Also then there is supernatural, is truly supernatural or simply not understood. Science seems to write of a lot of things out of hand, granted often I think it's because we have two groups talking past each other. For example, ghosts, however is a ghost claimed to be involved in something and with it comes all the implications of a dead lost soul haunting an area? That seems a pretty big assumption and as such is pretty easily written off. Then when ghost believers research haunting they do so with that assumed hypothesis. But why is that such a reasonable leap? I mean, you saw some kind of ill defined apparition, objects moved about, you heard voices, something touched you, a strange chill. That could be a lot of things many which may be simply science we don't understand.

I mean we're entering a whole new realm of science. Quantum Physics, Spooky Action at a Distance, Dark Matter, Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Teleportation, the Quantum Realm, whole new particles acting in weird ways, strange things acting in ways we cannot explain or defy our current understanding of physics. We've barely begun to understand these sciences, or truly learned to harness them. Who's to say WHAT we can do with them what someone else could do with them, or what weird natural phenomena may be connected to them that we just simply haven't made the connection to yet? It's exciting stuff. We can hypothesize and create strange pseudoscience explanations for some of the most bizarre things in sci-fi, and many of those things that were one pseudoscience in the past have become science of today. Yet so quick are we to write of pseudoscience of today which may become the science of tomorrow.

Strange things seem to happen and occur, there are experience out there, seemingly in-explainable, and some explained through assumptions that may not be true. It seems on one side people are two quick to write of things that may have a scientific explanation simply because of supernatural connotations, and on the other we seem to have people quick to skip the science altogether and frame it in the first way that makes the encounter something they can be comfortable with and refuse to accept alternate hypothesis.

I think the science community too quickly writes off the "supernatural" without giving it an honest and fair look due to the use of the word supernatural and how the experiencers frame it, and others are two quick to latch onto strange other worldly forces rather than consider there might be a down to earth grounded experience for it.

So in a way I guess I tend towards hard sciences, but then again, do I? Since well if something exists logically I do not see how it can be supernatural or unnatural, I mean wouldn't it still just be natural. Yahweh and Brahman would still be completely natural to me. So would Zeus and Thor if real. But then again to me they'd simply be powerful entities, but still entities.

I think that there's a lot unexplained out there, and I'd love to get a closer look at it, I also think a lot of those unexplained things are far less impossible than people think they are, if we actually found out what they were, and not what we assume they were. I also think we'd make some interesting progress if people didn't simply write things off because they sounded impossible in the way they were framed. Remember who you're talking to may very well have experienced something real but simply have no real way to understand it. I wish more people would look at these things as a mystery and not something to simply get as far away from as possible using the first half assed explanation they can think of.

a reply to: randyvs

I can't speak for other atheists, but I can speak for myself!

It's not a lack of evidence I cite as the reason I am an atheist.

No, it's what I find to be evidence against religious claims.

Your comment: "Atheism is a simple minded choice that bans all of it. It has all the ingredients of major malfunction. is pretty insulting. That said, I'm not offended or surprised by the comment. Especially considering where it came from. Not to mention, it isn't like I haven't taken pot shots at the opposing side.

a reply to: Ghost147

I believe there is more to be discovered.

As you may recall, I have had what I'd call an extended paranormal experience. I can't explain it, but it happened. I'm pretty certain it wasn't in my head, or the heads of others. Too many unknowns I suppose.

I also don't believe extra terrestrials have been visiting Earth, but they've got to be out there somewhere, in some form. One thing I always like to consider though, is this possible "what if" scenario. What if we are the first?. Probably unlikely given the scope, time, and probability of such things. Who the hell knows.

That said.. I know people who have seen UFOs. Close enough to know it was not an airplane or chopper. I'm talking about the Triangles witnessed about 200 yards away. My opinion on these and other crafts sighted by reputable and trustworthy people is that they come from humans. That's a whole other topic though.

My grandfather also had two sightings while in the Air Force, which he was required to document for Project Blue Book. Both took place while in the air (at different times). One a saucer shape. One a cigar shape.

So again, another subject where something is going on..

But I stay clear of your David Ickes and Stephen Greers etc.

Yuck.