Atheists don't "know" there is no God.....

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Because religions need membership so to buy your seat in heaven part of the job is recruting. Knock knock sunday morning maybe???? And to me trying to cathegorise atheist is foolish: there is many many reason why someone may be atheist and there is also none

Jeff

THEY ARE DREAMING...

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: Rex282

Then you have a different definition to the word "Relgion" than most people and you're entitled to your opinion.

I'll go with the aforementioned definition I posted earlier. Thanks

My point is when someone states their experience it is a perception (belief) of their observation through their Belief System religion. Those are mechanisms of their Belief System.No matter what words are used to state it ...it is the same thing.It is all of mankinds common experience to believe(perceive) through observation in their Belief System religion.

Religion of belief in God(s) is just the most common usage of the term religion for many reasons however it is not an all inclusive defintion.For the most part the word religion (or religious) is used by someone to describe their Belief System that includes a belief in a God(s) or as a derogatory term by some to ridicule those whom Belief System belief is in a God.

I was using the word the religion of a persons Belief System to indicate a common state of experience by all humans.It doesn’t matter if you accept that definition or not it is still true.

The definition of solid is accepted by almost everyone however the fact is nothing in all of the universe is even close to being “solid”.The average density of matter is 99.999999999999999999% empty space. Yet none(of right mind) would say by their perception observation of interacting with steel it is not even close to being solid.

Perceiving steel as solid is only a perception of our experience and how our body’s and other bodies interact with the matter we call steel.The fact remains steel is not even close to being solid matter and the fact is everyone is religious whether they believe it or not.

a reply to: Rex282

I understand what you're getting at but that makes the term religion so loose as to allow anything to be considered a religion. At which point what's the purpose of the term to begin with?

I believe full heartedly in modern medicine. You're suggesting that's my religion. *shrug*

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Entreri06

tothetenthpower: but that's traditionally what Atheism is. A belief that ALL monotheistic religions are wrong, don't exist, don't make sense etc.

I thought it described a disbelief in a 'creator being' (maybe this idea came from the extremist elements within the Atheist Idea form) 'radicalized atheism'.

tothetenthpower: Atheism is a lack of a belief, it can't be summed up to or referenced as a religion. Sure, there are the 'militant' atheist types that take it way too far and I could see them being part of a group, but more like a cult honestly.
I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in any of the religions that I have been exposed to in my life time. I do believe in an afterlife, but I have no ability to define it, nor do I wish to tell people about it.
I'm saving the surprise for the end of the journey. Seems like a giant waste of time to try and figure it out before then.
~Tenth

Gargantuan waste of time (YES); meanwhile: are you saying your interpretation of Atheism is not a disbelief in a higher creator being, it is just a rejection of the attempts (by humans) to create organized religions based upon their interpretation of such a being. I do not hold a 'belief system' (by another's doctrine creed creation, format, tithe with/to/for us or no membership forthcoming) either; would I also to your mind be an a-theist? This is interesting. I've always been an interested observer, never understood the idea of forming 'hives' of worship factions identifying themselves as separate from each other in the same (supposedly) GOD's UNION of all people equal: Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists, Hindi, Methodists, Mormons, Moslems, Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witness, Judaism, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Taoists, Seventh Day Adventists, Mennonites, Amish/Quakers/Shakers; did I leave any of these separatists out? (do Communists count as Atheists, or at least observing the esthetic).

a reply to: Entreri06

We 100% know there is a god, except he exists only in the bible. To say anything otherwise, for instance that God does not exist, he exists other than a character in the bible, or that we cannot know, is wrong.

Atheists reject the claims made by theists, but that rejection itself is not a claim to knowledge.

It's the lack of belief or disbelief in gods, nothing more nothing less no matter how much people attempt to assign or attribute more meaning to it.

That being said, if it's acceptable to say 'I know Santa doesn't exist' why isn't it acceptable to say 'I know gods don't exist'?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Why do people care what atheists think of your invisible friend in the sky?

Cognitive dissonance. It makes them uncomfortable that not everybody believes, because that makes them have a few subconscious doubts.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

What I was explaining were the variety of atheistic beliefs I've personally come across. I didn't say all atheists were anti-theist. That whole post was describing the variety of atheist beliefs that I have seen, and I was asking others what they believed and why.

I think a lot of people believe in God because of supernatural things that have happened to them. Do you think that those supernatural things are all tricks of the mind? To them supernatural events are evidence. Do you think that the billions of people who have experiences with these things have had mass hallucinations?

Why do you wish more atheists were anti-theist?

These are honest questions, I really just want to understand different points of view.

Thanks

a reply to: Xaphan

To be honest, it doesn't bother me at all if someone doesn't believe in God. Everyone has the choice to believe in whatever they want. That's the beauty of choice.

I am asking because I want to understand the different points of view. I like understanding how others have arrived to a conclusion.

I just find it interesting how others have said that people who believe in God are close minded, but the minute that they want to have a discussion and talk about different points of view it's because it makes them uncomfortable not everyone believes?

That's not an accurate statement for everyone who believes in God.

originally posted by: shieldmaiden
I think a lot of people believe in God because of supernatural things that have happened to them. Do you think that those supernatural things are all tricks of the mind? To them supernatural events are evidence. Do you think that the billions of people who have experiences with these things have had mass hallucinations?

They may not be hallucinating, but why do they always jump to the most outlandish explanation for something they cannot explain? Basically what happens in most of these cases is that someone experiences something they can't explain, but they substitute an explanation for it anyways. Then they close their mind to any other possibilities whether they be mundane explanations or not. In their mind is HAS to be a ghost or an angel or an alien or whatever.

I wouldn't say that everyone isn't experiencing something unexplainable. I just think it is dishonest to say anything about it other than "I don't know."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for the reply.

I think you are right in that some people jump to outrageous conclusions when there is a logical one.

On the flip side, there are some who will have something supernatural happen and they've exhausted all possible logical conclusions.

I can definitely see both sides.

I think some come to certain conclusions based on what they have experienced. Some are theists because of some experiences, and I think some are atheists because of some experiences.

a reply to: shieldmaiden

But here's the thing, once you've exhausted all possible logical solutions, you still don't get the authority to say that it was supernatural. For all you know it was a natural occurrence that we can't explain yet with known science or there was something going on that you were unaware of that caused you to see what you did. Once you've exhausted all possible logical solutions, the only one remaining is, "I don't know."

I've enjoyed this thread. It's. Been relatively yelling free😊 some great insights into posters and now I'm confused if I'm a theist -agnostic-atheist-australian-american 👆👇👈👉

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Atheists reject the claims made by theists, but that rejection itself is not a claim to knowledge.

Do they also reject claims made by deists? How about claims of parapsychologists? Or amazonian shamans? Or UFO contactees? Or the mystical claims of Erwin Schroedinger? How about the mystical claims of Sam Harris?

I mean, is the rejection knee-jerk enough to reject anything the atheist doesn't understand or just plain ol' doesn't like the sound of? Is the atheist pattern of thought big enough and wide enough and lazy enough for all that? What's at the center of that pattern, anyway? Maybe a tacit assumption that their concept of God is a universal concept; their understanding of religion is sufficient?

That being said, if it's acceptable to say 'I know Santa doesn't exist' why isn't it acceptable to say 'I know gods don't exist'?

It isn't acceptable to say you know Santa doesn't exist. Somewhere in history there is a shaman at the root of the Santa concept. Shamans don't die. They live on in the collective unconscious.

Now we will see if your atheist knee-jerk rejection pattern is wide enough to encompass the collective unconscious. I bet it is.

👣

a reply to: shieldmaiden

I think a lot of people believe in God because of supernatural things that have happened to them. Do you think that those supernatural things are all tricks of the mind?

It's possible all supernatural things are in fact not supernatural in nature. I don't know. Before we give credence to supernatural things we would first need to establish there is the supernatural [beyond nature] to begin with. It's possible, but as it stands it's merely a possibility and we don't have strong reason to believe it's the case.

To them supernatural events are evidence. Do you think that the billions of people who have experiences with these things have had mass hallucinations?

Presuming these experiences are evidence for the supernatural, or of the Divine, is hugely problematic. It implies religious pluralism. People of various religions have claimed direct experience of their god, or something that affirms their particular religion. So if it's evidence for one then it's equally evidence for all. Yet religions conflict with one another on theologically fundamental levels. If they are all objectively true it would entail the Universe was made by various Creator gods and in various different ways. Obviously that doesn't work out. So who's experiences are we to believe, and who's are we to dismiss? Can we make that assessment logically and not just through faith?

Why do you wish more atheists were anti-theist?

Because to me the cons outweigh the pros. I think religion impacts the World in negative ways. I think we'd be better off letting them go. That's a very superficial reply. Answering that question in fullness would need its own thread.

a reply to: BlueMule

How about the mystical claims of Sam Harris?

I don't dismiss the mystical claims of Sam Harris [if you mean to say transcendent experience through meditation] because I have experienced it myself through my senses [well that's not quite accurate heh...]. If I experienced Yahweh directly I would likely have belief there as well. I also don't expect anyone to believe what I experienced through meditation if they themselves haven't experienced it. On that token, if you can instruct me on how to directly experience the Divine I might just take up that endeavor.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: BlueMule

How about the mystical claims of Sam Harris?

I don't dismiss the mystical claims of Sam Harris [if you mean to say transcendent experience through meditation] because I have experienced it myself through my senses [well that's not quite accurate heh...]. If I experienced Yahweh directly I would likely have belief there as well. I also don't expect anyone to believe what I experienced through meditation if they themselves haven't experienced it. On that token, if you can instruct me on how to directly experience the Divine I might just take up that endeavor.

If you experienced Yahweh directly, you would likely be left scratching your head and wondering. There is a passionate confusion at the edge. The gods don't wear nametags.

If you want to experience the Divine, then perhaps it means the Divine wants to experience you. So ingest the Divine, so the Divine can ingest you.

peyoteway.org...

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

As an avid cactus grower and experimenter of plants I should tell you I am no stranger to ingesting that approach. It has not garnered me any affirmation of the metaphysical claims of any one particular religion. More just left me with greater awareness of an interconnectedness with the Universe.

We digress.

Your post was about atheists and whether they are dismissive also of other unsubstantiated claims. Yes and no and it doesn't matter. Atheism is about the lack of belief in god and it's not necessarily a claim to knowledge on the matter. The rationale for disbelief in the existence of god(s) will vary among atheists.... as would their reasoning in disbelieving in the paranormal or UFO contactees [if they in fact disbelieve].

Even if an atheist lacked belief in god due to a lack of evidence, but then also believed in something else despite it also lacking evidence, it wouldn't in any way make their lack of belief in gods existence less rational.

Yes is is not fact till proven by a large group to be real. How many people see UFO's as a group and that is still disputed? Need a mass sighting and evidence that it is what everyone says it is.a reply to: American-philosopher