@edcode, Using your exact words "An atheists has no belief in gods". Can you tell me how this disbelief transforms into a "belief"? A good number of european countries are Atheist e.g Liechestein,Luxembourg and Finland. Will you classify their disbelief in religion as a "religion"? Come on man! You know better!

@harakiri Good point. Though I really wonder how say, a muslim, would be treated over there.

toba:

this is revealed in their reactions towards the theists when the God subject is being discussed

Very false, the problem is that you have been wired to believe that any body that questions your belief of refuses to accept it is either blind, angry or lost, because he refuses to buy into what you have been indoctrinated to accept as the "fact". . . . .

if atheists arent scared, they wouldnt spend too much time wanting to convince the theists of his non existence

Going by your ridiculous logic all christians that spend too much time wanting to convince muslims about the non existence of Allah as the true God are all scared of Allah. . . .Do you see how illogical your premise for making this baseless argument sound?. . . .

does this however make evolutuon a fact for pple to want to defend same blindly?.

 

Your argument is not tenable because as I aforementioned, there are more theist who believe in evolution than atheist, majority of American and European christians  believe in evolution instead of creationism some of the greatest advocates of evolution are christians and they claim its compatible with their religion. . . .Using evolution as an atheistic position is FALSE since their are more christains that believe in it more than atheist for example the catholic church which is the biggest body or sect of christians accepts evolution. . . .

i havent said so. im just trying to say that God is beyong what science can comprehend then why then do we still need to empirically or scientifically prove Gods existence?

Self projecting your self as God and sending God into the realm of the unknown so that belief in the said God can continue, no? Is it not the same God that christians always say he answers their prayers for example and use it as evidence for his existence? If such is true then there should be evidence to show that christians that pray to God for protection from harm or quick recovery from diseases are better protected or heal faster from diseases than atheist, no? Do you have any evidence for that?. . . .Is there any evidence to show that christians suffer who pray to their God suffer less harm and misfortune than the atheist?. . . .The answer is NO. . . .You start by saying that God is beyound anything and he is mysterious, but when you talk to each other then you use words like God appeared to you in your dreams, some claim they hear his voice, but when an atheist comes into the picture the God that speaks to chrisians and tells them what to do suddenly becomes this mysterious being that is only responsible for the creation of the universe. . . . . . .He no longer answers prayers of talks to people, the argument suddenly changes to God created life and the universe. . . .

simple question. is God a physical being like every other human being?

The bible says he is. . .The bible says he even wears cloths and  sometimes stains his cloth with the blood of his enemies. . .Moses saw his back parts, he used to address the ancient jews through public speech. . . .He can write on walls, he is male etc. . . .H

well u should have done well to point to the ones that are right and the ones that are wrong.

Ok. . .

mazaje:

Very false, the problem is that you have been wired to believe that any body that questions your belief of refuses to accept it is either blind, angry or lost, because he refuses to buy into what you have been indoctrinated to accept as the "fact". . . . .

No this is not true. every human being must know that we dont think in the same way neither do we view things in the same way. When a theist or an atheist are engaged in a discussion and the atheist  tends to be hyper-reactive to a particular subject resulting to insult and calling names etc especially when it comes to the God subject, this is what im talking about. when u choose as an atheist to forcefully drive home your points by what ever means, is what im saying. Im sure u cant deny that this happens here on Nl. Though not all atheists are guilty of this but some are.

Going by your ridiculous logic all christians that spend too much time wanting to convince muslims about the non existence of Allah as the true God are all scared of Allah. . . .Do you see how illogical your premise for making this baseless argument sound?. . . .

  U are getting something wrong here. Theres clear difference when its theist vs theist and atheist vs theists. In the example u cited, its a case of a theist trying to prove a point to a theist. Dont forget that both believe in a God unlike the atheist that claims not to. also there are some similarities between the Muslims and the Christians, in that some of the stories u find in the bible are also recorded in the Qur'an. I see that as a case of one theistic side trying to claim to the other that mine is better than yours which i see as pointless.

In the case of the atheists, its clear that they dont want to subject themselves to the rules of being submissive to the God/god governing a particular belief out of fear. Of course to believe in a god/God would require u to be subjected to some controls. this the atheists are scared of.

Your argument is not tenable because as I aforementioned, there are more theist who believe in evolution than atheist, majority of American and European christians  believe in evolution instead of creationism some of the greatest advocates of evolution are christians and they claim its compatible with their religion. . . .Using evolution as an atheistic position is FALSE since their are more christains that believe in it more than atheist for example the catholic church which is the biggest body or sect of christians accepts evolution. . . .

U are still missing the point. the thread is aimed at looking at the similarities that may exist between the theist and the atheist. One of such similarities, u just showed now which is the case of believing in evolution. Some sect amongst both sides believes in evolution. However its pertinent to note that they probably believe in evolution differently. How do i mean? a theists that believes in evolution believes so and would probably have at the back of his or her mind that this evolution didnt just happen without a god/God behind it or a particular spirit being that propelled those energy that were present ab initio. An atheist on the other hand believes we just evolved and evolution just happened spontaneously without a god/God or any spirit-being behind it. This can be seen as both similarities and differences. Whilst both hold on firm to this belief yet both cant accurately say what exactly was or happened before the big b, ang. They both hold on to this 'blind faith' that only if something extra ordinary happens, their faith remains unshakeable. atheists' case appears to be the worse cos whilst some theists have faith in God, some atheists blindly defend evolution as more of a fact than a theory. U know what im talking about. Not all atheist hold this same belief but some do even right here on nairaland. This is blind faith to defend whats yet to be confirmed as a fact by science.

Self projecting your self as God and sending God into the realm of the unknown so that belief in the said God can continue, no?

You would do well to show me where and how i did project myself as a god/God.

Is it not the same God that christians always say he answers their prayers for example and use it as evidence for his existence?

Yes. whats the big deal about that? Do u have any empirical proof that God doesnt answer prayers?

If such is true then there should be evidence to show that christians that pray to God for protection from harm or quick recovery from diseases are better protected or heal faster from diseases than atheist, no?

No. this doesnt always matter. God said he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy on. The muslims calls God the God that sends rain on both the good and the evil. Im yet to see how the sun or the moon or the rain would  beat or shine on some particular individuals whilst ignoring or avoiding the others.

Do you have any evidence for that?. . . .Is there any evidence to show that christians suffer who pray to their God suffer less harm and misfortune than the atheist?. . . .The answer is NO. . . .You start by saying that God is beyound anything and he is mysterious, but when you talk to each other then you use words like God appeared to you in your dreams, some claim they hear his voice, but when an atheist comes into the picture the God that speaks to chrisians and tells them what to do suddenly becomes this mysterious being that is only responsible for the creation of the universe. . . . . . .He no longer answers prayers of talks to people, the argument suddenly changes to God created life and the universe. . . .

hmm hmm. God still appears to people to date. Do u have any evidence that he doesn't? This may appear subjective yet it does happen. if i told u that i slept last night and i saw God in my dreams and he gave me some steps to take, how can u confirm it to the true or false? Is there any machine or scientific equipment that can be used to measure or determine what happens in spiritual realm or in dreams?

The bible says he is. . .The bible says he even wears cloths and  sometimes stains his cloth with the blood of his enemies. . .Moses saw his back parts, he used to address the ancient jews through public speech. . . .He can write on walls, he is male etc. . . .H

Does that still make him a visible being? Jesus was seen according to the bible. He ate wined and dinned with fellow human beings. Is there any part in the bible that says the God that Jesus always referred to as my Father in heaven ate wined and dinned like every other human being? Do u have the skin colour of God if hes white or Black? Do u know where he lives to determine that hes indeed a physical entity that can be handshaked?

Ok. . .

I would be waiting sir

toba:

No this is not true. every human being must know that we dont think in the same way neither do we view things in the same way. When a theist or an atheist are engaged in a discussion and the atheist  tends to be hyper-reactive to a particular subject resulting to insult and calling names etc especially when it comes to the God subject, this is what im talking about. when u choose as an atheist to forcefully drive home your points by what ever means, is what im saying. Im sure u cant deny that this happens here on Nl. Though not all atheists are guilty of this but some are.

Your assertions are not completely true cos more theist rain insults than atheist on this forum. . . .The first person to ever call me a fool on nairaland is a theist(davidylan) cos I was stating my position as an agnostic who wasn't sure of christianity any more. . . .The first person to ever threaten me with death was a christian. . .I don't have the time to check my prevouis post and send you a link to the topic right now, But what he said was he will like to see me in real life and put and end to my miserable life of Godlessness. . .Some muslims have also threatened me with acts of violence. . .Others just use words like" I wish we were in the OT times so that I can happily watch as God will end your life". . .Atheist are insulting as well but its from both sides and you can never see an atheist threatening another person with violence here on the theist do that here. . .

U are getting something wrong here. Theres clear difference when its theist vs theist and atheist vs theists. In the example u cited, its a case of a theist trying to prove a point to a theist. Dont forget that both believe in a God unlike the atheist that claims not to. also there are some similarities between the Muslims and the Christians, in that some of the stories u find in the bible are also recorded in the Qur'an. I see that as a case of one theistic side trying to claim to the other that mine is better than yours which i see as pointless.

Its still the same. . . .Some christians for example are always happy to say that muslims, atheist, and other sect of christianity that do not agree with their own sect of opinions of the bible are all the same. . . .Atheist aren't scared of any God/Gods. . . .Why should you be scared of something imaginary. . .Remember that one more than one occasion some christians have opened a thread challenging the atheist to come and test God to show that they aren't afraid of him by taking some challenge like telling God to make us blind the next minute if he is not real, many of us have taken that challenge many times here on NL . . .I personally am not afraid or angry at any God cos all Gods are imaginary. . .Its the beliefs in the Gods that are real and it is the belivers that scare me or make me angry not the Gods themselves because to me they are imaginary. . . . 

In the case of the atheists, its clear that they dont want to subject themselves to the rules of being submissive to the God/god governing a particular belief out of fear. Of course to believe in a god/God would require u to be subjected to some controls. this the atheists are scared of.

Atheist are living under the governing laws of the societies they live in so I don't really understand what you are saying. . . .

U are still missing the point. the thread is aimed at looking at the similarities that may exist between the theist and the atheist. One of such similarities, u just showed now which is the case of believing in evolution. Some sect amongst both sides believes in evolution. However its pertinent to note that they probably believe in evolution differently. How do i mean? a theists that believes in evolution believes so and would probably have at the back of his or her mind that this evolution didnt just happen without a god/God behind it or a particular spirit being that propelled those energy that were present ab initio. An atheist on the other hand believes we just evolved and evolution just happened spontaneously without a god/God or any spirit-being behind it. This can be seen as both similarities and differences. Whilst both hold on firm to this belief yet both cant accurately say what exactly was or happened before the big b, ang. They both hold on to this 'blind faith' that only if something extra ordinary happens, their faith remains unshakeable. atheists' case appears to be the worse cos whilst some theists have faith in God, some atheists blindly defend evolution as more of a fact than a theory. U know what im talking about. Not all atheist hold this same belief but some do even right here on nairaland. This is blind faith to defend whats yet to be confirmed as a fact by science.

Ok. . .Fair enough I get what you are saying. . . .

You would do well to show me where and how i did project myself as a god/God.

Every body is always self projecting him/her self as God all the time, every body just imposes his own opinion and interpretation of what the bible says as the words or opinion of the God they are talking about that is why we have so many sects in christianity and that is also the reason why many sincere believers disagree almost all of the time. . .Let me give you and example. . . .Some Christians will dismiss more of the bible, others less. Some in pious sounding ways, and others more flagrantly. . . . . The better educated, more articulate Christians might perform mental gymnastics to explain biblical contradictions and write grand systematic theologies to describe their Gods, while the uneducated ones might tell you only what they feel in their hearts and the religious yuppies will tell you what meaning they take from the bible. What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is God. . . . .

Yes. whats the big deal about that? Do u have any empirical proof that God doesnt answer prayers?

If God answers prayers as the christians say, then there will be evidence to show for it. . . .

No. this doesnt always matter. God said he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy on. The muslims calls God the God that sends rain on both the good and the evil. Im yet to see how the sun or the moon or the rain would  beat or shine on some particular individuals whilst ignoring or avoiding the others.

What has sun, moon or rain got to do with specific actions of prayers? I gave specific examples. . . Christians pray to God for special protection and for healing from diseases. . .Atheist do not, if the christian hypothesis is true then there should be evidence to show that christians suffer less harm and heal faster from diseases than atheist, no?. . .The bible says that Jesus will answer the prayers of those that have faith so that the name of the father will be glorified so that unbelievers will see and believe, no?. . .

hmm hmm. God still appears to people to date. Do u have any evidence that he doesn't? This may appear subjective yet it does happen. if i told u that i slept last night and i saw God in my dreams and he gave me some steps to take, how can u confirm it to the true or false? Is there any machine or scientific equipment that can be used to measure or determine what happens in spiritual realm or in dreams?

People imagine things all the time. . .Its a natural thing to have imaginations or hallucinations. . . .If you tell me that you saw God in your dreams then I will tell you you had a dream which is normal and people normally dream about things that preoccupies their minds. . .People dream about seeing or having visitations from aliens from other planets etc. . .Nothing new. . .The human mind has a great sense of imagination. . .

Does that still make him a visible being? Jesus was seen according to the bible. He ate wined and dinned with fellow human beings. Is there any part in the bible that says the God that Jesus always referred to as my Father in heaven ate wined and dinned like every other human being? Do u have the skin colour of God if hes white or Black? Do u know where he lives to determine that hes indeed a physical entity that can be handshaked?

Christians say that God is a physical entity no? On the other thread a girl said she want to heaven and saw God. . .She drew what she said she saw God looked like. . .And the image she drew was that of a white man with complete human features. . .Hands, long blonde hair, blue eyes etc. . .The other child portrayed  the same picture of God. . He saw a white man as God. . . .

Christians say that God is a physical entity no? On the other thread a girl said she want to heaven and saw God. . .She drew what she said she saw God looked like. . .And the image she drew was that of a white man with complete human features. . .Hands, long blonde hair, blue eyes etc. . .The other child portrayed  the same picture of God. . He saw a white man as God. . . .

White man hater 

Are there any similarities between a dog and no dog?

@zatax, Abeg helep me ask dem ooo! It's like calling GOOD HEALTH a disease. Ridiculous!

justcool:

@hakiri
Please dispute this striking similarity:

Both the alleged atheist and religionist(not only Christianity) believe that the universe was created or caused by an uncaused causer, an eternal and infinite deity(or thing) that has neither a beginning nor an end. Both believe that this deity existed before the present state of the universe

The religionist or believer believes that this deity is a conscious being. He calls this deity God.

The alleged atheist believes that this deity is nature. It existed as a singularity before the big slam; it became or created the present state of the universe during the big slam. Before the big slam it was a non-physical singularity; and during the big slam it created the physical world or it became physical.

So the bottom line is that the alleged atheist believes that this deity is a thing (an infinite unexplainable singularity) that has always existed in one form or another, and requires no creator.

The theist believes that this deity is a being (God) has always existed, and requires no creator.

Now do the math!! The alleged atheists have just substituted God with nature, the universe, or the singularity that existed before the big slam. One ascribes the origin of the universe to an unexplainable infinite singularity; the other ascribes the origin of the universe to an unexplainable God. Keep in mind that some religionist’s description of God very closely sounds like the theist’s “infinite singularity” only expressed in different words!

The fact that alleged atheist does not worship or pray to this singularity that he ascribes the origin of the universe to, does not make him any different from the religionist. Remember there are the religionists who do not believe in worship and prayer either.

While you digest this, keep in mind that a deity doesn’t necessarily have to be a being or a living thing; a thing or a phenomenon can also be regarded as a deity, especially if that thing or phenomenon is held in high esteem or ascribed some supernatural powers to. Such supernatural powers as atheists ascribe to the singularity that caused the universe.

Finally the belief in either God, (whether the infinite singularity or God of the religionist) requires faith, because neither the belief nor the non-belief can be based purely on science.

I use the expression “alleged atheist” because most people who parade themselves as atheists are in reality theists, only that they do not believe in the religionist’s perception of the creator. Anybody who believes in anything regarding the beginning or causation of the universe cannot be regarded a true atheist. I have never seen one; in fact, in my opinion, it is impossible for a human being to be a true atheist. Human always believe in something regarding the origin of anything they came in contact with.

The people who parade themselves as atheists are only alleged because they only reject the creator as a deity, or as a living deity; but they always believe in the creator (causer of the universe) as phenomenon that is different from God of the religionist.

A true atheist should not believe in the idea of pre-present universe, he should scorn the idea of the cause of the universe as a non-physical infinite singularity. He should simply see the physical as all that there is, and as always being physical; thus requiring no creation or transformation from any non-physical state. But then still, he wouldn’t be a true atheist; he would only have substituted God with the physical!

Calm down.  You are confusing atheism with deism.  Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused cause" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them. That's the deist's domain. Perhaps, you and Deep Sight may wanna have a talk.

Purist:

Calm down.  You are confusing atheism with deism.  Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused cause" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them. That's the deist's domain. Perhaps, you and Deep Sight may wanna have a talk.

Dude please read my post and try to understand it before you reply. I am not confusing deism with atheism. Please show me where you got the definition that "Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused causer" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them."

An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God or in the creator or causer as conscious being or conscious deity.

Here are definition of atheist:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power. (noun)
An example of an atheist is a person whose beliefs are based in science, such as the idea humans came from evolution rather than Adam and Eve.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist


Let me break it down for you for the last time; a person who doesn't believe that the universe has a creator or a causer is simply implying that the universe is the uncaused causer.

There are degrees in atheism. Do you know that a some Buddhists can be considered atheists?

In Western culture, some atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious,[citation needed] although other atheists are spiritual.[11][12] Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[13] such as Wicca.[14] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[15] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism and religionism are not mutually exclusive.

@Op, the answer is "NO"
@forum, guys stop going off topic ok.
Kiss from Mother Hen

justcool:

Dude please read my post and try to understand it before you reply. I am not confusing deism with atheism.

I read and understood your post very well before replying, and it appears you've got atheism mixed up with an entirely different concept. Most of the attributes you ascribed to the "alleged atheist" applies more to the deist than any other.

justcool:

Please show me where you got the definition that "Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused causer" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them."

What do you mean?  That was not a definition.  I was simply stating to you what atheists do not believe in, contrary to what you wrote.

justcool:

An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God

Exactly.  And it ends there.

justcool:

or in the creator or causer as conscious being or conscious deity.

Wrong.  Atheists simply do not believe in a god/creator.  Fullstop.  There is no "or" in the atheist's position.  Whether this alleged creator is a conscious being or not is irrelevant to the atheist.

justcool:

Let me break it down for you for the last time; a person who doesn't believe that the universe has a creator or a causer is simply implying that the universe is the uncaused causer.

Now, here lies the problem.  How on earth does unbelief in a creator automatically translate to a belief in an uncaused cause, much less a belief that the universe itself is this uncaused cause?  That is a contradictory stance, considering that the very phrase "uncaused cause" suggests intelligence which the atheist vehemently rejects.  No sir, atheists do not believe that the universe is the uncaused cause.  That is the Pantheist's belief.

justcool:

There are degrees in atheism. Do you know that a some Buddhists can be considered atheists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Yes, I know.  Although "non-theists" would be a more appropriate term.

justcool:

Atheism and religionism are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps.  But this is a moot point anyway.

Purist:

I read and understood your post very well before replying, and it appears you've got atheism mixed up with an entirely different concept. Most of the attributes you ascribed to the "alleged atheist" applies more to the deist than any other.

You didn’t. Please what does the word alleged imply?

Purist:

What do you mean?  That was not a definition.  I was simply stating to you what atheists do not believe in, contrary to what you wrote.

Purist:

Exactly.  And it ends there.

Purist:

Wrong.  Atheists simply do not believe in a god/creator.  Fullstop.  There is no "or" in the atheist's position.  Whether this alleged creator is a conscious being or not is irrelevant to the atheist. 

This is just blind argument. There is no creator; what does that mean? That the universe was uncaused. You said a god/creator; so do they believe in many god/creators?

Purist:

Now, here lies the problem.  How on earth does unbelief in a creator automatically translate to a belief in an uncaused cause, much less a belief that the universe itself is this uncaused cause?  That is a contradictory stance, considering that the very phrase "uncaused cause" suggests intelligence [/b]which the atheist vehemently rejects.  No sir, atheists do not believe that the universe [b]is the uncaused cause.  That is the Pantheist's belief.

Yes, I know.  Although "non-theists" would be a more appropriate term.

Perhaps.  But this is a moot point anyway.

Wow! The phrase “Uncaused causer” suggests intelligence Wow!! Besides I never said “uncaused cause” I said “uncaused causer”

Purist:

How on earth does unbelief in a creator automatically translate to a belief in an uncaused cause, much less a belief that the universe itself is this uncaused cause? 

Simple!!!! If you believe that the universe is was not caused; you simply believe that it is “uncaused causer” The same way that religionist believe that God is uncaused!!!!!

Thanks

Purist:

Yes, I know.  Although "non-theists" would be a more appropriate term.

Wow!!! My brother, nonthesitic is an umbrella term that covers so many religious beliefs including atheism.

This is  from the link that you provided:

it has become an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions united by a naturalist approach,[dubious – discuss] such as agnosticism, skepticism, and atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

To further show you that there are degrees to atheism; read this from the same link:

Nontheism includes a variety of belief systems.[dubious – discuss] "Strong atheism" is the positive belief that a god does not exist. Someone who does not think about the existence of a deity may be termed "weakly atheistic", or more specifically implicitly atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

Thanks

justcool:

Simple!!!! If you believe that the universe is was not caused; you simply believe that it is “uncaused causer” The same way that religionist believe that God is uncaused!!!!!

Lets make it really simple. An atheist does not believe in God or Gods as they are presented for the main fact that they are presented without evidence or that the evidence given does not measure up in the analysis of the atheist, hence the non belief in them.
An atheist does not have to accept evolution or the big b.@.n.g or any current scientific theory. An atheist may accept one or more of these or none. This has no bearing on his position as an atheist. All that is required is non belief in God(s).
When asked about the beginning of life and the universe, a simple "I do not know" is the position of many atheists (not all).

Speaking for myself, I never needed science to stop believing in God while some stopped believing through scientific awareness. Whatever the reason, the common ground is a lack of belief.
That is all.

@jayriginal
Thanks for addressing my post, but I'm afraid you are a little off.

jayriginal:

Lets make it really simple. An atheist does not believe in God or Gods as they are presented for the main fact that they are presented without evidence or that the evidence given does not measure up in the analysis of the atheist, hence the non belief in them.
An atheist does not have to accept evolution or the big b.@.n.g or any current scientific theory. An atheist may accept one or more of these or none. This has no bearing on his position as an atheist. All that is required is non belief in God(s).

I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science, evolution, big slam and etc.

jayriginal:

When asked about the beginning of life and the universe, a simple "I do not know" is the position of many atheists (not all).

Here is where you are off. A strong atheist does not hold the "i don't know" position.
"I don't know" implies that you are open to the idea of God; this is passivity. Those that hold this position are called agnostics, not atheists. At best one can call them weak atheists. You cant do away with the fact that there are dgrees to atheism. 


An atheist(a strong atheist, a true, or a pure atheist) is not that passive. A strong atheist claims that he knows; he claims to know that God or gods do not exist.

While an agnostic is open minded, an true atheist is closed minded.

Please consider these links:

The primary difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist does not believe God or gods exist whereas the agnostic is not sure either way because existence of God or gods, they say, cannot be proven. The atheist may be a weak atheist or strong atheist. The weak atheist may say, “I’m not sure whether gods exist so I don’t worship any. “ The strong atheist comments: “There is no God or gods.”

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-an-atheist-and-an-agnostic.htm

The American Heritage Dictionary defines an "atheist" as "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." An "agnostic" is "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God" or "one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." This dictionary also notes that 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley invented the word "agnostic."

http://ask.yahoo.com/20030527.html

In reality true atheism is not just the absence of belief; strong atheism involves belief, the belief that God or gods do not exist.

jayriginal:

Speaking for myself, I never needed science to stop believing in God while some stopped believing through scientific awareness. Whatever the reason, the common ground is a lack of belief.
That is all.

Once again I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science. I have maintained many times in different threads that atheism is not science. It is not more scientific than theism.

Thanks

In all truth I find it quite apt to repeat the post below:

Enigma:

To be honest, there are not that many intellectually honest or sound positions for an evangelical atheist. Two options that I can readily identify are:

1. the evangelical atheist maintains his assertion that there is no God but is honest enough to accept that this assertion is based only on faith in the final analysis.

2. eat humble pie, be truthful and "upgrade" to agnosticism.

I'd be happy to see any further suggestions.

justcool:

@jayriginal
Thanks for addressing my post, but I'm afraid you are a little off.

I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science, evolution, big slam and etc.

Here is where you are off. A strong atheist does not hold the "i don't know" position.
"I don't know" implies that you are open to the idea of God; this is passivity. Those that hold this position are called agnostics, not atheists. At best one can call them weak atheists. You cant do away with the fact that there are dgrees to atheism. 


An atheist(a strong atheist, a true, or a pure atheist) is not that passive. A strong atheist claims that he knows; he claims to know that God or gods do not exist.

While an agnostic is open minded, an true atheist is closed minded.

Please consider these links:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-an-atheist-and-an-agnostic.htm
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030527.html

In reality true atheism is not just the absence of belief; strong atheism involves belief, the belief that God or gods do not exist.

Once again I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science. I have maintained many times in different threads that atheism is not science. It is not more scientific than theism.

Thanks

With due respect, the bolded parts are wrong. There are no degrees to atheism. An atheist simply doesnt believe in God. What you call an agnostic is really an atheist.
I do understand the urge to break atheism down into types but it is wrong. You do seem to know more than the average theist about this (I'm assuming you are a theist, pardon me if I'm wrong).
I noticed your terms strong and weak atheists and your explanation of them. You might also come up one day with the term "evolutionary atheist", "evangelical atheist" (which is wrong) and so on.
Take for example what is going on in Christiandom today. Many Christians do not want to be identified with the evils of Christianity. Should we for instance say and maintain that all Christians are like Reverend Dr King who is currently on death-roe ?
In the same way, one can accept the theory of evolution as an atheist while another can reject it or simply not care and still be an atheist. It doesnt matter either way since they both do not believe in God.
Most people come here with a fixed definition of atheism which is wrong.

Even in your post, you have mentioned strong and weak atheists but you have to admit that whether you call them strong or weak they are still atheists.
One thing people arguing with atheists have to accept is that there will never be more than one blanket statement that can apply to atheism. The only sweeping assertion that can apply is that they do not believe in God.

If you ask a person, if he believes in God and he replies in the negative, that is not enough for you to know his position. One must understand these points if one is to have a healthy discussion with an atheist.

While an agnostic is open minded, an true atheist is closed minded.

Again with apologies, this is simply not true. An atheist does not believe the evidence for God. If you want to know a closed minded atheist ask him if he can ever believe if God exists and what it will take for him so to do. If he says he can never believe, then you have a closed minded atheist. I submit that there is none. Remember that all we know of religion/God is what is handed down to us. Remember that such is usually handed out at an early age. Remember that the senses of man are fallible and subjective. Remember that indoctrination from an early age is usually hard to shake out of.
Note that an atheist is usually one who has shaken out of his indoctrination and examined things afresh for himself. An atheist is usually one who asks himself, if I wasnt brought up to accept this as true, would I accept it ordinarily ?
He asks himself questions like does the fact that I dont know how "x" happened make it supernatural ?

Its a long discussion and there is much more that I'd like to say, but I'll leave the above for your consideration.



Oh and one more thing, posting links isnt always helpful. On the internet, its not that difficult to find a website or two supporting whichever position one champions. I prefer original arguments where possible. Of course posting links is useful sometimes, we just have to be careful. Just saying.

justcool:

You didn’t. Please what does the word alleged imply?

justcool link=topic=774410.msg9276046#msg9276046 date=1317753240:

The alleged atheist believes that this deity is nature.

The alleged atheists have just substituted God with nature, the universe, or the singularity that existed before the big slam.

The people who parade themselves as atheists are only alleged because they only reject the creator as a deity, or as a living deity; but they always believe in the creator (causer of the universe) as phenomenon that is different from God of the religionist.

Here are some of the key statements you made previously.  The highlighted are the deist's belief, not the atheist.  Also, the reason you gave as to why your own description of atheists is "alleged" is wrong.  Atheists simply do not believe in any creator/deity whatsosever.

justcool:

This is just blind argument. There is no creator; what does that mean? That the universe was uncaused.

What is blind about the argument?  Believing that the universe is uncaused is very different from believing that the universe is the uncaused.

justcool:

You said a god/creator; so do they believe in many god/creators?

They hold no such beliefs.

justcool:

Wow! The phrase “Uncaused causer” suggests intelligence Wow!!

Yes it does.  Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_cause

justcool:

Besides I never said “uncaused cause” I said “uncaused causer”

What's the difference?

justcool:

Simple!!!! If you believe that the universe is was not caused; you simply believe that it is “uncaused causer” The same way that religionist believe that God is uncaused!!!!!

Nope.  If you believe that the universe was not caused, you simply believe that it has no cause (it came about by chance, etc).  No need playing with words here.  Saying that the universe itself is the uncaused cause is basically saying that the universe is god, which is strictly a pantheistic worldview.

justcool:

Wow!!! My brother, nonthesitic is an umbrella term that covers so many religious beliefs including atheism.

This is  from the link that you provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

To further show you that there are degrees to atheism; read this from the same link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

I am aware of the broadness of this term.  However, the reason I said it would be a "more appropriate" term is because there is an outright absence of deities in Buddhism - a stance which is more consistent with broader non-theism descriptor - rather than the disbelief and/or denial of deities that is normally associated with atheism (which in itself, is a subset of non-theism).

justcool:

Thanks

You're welcome.

P.S.  I read through your initial post again and realised that you seem to have lumped deism, pantheism and pandeism together into one, and have therefore created an entirely new identity from this amalgamation - one which you have erroneously(?) labelled the "alleged atheist".

jayriginal:

With due respect, the bolded parts are wrong. There are no degrees to atheism. An atheist simply doesnt believe in God. What you call an agnostic is really an atheist.
I do understand the urge to break atheism down into types but it is wrong. You do seem to know more than the average theist about this (I'm assuming you are a theist, pardon me if I'm wrong).
I noticed your terms strong and weak atheists and your explanation of them. You might also come up one day with the term "evolutionary atheist", "evangelical atheist" (which is wrong) and so on.
Take for example what is going on in Christiandom today. Many Christians do not want to be identified with the evils of Christianity. Should we for instance say and maintain that all Christians are like Reverend Dr King who is currently on death-roe ?
In the same way, one can accept the theory of evolution as an atheist while another can reject it or simply not care and still be an atheist. It doesnt matter either way since they both do not believe in God.
Most people come here with a fixed definition of atheism which is wrong.

Even in your post, you have mentioned strong and weak atheists but you have to admit that whether you call them strong or weak they are still atheists.
One thing people arguing with atheists have to accept is that there will never be more than one blanket statement that can apply to atheism. The only sweeping assertion that can apply is that they do not believe in God.

If you ask a person, if he believes in God and he replies in the negative, that is not enough for you to know his position. One must understand these points if one is to have a healthy discussion with an atheist.
Again with apologies, this is simply not true. An atheist does not believe the evidence for God. If you want to know a closed minded atheist ask him if he can ever believe if God exists and what it will take for him so to do. If he says he can never believe, then you have a closed minded atheist. I submit that there is none. Remember that all we know of religion/God is what is handed down to us. Remember that such is usually handed out at an early age. Remember that the senses of man are fallible and subjective. Remember that indoctrination from an early age is usually hard to shake out of.
Note that an atheist is usually one who has shaken out of his indoctrination and examined things afresh for himself. An atheist is usually one who asks himself, if I wasnt brought up to accept this as true, would I accept it ordinarily ?
He asks himself questions like does the fact that I dont know how "x" happened make it supernatural ?

Its a long discussion and there is much more that I'd like to say, but I'll leave the above for your consideration.



Oh and one more thing, posting links isnt always helpful. On the internet, its not that difficult to find a website or two supporting whichever position one champions. I prefer original arguments where possible. Of course posting links is useful sometimes, we just have to be careful. Just saying.

Thanks for your reply. What you wrote is your opinion; I have no need to quarrel about your opinion. If you choose to go again definitions from the dictionary, then there is absolutely nothing that I can do since we won’t be able to find any basses from which to construct our arguments.

If you chose to ignore definitions from the American Heritage dictionary, then who am I to think that my own views or definitions will have any impact on you.

Therefore I most humbly refrain.

And by the way, I am not an atheist. I am firmly convinced that God that exists.

Thanks

Purist:



Here are some of the key statements you made previously. The highlighted are the deist's belief, not the atheist. Also, the reason you gave as to why your own description of atheists is "alleged" is wrong. Atheists simply do not believe in any creator/deity whatsosever.

What is blind about the argument? Believing that the universe is uncaused is very different from believing that the universe is the uncaused.

They hold no such beliefs.

Yes it does. Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_cause

What's the difference?

Nope. If you believe that the universe was not caused, you simply believe that it has no cause (it came about by chance, etc). No need playing with words here. Saying that the universe itself is the uncaused cause is basically saying that the universe is god, which is strictly a pantheistic worldview.

I am aware of the broadness of this term. However, the reason I said it would be a "more appropriate" term is because there is an outright absence of deities in Buddhism - a stance which is more consistent with broader non-theism descriptor - rather than the disbelief and/or denial of deities that is normally associated with atheism (which in itself, is a subset of non-theism).

You're welcome.

P.S. I read through your initial post again and realised that you seem to have lumped deism, pantheism and pandeism together into one, and have therefore created an entirely new identity from this amalgamation - one which you have erroneously(?) labelled the "alleged atheist".

@purist

I never said anything about “unmoved mover”; I said “uncaused causer” and I explained what I meant by that. Giving me links about “unmoved mover” which is an expression used to explain a school of thought, does not refute my argument.

And according to you “uncaused” is different from “not caused”?? Perhaps I should retake my English classes; looks like I’m getting rusty.

I perceive that a lot of arguments here are now based on personal opinions and ageing for augment sake; it’s becoming unhealthy, therefore there is no need to continue.

Thanks

The pic says it all.

harakiri:

@Enigma,I responded to your post where you said "there aren't too many intelligent positions for the evangelical atheist" and the you went on to say they arrived at their position by "faith on analysis". I'll break down your post as soon as I get on a computer.

frosbel:


Please hurry up, we are waiting.

And we waited!

Or are we still waiting?

lets4get that

chrisj2000: lets4get that

forget what?

Very bad opening post from Toba.

Kay 17: Very bad opening post from Toba.

Majaze did a good job of debunking Toba on this.

logicboy:

Majaze did a good job of debunking Toba on this.

really? my posts are still here unchanged, do u mind making an attempt as well?

Kay 17: Very bad opening post from Toba.

Im not sure about that.

toba: really? my posts are still here unchanged, do u mind making an attempt as well?

Allow me to debunk you.

toba: We are seen many things on Nl and on the www. In fact on Nl we ve seen/heard many things that are astonishing.

It takes faith to believe in God same way some atheists have so much faith in Evolution and that the christian God is a non entity.

Based on the foregoing, i have drawn some similarities that may be found between the Christians and the atheists from different sources. some may be right or wrong, but i think we should deal with those that are right.



[center][size=25pt]Similarities[/size][/center]

Christianity: Believe in God by faith

Atheism: Believe there is no God by faith

---

Christianity: Hold to an inspired text (the Bible)

Atheism: Hold to many non-inspired texts (textbooks, atheistic philosophy, newspapers, and their own. thoughts) some on nairaland believes in the God delusion as a bible

---

Christianity: Have a concept of what happens after death (resurrection)

Atheism: Have a concept of what happens after death (annihilation)

---

Christianity: Believe in an ultimate reality (God)

Atheism: Believe in an ultimate reality (themselves)

---

1) Your opening was a lie. It doesnt take faith to be an atheist. Atheists believe that there is no physical evidence to believe in God. How is that a statement of faith? There is no evidence that you can show me to prove God exists. None. That is a fact.

2) I have never read the God delusion and so have many atheists in Japan. There are no holy books in atheism. The last time I read a science book was 4 years ago in university. Everybody reads newspapers or at least, the news.

3) Atheists have no universal concept of death. No doctrine. Nothing. I personally will say the only thing that is certain about death is that there is no coming back to earth, or at least in the same form.

4) God is not a reality neither an ultimate reality. There is no evidence for God in reality. God has never shown himself in real life. Have you seen God?

toba: Im not sure about that.

Faith is an identified and treasured aspect of Abrahamic religions, its what's constitutes authority for its holy books. For atheists, you mentioned newspaper!! How disingenious was that!

The ONLY universal belief among all atheists is the DISBELIEF in the religious concepts of Gods. There is no universal alternative, and the question of an alternative is irrelevant.

On all other topics, like afterlife, ultimate realities, morality, family life, economy, spirituality are left to the individual.

logicboy:


Allow me to debunk you.

welcome on board and let's see how far u can go

1) Your opening was a lie. It doesnt take faith to be an atheist. Atheists believe that there is no physical evidence to believe in God. How is that a statement of faith? There is no evidence that you can show me to prove God exists. None. That is a fact.

can u please give the dictionary meaning of faith?

2) I have never read the God delusion and so have many atheists in Japan. There are no holy books in atheism. The last time I read a science book was 4 years ago in university. Everybody reads newspapers or at least, the news.

how did u get to know about evolution?

3) Atheists have no universal concept of death. No doctrine. Nothing. I personally will say the only thing that is certain about death is that there is no coming back to earth, or at least in the same form.
@ the emphasized text, how sure are u?

[quote]4) God is not a reality neither an ultimate reality. There is no evidence for God in reality. God has never shown himself in real life. Have you seen God?

Has it be proven by science that there's no God? Any scientific theory that suggest clearly that God is not a reality?