Have Atheists Given Up Here?

Originally posted by rival

Agnostic are content to 'not know' and not make a decision until more evidence is available.

Atheist simply shows which way an Agnostic leans.

If you just say Agnostic - - all you are saying is God can't be proven or dis-proven.

If you claim Atheist - - you're saying I'm Agnostic in knowing God can not be proven or dis-proven - - BUT - I Lack Belief in a God.

Seems to me we are lacking a word to show an Agnostic leaning toward believing.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by rival

Agnostic are content to 'not know' and not make a decision until more evidence is available.

Atheist simply shows which way an Agnostic leans.

If you just say Agnostic - - all you are saying is God can't be proven or dis-proven.

If you claim Atheist - - you're saying I'm Agnostic in knowing God can not be proven or dis-proven - - BUT - I Lack Belief in a God.

Seems to me we are lacking a word to show an Agnostic leaning toward believing.

This is probably true and is the reason I dislike the label.

For me, creation exists. Even science uses the terminology when describing the origins of the
universe--All matter was created at the moment of the Big Bang.

If creation exists, then the notion of a creator also exists.

Hence my reasoning that it is prudent to await further evidence Like I said in my first post
it is not an enviable position....you get whiplash from watching the two sides debate
and the fence hurts your butt.

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by rival

Agnostic are content to 'not know' and not make a decision until more evidence is available.

Atheist simply shows which way an Agnostic leans.

If you just say Agnostic - - all you are saying is God can't be proven or dis-proven.

If you claim Atheist - - you're saying I'm Agnostic in knowing God can not be proven or dis-proven - - BUT - I Lack Belief in a God.

Seems to me we are lacking a word to show an Agnostic leaning toward believing.

This is probably true and is the reason I dislike the label.

For me, creation exists. Even science uses the terminology when describing the origins of the
universe--All matter was created at the moment of the Big Bang.

If creation exists, then the notion of a creator also exists.

Hence my reasoning that it is prudent to await further evidence Like I said in my first post
it is not an enviable position....you get whiplash from watching the two sides debate
and the fence hurts your butt.

Yes. But consider a very realistic computer game is a creation and its creator is human.

We really know nothing.

My biggest objection is the closed mindedness of religious believers. God is not necessarily about religion. Religion is a man-made use of God.

I consider myself atheist by its real and exact definition. I lack belief in a God (in the religious sense).

God could be a title - - the same as General is a title. The Gods could be military leaders of an off planet race.

Therefore I refuse to use the term God - - - in my beliefs. I use Energy Creator or The Force or The Source.

There are Spiritual Atheists: THE CENTER FOR SPIRITUAL ATHEISM www.spiritualatheism.com...

reply to post by Annee


I dislike the term God as well. It is just a placeholder for me.

One of my last posts contained three paragraphs on what the term God could possibly
mean before I realized what a ramble it had become and deleted it.

It is sufficient to say what you said, "We really know nothing."

The possibilities are endless. Life on Earth could have been jump started by an Alien species
billions of years ago. And the Aliens who seeded earth might have been just as naive to
the true origin and creation of the the universe as we are now. Or life could have happened thru
natural processes.

To me, the many religions are nothing more than superstitions conceived out of fear and a
need to explain the unknown. The religion a person espouses is a trick of geography--you believe
what your parents and your peers believe. If you are a member of one religion, the beliefs
of other religions can seem ludicrous because you are able to freely apply critical thought to
the tenets of the "other" religion, while refraining taking such a critical eye to the tenets of
your own.

And religion is a very self-serving interest. It tells its followers how to act, think, and believe...and then
taxes them a portion of their income for the privilege. That is why I "Just say No" to religion.

As to spiritual atheists, it seems a group comprised of those who have fallen thru the cracks between
theism and atheism--but still feel a deep sense of spirituality. I might fall into this category but I
really don't seek to identify with a group, especially one so poorly named.

It gets old.

The same old arguments day in and day out.

The same old faith reply and belittled answer from the believer.

They try to call out the atheist, but anyone with an ounce of logic realizes who is really being called out.

They think they must keep harping the same old regurgitated filtered hot air that was told through the centuries....

Lj01 just gets tired of it....... you know.....it never, ever, ever changes.....ever

reply to post by liejunkie01


What are you talking about? They try to hang out the atheist, but look at who is really being hung out? I don't understand that phrase.

All of the atheists I have ever debated on ATS turned out to not be atheists at all. I haven't encountered anyone that doesn't believe in some spiritual aspect in man and nature. They often despise religion (as do I), and they are often undecided, and they are often certain that no personified magical deity resides on a cloud and orchestrates every aspect of our life, I agree with all of that 100%. That belief does not make them an atheist.

The debates then usually turn to gnostic v. agnostic, and other technical terminology, but let's get to the heart of the matter. The common vernacular of a atheist is someone who does not believe in God. Any god. Most interpret that to mean they have a purely evolutionary, accidental life outlook. No creator, no part of our being pre-existed, and no part of our being will exist after our death. That is what the layman thinks of an atheist. I have never met an atheist that believes that way, so in laymen's terms, they are not atheists at all. Most think there is some spiritual connection, or some purpose to our existence, or some type of creation before the evolution, etc., etc. Buddhists are not atheists. Wiccans are not Atheists. Luciferians and Satanists are not atheists. People that describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious" are not atheist.

Are there any people on ATS that believe wholeheartedly that they are merely an accident of favorable conditions and biology, with evolution being solely responsible for their complicated system of cell organization into the many organ systems that comprise their body, and that when they die, and the flesh rots, there is absolutely nothing that persists to reform or rejoin the rest of creation? That is an atheist.

Originally posted by darkhorserider
Are there any people on ATS that believe wholeheartedly that they are merely an accident of favorable conditions and biology, with evolution being solely responsible for their complicated system of cell organization into the many organ systems that comprise their body, and that when they die, and the flesh rots, there is absolutely nothing that persists to reform or rejoin the rest of creation? That is an atheist.

There are some, but they're not particularly active in the religious forums.

For the most part, the atheists that are active here are actually anti-theists, who dislike the idea of God, whether they believe in him or not. I've never been able to figure out what such "evangelical atheists" think that they're accomplishing, since their arguments are boring and unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with them, but I guess that everyone needs a hobby.

Originally posted by Annee

Any truly honest atheist will also consider themselves agnostic.

The original basic meaning of agnostic is: You can't prove God - - nor can you disprove God.

No true atheist can state 100% there is no God. While "there is no God" is often used in debate - - if you directly ask the atheist claiming that - - his/her answer should be the original basic meaning of agnostic.

Atheist - - means one thing: Lack of belief in a God/Deity. It does not mean anti-God or there is proof there is no God.

Yep this is basically what I originally posted, and I agree 100%.

Originally posted by rival

Here is my stance on the issue of God--I have made no conclusions.

You've rejected the claims made by theists, and while you don't rule the possibility out completely (like most atheists) you don't actively believe a god exists.......sounds like a conclusion to me.

I fear no repercussions from
either theists or atheists in regard to my beliefs. If I were a coward I would probably choose one of
the two opposing sides and take solace and comfort from the inherent 'safety in numbers' this
decision would provide me. I would rather go it alone and remain honest to my own intellect .

Choosing to sit on the fence of an issue in which there can only two possible answers, is not intellectually honest.

God may exist as a creator, or he may not exist at all. Human understanding is
incomplete. We have no evidence for a creator, but we do have evidence of a creation.
Using our incomplete and egocentric human logic we cannot perceive of a "creation" without
benefit of a "creator". We have no precedent in science for this. And so when we talk of God
we have crossed over into the realm of faith and the scientific approach cannot be
employed.

Science doesn't say the universe nor all the matter contained within it, was 'created', see here

Atheists say God does not exist. This view is based on a "lack of evidence" for a creator, but
the flaw in that science is that there is no way to test the hypothesis. Therefore atheism must
"believe" there is no God without being able to prove the negative. Atheism is not simply
an opposing side to the theist's belief...it is a belief itself.

No like I've said atheists merely reject the claim made by theists (like you do), they don't positively claim god doesn't exist. It's a lack of belief nothing more nothing less.

Since human perspective and knowledge is incomplete we cannot know this answer.
Agnostic are content to 'not know' and not make a decision until more evidence is available.

Agnostic atheists do yes.....

Originally posted by adjensen

For the most part, the atheists that are active here are actually anti-theists, who dislike the idea of God, whether they believe in him or not. I've never been able to figure out what such "evangelical atheists" think that they're accomplishing, since their arguments are boring and unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with them, but I guess that everyone needs a hobby.

The clue here is the word anti-theist, if anyone disliked a god/s or the mere idea of a god, they'd be anti-god surely?

I would consider myself an anti-theist, due to the dislike I have for the detrimental effect belief in gods, space ghosts or any supernatural entity has had and continues to have on the human race.

And like many folk, I find those that have somehow brought themselves to believe in such an insane idea, to be completely fascinating

Originally posted by Annee

Seems to me we are lacking a word to show an Agnostic leaning toward believing.

Agnostic theist??

Originally posted by Prezbo369
And like many folk, I find those that have somehow brought themselves to believe in such an insane idea, to be completely fascinating

That's odd. Though I am a theist, I consider the atheist position to be a perfectly valid one, couldn't care less why people came to that conclusion and have no interest in dissuading them from it.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Prezbo369
And like many folk, I find those that have somehow brought themselves to believe in such an insane idea, to be completely fascinating

That's odd. Though I am a theist, I consider the atheist position to be a perfectly valid one, couldn't care less why people came to that conclusion and have no interest in dissuading them from it.

Now that's odd

Due to the horrific things done throughout history and the world in the name of a god, and the complete lack of tangible good, I feel almost the complete opposite.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Due to the horrific things done throughout history and the world in the name of a god, and the complete lack of tangible good, I feel almost the complete opposite.

You're aware that, over the course of recorded history, there are only three wars that were completely about religion, and over 60% had absolutely zero religious influence, right? (Source) And you're aware that the modern system of higher education, science and medicine all originated within the Catholic Church, right? Or do you view those things as not being tangibly good?

It is easy, when one wishes to keep one's eyes shuttered, to be bogged down in beliefs that are based on misinformation and distortion of facts.

Originally posted by adjensen

You're aware that, over the course of recorded history, there are only three wars that were completely about religion, and over 60% had absolutely zero religious influence, right?

And your point is?...who's talking about wars? horrific things can happen inside and outside of a war......you do realise this don't you?

Wars are caused due to the irrational actions of the few (amongst other reasons), and you can't get more irrational than believing in an invisible sky father. So while such beliefs may not be solely responsible for the majority of wars on earth, I would posit a guess that it had a hand in most if not all of them.

And you're aware that the modern system of higher education, science and medicine all originated within the Catholic Church, right? Or do you view those things as not being tangibly good?

Yep kudos to the catholic church, well done. But such things were not done due to the belief in a god, were they?

And even if they were, it's not as though they have since been the beacons of knowledge and scientific progression have they?

It is easy, when one wishes to keep one's eyes shuttered, to be bogged down in beliefs that are based on misinformation and distortion of facts.

Wow, that's ironic...

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensen

You're aware that, over the course of recorded history, there are only three wars that were completely about religion, and over 60% had absolutely zero religious influence, right?

And your point is?...who's talking about wars? horrific things can happen inside and outside of a war......you do realise this don't you?

Wars are caused due to the irrational actions of the few (amongst other reasons), and you can't get more irrational than believing in an invisible sky father. So while such beliefs may not be solely responsible for the majority of wars on earth, I would posit a guess that it had a hand in most if not all of them.

Your guess would be wrong -- read what I wrote there, or the source article -- in 60% of historical conflict, religion played absolutely no role in it. What religious issues was World War II or Vietnam about?

Let's also not forget the tens of millions killed by the Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian governments in the 20th Century -- secular institutions that were bereft of an "invisible sky father" but still managed to outdo anything that the religious fanatics have managed to muster.

And you're aware that the modern system of higher education, science and medicine all originated within the Catholic Church, right? Or do you view those things as not being tangibly good?

Yep kudos to the catholic church, well done. But such things were not done due to the belief in a god, were they?

Well, actually they were -- universities arose out of the Catholic religious schools, and science and medicine out of them.

It is the sign of a small and closed mind that simply cannot accept that their preconceived notions might have flaws in them. Claiming that "religion has never provided any tangible good" is an incredibly ignorant statement, regardless of what one might think of faith in general.

Originally posted by rival

As to spiritual atheists, it seems a group comprised of those who have fallen thru the cracks between
theism and atheism--but still feel a deep sense of spirituality. I might fall into this category but I
really don't seek to identify with a group, especially one so poorly named.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think it matters to what degree/direction one takes it.

I consider myself atheist in that I do not believe in any God in the religious sense. However - I've had OBEs - - premonitions - - and other experiences all my life. I can not deny them. There is something more going on.

I tend to lean toward something like the Terra Papers being closer to the truth of our physical existence - - then anything else. Those were real off-planet beings. And then Energy Beings that can manifest themselves in physical form.

I know hard atheists have a problem with that - - - but they're kind of being forced to widen their parameter.

We - humans - can not even fathom what came before us. Our universe is over 13 billion years old. We are billions of years from the source of creation (not Creation). I personally believe everything is energy - - that energy evolved into consciousness - - and Energy Thought created. To me that is science and falls under atheist.

Energy Beings - Light Beings etc - - - some believe are a real race of off-planet dimensional beings - - not Gods.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Annee

Seems to me we are lacking a word to show an Agnostic leaning toward believing.

Agnostic theist??

Oh! Excellent. Gonna have to remember that one.

Today - - - Agnostic is used incorrectly.

Originally posted by adjensen

Your guess would be wrong -- read what I wrote there, or the source article -- in 60% of historical conflict, religion played absolutely no role in it. What religious issues was World War II or Vietnam about?

Remind me who it was that had an agreement with the catholic church during ww2? remind me what was written on the belt buckle of every Nazi trooper during ww2? Then remind me who it was that was sent to the ovens.....

Religion and belief had a big part in ww2

Let's also not forget the tens of millions killed by the Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian governments in the 20th Century -- secular institutions that were bereft of an "invisible sky father" but still managed to outdo anything that the religious fanatics have managed to muster.

It was only a matter of time before you rolled that old chestnut out eh? don't you remember what you posted...

It is easy, when one wishes to keep one's eyes shuttered, to be bogged down in beliefs that are based on misinformation and distortion of facts.

Those things were not carried out due to a lack of faith no more than they were done because the dictators/leaders responsible wore moustaches...

Well, actually they were -- universities arose out of the Catholic religious schools, and science and medicine out of them.

Those institutions would've been eventually developed elsewhere, the specific belief in a sky daddy had no direct part in their development.

But this is all besides the point, even if belief in a space ghost wasn't responsible for a single war there are some abhorrent actions carried out in their name everyday that embarrass us all and are completely unnecessary.

I just don't think it makes this world a better place.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

You've rejected the claims made by theists, and while you don't rule the possibility out completely (like most atheists) you don't actively believe a god exists.......sounds like a conclusion to me.

Merriam Webster
Definition of ATHEISM
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

We're mincing words with these definitions, and I guess people fall into all kinds of categories,
but atheist means atheist. What you describe above is an "anti-theist." As I stated before, atheists
don't solely stand in opposition to theists--they actively believe there is no God.

Choosing to sit on the fence of an issue in which there can only two possible answers, is not intellectually honest.

I would be lying to myself to say that I "believe" either way. And there are three viable answers to the
God question; I believe, I don't believe, and I choose not to believe either way

Science doesn't say the universe nor all the matter contained within it, was 'created', see here

I cede that point. Though it is true that in everyday language even top astrophysicists have
stated that the universe was created at the moment of the Big Bang.

No like I've said atheists merely reject the claim made by theists (like you do), they don't positively claim god doesn't exist. It's a lack of belief nothing more nothing less.

That is an anti-theist. The strict definition of atheist is posted above