Atheism Explained

I used to read bakunin and think that his toughts made sense yet I did not become fully atheistic. An atheist generally begin with the axiom "God can Not exist" and build from there.

One explanation I remember by him was the saying "What sense would it make for a complete and perfect God do a mortal jump and start this imperfect world which has nothing perfect in it"

Originally posted by Marco0Aurelio
I used to read bakunin and think that his toughts made sense yet I did not become fully atheistic. An atheist generally begin with the axiom "God can Not exist" and build from there.

One explanation I remember by him was the saying "What sense would it make for a complete and perfect God do a mortal jump and start this imperfect world which has nothing perfect in it"

I have never read any Atheist books/literature or watched videos/other media (not even those posted on ATS). And as to date I've only read whats on the American Atheist website.

It was my search for God - - search for truth that lead me to Atheism. I was raised Christian. There is nothing - ZERO real history that the mythical "biblical Jesus" existed. There is history of political turmoil - - which I suppose the myth was built on - - as there is with most myths.

Anyway - - - once you step out of the "god circle" - - and are free from its euphoric hold - - your mind becomes much clearer.

I think it happens in any group with same thought thinking. I think congregating in same thought produces a euphoric energy of belonging - - doesn't need to be god related.

Perhaps It would help I explained deism and then explained how one moves from deism to atheism.

Deism by definition is the belief in a non-theistic god; most deists through out history believe in a creator god with no interest in human affairs.

a simple way of moving from this to atheism is Epicurus' argument against gods:

(An unstated premise here is "There is unnecessary evil" which most people would agree with in this modern age of information. However I am aware that some people hold the opinion that i.e 500 million people died of smallpox in the 20th century (including babies) because they could have been the next Hitler etc)

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus


ergo if there is a creator it doesn't deserve to be called a god.
If you agree with the statement above you are essentially an atheist.
ergo you can still be an atheist and admit that there could possibly be a creator.

The only requirement of the label "atheist" is a lack of the belief in gods.

However, the more you know about natural observations of the universe the less likely/desirable this seems.
(also understanding the difference between the coloquial meaning of the word theory and a "scientific theory" helps a lot)

reply to post by Annee


Mind you, I do believe in God, just not the God most people teach about, I usually difference them by G vs g-od.

I think it's fine that you are atheist as long as you don´t use this as an excuse to trap yourself and to undermine your self-growing, that is if you keep looking for the reasons, keep analising, putting ideas to the test, etc.

Originally posted by Marco0Aurelio
reply to post by Annee

 

Mind you, I do believe in God, just not the God most people teach about, I usually difference them by G vs g-od.

I think it's fine that you are atheist as long as you don´t use this as an excuse to trap yourself and to undermine your self-growing, that is if you keep looking for the reasons, keep analising, putting ideas to the test, etc.

Atheist only means lack of belief in a god/deity. That is all it means. It does not mean non-belief in anything else - - although "hard" Atheists would lead you to believe that.

I never said I don't believe anything else.

I searched for god/truth for 60 years. I've done the fundamental - spiritual - Wicca - - and more.

I am very confident in where I am.

Originally posted by BrainPrint

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

What a disgraceful and pathetic argument.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by BrainPrint

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

What a disgraceful and pathetic argument.

Really? I think it is a pretty good argument and I don't really see why someone would say it's disgraceful. What about it makes it disgraceful for you?

reply to post by daskakik

My God is a God of love and freedom. To heap the blame for the evils of man onto the God of love, who made his love known through the person of Jesus Christ, and who also took responsibility for the evil, yes, it's disgraceful, and an outrage. That said Epicurus was BC. Out of fairness to him, the resolution, and the twin pillars of justice and mercy had yet to make an appearance in history.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


What about the evils that are not of man? Or are the evils of man really evil? You take offense because someone criticizes something that doesn't even fit your description of god. Why?

reply to post by daskakik

I just addressed that here (and in follow up posts in that thread)

post by NewAgeMan

I cannot speak to the evils not of man - what are you referring to, ancient astronauts, powers and principalities from above?

For that we'd have to start into a discussion about a universal controversy surrounding spiritual authority, but that's another thread altogether.

I'm not angry about anyone having another view, only with the ignorance of using the argument against God, that God must be either evil or impotent to allow evil, which makes one hell of an assumption about the nature of freedom, and God as a God of love and freedom, who's love and grace was made known a few hundred years after Epicurus, who knows maybe even in part, as a response to his statement, that is if we can see in Jesus' Cross the taking on of the responsibility for the evil in the world.

Of course in contending directly with the evil at the heart of the issue, and, in gathing up all authority on earth and in heaven, the evil later ran amok again once that authority we stolen and then redirected for purposes of socio-political control and dominion.

My "thing" is always a free invitation, non coersive, but when I see blatant absurdity and nonsense or ignorance, I'll stand right up to it, sure, why not?

And yes, the evils of man are evil, whereby all evil is relative, to the victim of evil, and they are many as we all know.

Evil however is not the reason for my "faith" and understanding, no it's the compelling love there which transcends the evil, and remakes the world, eventually, for the sake of the presence of love as a manifestation of the grace of God.

In a way, as a "New Age" evolutionary Christian mystic, I am the atheists best friend, because I'm interested in a type of understanding and "grokking", which will put an end to religion, and turn the last page of the Bible, closing the book, the Great Work of the Ages, having reached a stage of completion. When the son of man returns, we don't need to go to Church to worship God as an external deity, because at that point, God will have already made his home with us, through us, as a newfound spiritual reality, or a new heaven and a new earth, the evil banished as no longer workable or functional or historically formative.

This may sound magalomaniacal or narcissistic, but I am the beginning of the end of Christianity, as a work and an understanding that can only pass away, once fulfilled, and then retained only as a future frame of reference so that we will never forget, and so that we "won't get fooled again", having at last understood the meaning and the significance, and residcovered our place in the grand scheme of things.

That said, I could never give myself the atheist label, which is also absurd, or maybe not, if it means a lack of belief in external deities, in which case I'm an atheist!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Sorry I don't really understand what you mean by evil. How about some examples?

In my opinion evil not due to men would be natural disasters, famine, plagues.