It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Atheist Still Believe in God?

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: MotherMayEye
👍
I do believe there is energy consciousness.
But, in no way do I believe there is a god or omnipotent being of that nature.


Hi Annee, and MME who agreed with Annee's point.

What's the difference between the belief in a god, and a belief in in "energy consciousness"?
Do they both not require a leap of faith?


Consciousness requires energy. That is a provable scientific fact.

I already explained that science (through nature) proves that ideas born in minds do not *poof* spontaneously materialize in nature on sheer will, alone.




edit on 12/27/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The common dictionary with a tainted definition of atheism.......good one





Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.


Semantic gymnastics at it's very best.

So let me get this straight, the lack of belief in God DOES NOT relate to the disbelief or denial of god or gods?
Ok then.


edit on 27-12-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

This video answers your question on the difference between disbelief and non or without belief.

Super simple stuff.

youtu.be...

Coomba98



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: MotherMayEye
👍
I do believe there is energy consciousness.
But, in no way do I believe there is a god or omnipotent being of that nature.


Hi Annee, and MME who agreed with Annee's point.

What's the difference between the belief in a god, and a belief in in "energy consciousness"?
Do they both not require a leap of faith?


Consciousness requires energy. That is a provable scientific fact.

I already explained that science (through nature) proves that ideas born in minds do not *poof* spontaneously materialize in nature on sheer will, alone.


Does a belief in god not also require energy?
Does anyone really know exactly what consciousness is, beyond our own individual experiences?
Can science prove that to someone, whom doesn't have faith in science?
-
Well: did read the thread, but didn't buy-in to any proofs, nor explanations.
Do you believe that science equals truth? (Because you used science to explain your answers.)
You "explained" your personal belief about ideas, not any kind of absolute truth.

edit on 27-12-2017 by Nothin because: sp



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

It is super simple for me.

I have three categories

Agnostics- Simply don't know either way, anything is plausible to them, they are still developing their personal ideology, often attacked by positive atheists.

Negative Atheists-These lean towards atheistic beliefs very strongly, but they won't spend a ton of time proselytizing their worldview.

Positive Atheists-Hardcore advocates of their ideology will post in every thread to set people right, even the unsure agnostics. Probably have made numerous YouTube videos on the subject for example "The Amazing Atheist".
edit on 27-12-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Your definition of Agnostic is what Atheist is.

The above video also answer that.

Gnostic and Agnostic deal with divine knowledge.
Theist and Atheist deals with belief on divines.

Your definitions of Atheists are both wrong.

Coomba98
edit on 27-12-2017 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I don't understand all the quibbling over semantics. Sure, in the realm of all possible realities (not knowing which one we are truly living in), there is at room for a tiny probability that any particular thing might exist. Are unicorns real? I mean maybe. But is there cause to take the idea seriously? Wheighing the possible existence of this particular thing against all other possible things that might exist, but for which there is no solid evidence, is there any reason we should remain agnostic about this fantasy in particular, and not for example, leprechauns?

The bottom line is Atheists don't think there is reason to believe in god. What they don't say is that anyone need undertake the tedious [impossible] task of disproving it beyond any possible doubt.
edit on 27-12-2017 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

I wonder if the researchers were measuring the part of the brain where our superstitions and fears live? Rationally, atheists don't believe in God (or gods) yet there's obviously an area in their brain that isn't so sure. Let's think of creepy places. Sure, we know there are no ghosts or monsters there, but that part of the brain still feels anxiety and produces goosebumps.

It's very likely that superstitious thinking is hard-wired into us. Everyone gets the creeps sometimes. In that sense, the atheist is overcoming some limbic 'ghosts' with intellectual objectivity. However, due to the hard-wiring, superstition has to cohabit with rationality with one or the other becoming dominant.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No, it honestly was the dumbest thing ever written anywhere at any time!



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
I believe this would fall more under Science than Religion based on how the information came to light.

A study has found that Atheist might not be unbelievers after all...


A study in Finland explored how religious and non-religious people responded to the idea of God.

The researchers used electrodes to measure how much sweat people produced while reading statements like "I dare God to make my parents drown" or "I dare God to make me die of cancer".

Unexpectedly, when nonbelievers read the statements, they produced as much sweat as believers - suggesting they were equally anxious about the consequences of their dares.


When I first read the information, I thought that perhaps it was simply because people in general, believers or not, would have the same reaction based on the words they were saying. Superstition perhaps? Not quite so...


And that's not simply because nonbelievers didn't want to wish harm on others. A companion study showed that similar dares that did not involve God (such as, "I wish my parents would drown") did not produce comparable increases in sweat levels.

Together, then, these findings suggest that despite denying that God exists, nonbelievers behaved as though God did exist.


So does that mean that Atheist really do believe in God? Well, not really...


Does this mean that nonbelievers are lying when they say they reject God? Not exactly. Rather, these contradictory behaviours probably arise in part due to living in a theistic culture that hammers home the idea that God exists.

Perhaps this leads nonbelievers to form "implicit" attitudes that are at odds with their "explicit" ones.


So what does that mean exactly? Read more here to find out!


I don't sweat unless it's hot. The idea that they must be lying because the temperature in the room was high is preposterous.

Why would anyone sweat because they "swore on god" in a thought experiment?

The entire study is just ridiculous. There would be zero actual tension.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
It takes more faith for an atheist to believe there is no God than to believe in God. Atheism isn't really about believing or not believing though, it's about arrogance, vanity, pompous self importance, a purposeful lack of humility and rebellion against anything except the atheist's own desires. Once a person grows beyond the need for all those childish things and casts them away, (if they can ever get over themselves), can they discover that God exists and is waiting for them to begin seeing truth.


What worries me is that such can be written by what was thought to be intelligent people.

There is and has been no proof of God. Nothing. (notice the full stop)

So Atheism is not a belief nor a faith, it is, within itself the ability to see that until proof the world is, as it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Same goes for life and death. You exist, you do not.

I still feel that for some this realisation of life and death, is still so hard to fathom that you and others will for eternity wish there is an escape.

Rather, we try to persevere to achieve great things while we are here and hope to succeed in finding others.
edit on 27-12-2017 by BlackProject because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
An atheist is to me someone who probably has spend more time and effort into answering the question if there is a god more than I ever did or will. To come to such fundamental conclusion, I at least hope the search was long hard and made diligently.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
An atheist is to me someone who probably has spend more time and effort into answering the question if there is a god more than I ever did or will. To come to such fundamental conclusion, I at least hope the search was long hard and made diligently.


Exactly.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
What on earth is an Atheist? The word describes a void, something that isn't there.
I am someone who can't believe in a biblical god. There is no omnipresence with a consciousness that listens to all of us, it's impossible.
I am the same person when I was born. I am like cats and dogs and any other unindoctrinated animal. I just am.
If I would have never heard of the bible I wouldn't even know what a god is. I also don't care in the same way I don't care about the tooth fairy or santa.
I have no name or logo as there is nothing added to my psyche. I am base level, nothing to see.
Believers are the different ones and need a label as they are deviating from the norm by believing something that makes no sense.

That said, I don't think it is a belief in a god when I believe in nature and energy. Because I can see nature and energy and none of them have ever spoken to me and threatened to kill me and all of my family if I don't do certain things.
Nature can kill if you don't handle it properly, sure but it is called experience and isn't a deliberate threat.

I also am very open minded to reincarnation or afterlife, none of which needs a 'boss' on the helm, either can happen naturally.
I have no proof though, therefore I won't preach to others. They are neat theories only and far more believable than the big sky daddy.

The recent change that god people now take science and call it a god is a clear violation of their original teachings that their god has a voice and a body to kill, shout and impregnate a virgin. They are literally hijacking scientific notions and now call it a god. Which is cheating.

Basically they have realised that their old fashioned idea is utter nonsense and now they soften up and use the word god instead of nature. No way Pedro. Either stick with your idea or wake up, you an't have your cake and eat it! Cheeky so and sos.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I thought someone who wasn't part of a religion or had no faith, but thinks there may be a higher power or something more to all of this was an agnostic?

If you're an atheist, I thought it meant entirely believing in nothing of a mystical nature, no inbetweens, what ifs or maybes?

So as soon as you claim some higher being or power exists, you at least shift into having the agnostic label applied.

Man, I think this is the main problem with the world. Well specifically the English speaking world. We have to over complicate everything, especially the simple things. Come up with new buzzwords and labels every week for things we already have labels and words for. Blur everything into a big bucket of grey.
Why can we not just call a spade a spade?

This sort of thing is why this language is supposedly so hard to learn. You cannot just call something what it is, you have to give it 200 other labels and reassign everythings meaning.
I mean you want a good example, just look at the word penis and how many other names we have for it.
When all we need is a single one.

For me you're religious, atheist or agnostic, which seem to have very clear definitions. Anything else I am not interested in nor care for.

Amazing how the more complicated we make things, the more dumbed down we get as a species.


Of course in saying all that. Just because you're an atheist, it does not mean you will not, or are not allowed to think about a God's existence. Just because you think about it, doesn't mean you're automatically religious. It just means you think thoughts like everyone else does.

I'd say who cares and it's a non-issue. But here I am caring enough about the issue to comment. lol



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Barcs

Given that the Gnostic knowledge of Christianity is the bible which has only been available to the public since around the 1500's (estimated 3/4 since its inception), i consider myself a Gnostic Atheist with regards to Christianity.

Coomba98


I can respect that, although technically you are not gnostic, because the bible is just one version of what people describe as god. There is no knowledge related to the topic, only claims by certain religions and theists that seem to be wrong or presumptive. The bible could be 100% wrong and god could still exist. Now obviously I don't believe that, but it's not actually a knowledge position.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Faith and science need not be mutually exclusive. I have faith when I flip a light switch that the light will com on. God's entry pervades the Universe and all its dimensions. I have faith and see science in his works on earth.


You are using a different meaning of the word "faith". Faith can mean blind belief in what we do not know, OR it can mean trust. You trust that the light will come on, you don't have blind faith in it, because it's a product of science and we know how it works. Yes, faith (first definition above) and science are exact opposites. You can TRUST science, but that's not belief, it's a different word meaning.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

You are of course correct there are all those, but the bottom line is there is a bunch of people that are very sure of there belief structure they debate it passionately on these forums, they aren't coming into threads saying I don't know.

My experience online across all forums not just ATS is simply this, the more time people spend defending their "No Creator" position and attacking any type of creation ideology the more hardcore atheistic ideologically they are, they can categorize themselves however they want, their passion and time spent tell the tale.


Look, I get that, but most atheists don't just come in defending the idea of no creator. They come in and argue against religious claims that there IS a creator, because they very often use poor logic and assumptions to justify it. That's a big difference, and they aren't usually claiming knowledge, as it's a belief position. They point out flaws in the positive claims. I've never heard a single atheist say that atheism is proven. 99.999% admit they don't actually know, and the few that claim they DO know, don't actually know because you must have complete knowledge of the universe to KNOW for a fact that something doesn't exist in the universe. Some have strong beliefs about it, just like theists.


Barcs which do you consider yourself ?

1)Negative Atheist (A type of agnostic)
2)Positive Atheist (A person who believes that no god or gods exist.)


I am neither. I am agnostic atheist as I described earlier. I've never heard of a negative or positive atheist. Are you a negative or positive theist?


And as per usual, the theists in this thread are the ones telling atheists what an atheist believes, while the atheists actually explaining their beliefs are being ignored. Too funny and quite typical actually. It's always the people that don't agree with it that try to pigeonhole atheists into their categories, as if they are the ones who get to determine such things. You don't see atheists trying to falsely define Christianity or theism. So why do you guys do it to us? One should never tell somebody else what that person believes. The person should speak for him or herself.

edit on 12 27 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
It indicates that the person regardless of their patronage was a chronic pest.

Out of context , alledged utterances are meaningless



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

No I am not wrong, I merely mixed the actual definitions with my personal observations and interactions with all these groups



Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.

Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities
exist

Implicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.


Maybe a diagram will help.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join