Do all atheists not beleive in a higher power, do they feel they are the highest

[OTHstrong]

No. I am an atheist but I fully accept the possibility of gods. The christian god is perhaps problematic, especially the problem of evil, omnipotence and omniscience.

I simply don't believe in any gods. But I will believe if shown positive evidence that I can reproduce.

NN

Another honest atheist, wow this thread is bringing out all the good guys. See avxo this is an honest, unbiased answer, unlike yours that reek of "agenda"

[Agnostic007]

No. I am an atheist but I fully accept the possibility of gods. The christian god is perhaps problematic, especially the problem of evil, omnipotence and omniscience.

I simply don't believe in any gods. But I will believe if shown positive evidence that I can reproduce.

NN

I'm in the same boat. I don't believe any gods we have names for exist. I believe they are man made inventions. That "something" may exist that created everything...I don't believe it at the moment, but certainly haven't closed the door to it. IF it does exist, I have no reason to believe it is anything like we imagine it is..   

[OTHstrong]

I'm in the same boat. I don't believe any gods we have names for exist. I believe they are man made inventions. That "something" may exist that created everything...I don't believe it at the moment, but certainly haven't closed the door to it. IF it does exist, I have no reason to believe it is anything like we imagine it is..   

another unbiased answer, thank you sir for your hnestly and lack of any agenda.

So avxo what's going on  here?

[tbombz]

That is interesting, I only know one person who became a christian by "the intellectual route". Most people I know who are christian, grew up in a christian home and the religion is more of an emotional bond, not an intellectual issue.

Personally, I never really understood the cosmological argument, as one can just as well say that the cosmos is eternal as one can say that "God" is eternal. But if I ever were to become religious, I guess that the two would pretty much be one and the same. I kinda like pantheism/monism :-).

NN

i am not christian.  i consider pantheism to be theism.  the cosmological argument hinges upon a belief in causality.

[Benny B]

Beautiful man

"STFU  you stupid bitch FAGGOT no one cares."

[TrueBB93]

i am not christian.  i consider pantheism to be theism.  the cosmological argument hinges upon a belief in causality.

woah, I thought you were...

[avxo]

another unbiased answer, thank you sir for your hnestly and lack of any agenda.

So avxo what's going on  here?

Why would you think anything is going on? First of all, as I said, atheism, unlike religion, doesn't involve dogma and a fixed set of beliefs that people must ascribe to: different people have different positions; the only common position is that none of us believe in deities.

Secondly, there are some atheists, who are open to the possibility of a deity (although I think that a more accurate description for them would be agnostics); I am not one of those. I will gladly explain why (for the hundredth time):

All present descriptions of deities (that I am aware of) are either logically inconsistent or so vague as to be worthless (e.g. "god is love"). I dismiss such deities outright: what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature.

Some other atheists may think that the assertion that I am making may be unwarranted, and although I believe that they are wrong from a logical standpoint of view, I am not particularly concerned by their opinion.
 
So with that said, you may consider this position to be biased. That's your prerogative. Regardless of what you (and others) think, it is my position and it is one that I arrived at after a lot of careful and deliberate thought. I am uninterested in forcing others to accept it on my say so. Instead, I think that people should examine the evidence and use their rational faculty to reach their own decisions. In the process, they may reach a decision that differs from my own, and that's fine.

In other endeavors, I would say that reality would be the ultimate judge. After all, if your rational faculty tells you that you can walk on water and mine says you can't, then reality will be the final arbiter, and we'll know which one of us was right when you sink all the way to your neck.

Alas in this case, we won't know which one of us is right - although that's something that you will certainly dispute.

[OTHstrong]

``what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature. ``


OK so answer this; what is so logically consistent of ``everything in existence``(space, time and matter)  not having a beginning?

[avxo]

``what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature. ``


OK so answer this; what is so logically consistent of ``everything in existence``(space, time and matter)  not having a beginning?

"Beginning" and "end" as you are using them in that context are notions tied to temporal or spatial relations which are intrinsic properties of the Universe. The notions of "time" or "space" are (for the time being at least) devoid of meaning outside of the Universe.

I know you find this a difficult concept to accept (or understand), but in a very real sense and if our understanding of the Universe is accurate, time had a beginning and it will, at some point, have an end. There is no "before t_beginning" and no "after t_end" anymore than there is a starting point in a circle or a boundary in a Klein bottle.

There are many questions whose answers seem counterintuitive and illogical but which are perfectly logical. For a perfect example take a look at Cantor's diagonal argument, and the notion of cardinality and countable versus uncountable infinities.

[Mattyh7688]

I don't class myself an athiest.  I believe in a higher force/power/beings etc.... that created all of this nonsense we call a universe.  Everything just works too perfectly, and is too complex, to have "just happened".  The bible and "commercial religions" are full of shit.

I have been leaning towards this idea for awhile now... It is funny 16 years of Catholic School has pushed me AWAY from organized religion after seeing how much bs and corruption it is.. plus a lot of tall tales and hypocrites 

[dj181]

Beautiful man

agreed.

and here's another hot jew Mr. Michael T. Weiss

[Griffith]

There's no meaning to anything, complete random chaos.

We're just animals living on the instinct to reproduce and survive. That is it. Anything else is a way to justify these two instinctual urges.

'Morality' is relative and created by us humans according to culture.

If children where brought up that killing people and eating their hearts to go to heaven was good, for them it would be 'good'.

The moment you realise you are just an animal, you are able to understand yourself better, try and focus on your gut instincts and understand what makes others tick.

 

[OTHstrong]

"Beginning" and "end" as you are using them in that context are notions tied to temporal or spatial relations which are intrinsic properties of the Universe. The notions of "time" or "space" are (for the time being at least) devoid of meaning outside of the Universe.

I know you find this a difficult concept to accept (or understand), but in a very real sense and if our understanding of the Universe is accurate, time had a beginning and it will, at some point, have an end. There is no "before t_beginning" and no "after t_end" anymore than there is a starting point in a circle or a boundary in a Klein bottle.

There are many questions whose answers seem counterintuitive and illogical but which are perfectly logical. For a perfect example take a look at Cantor's diagonal argument, and the notion of cardinality and countable versus uncountable infinities.

This is why I laugh at you because you some how think that this shit your saying above is logical. Time had a beginning and you can not ask what was before  , WTF does that explain, FUCK ALL, we still are left with no answers and a big dilemma here. Nothing logical about that scenario, think about for a second, common sense.

[NordicNerd]

...
All present descriptions of deities (that I am aware of) are either logically inconsistent or so vague as to be worthless (e.g. "god is love"). I dismiss such deities outright: what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature. ..

You know, I have tried to find out what agnosticism really means, and I think the term is misunderstood. What you are writing above, is perhaps closer to the concept of agnosticism than to atheism.

Huxley, in creating the term "agnosticism", has been interpreted as meaning to say that he was "open" to the idea of a god. Many agnosticists embrace agnosticism as a way to not come across as dogmatically rejecting religion.  However, agnosticism as Huxley conveived it, can be interpreted as meaning that deities are "unknowable". A radical interpretation of this, is that statements about deities are meaningless, as they are "unknowable".

This perhaps corresponds to what you call "supernatural"? But you also say that ideas of deities may be logical inconsistent. I think this is true if you try to make sense of for instance literal interpretation of the Bible. Such a deity is in my view logically inconsistent.

NN

[syntaxmachine]

"Proof" is needed for positive statements about reality, but inductive proof is not really proof of anything..., or proof is needed for falsification (according to Popper), but that requires that what should be falsified is portrayed in a way that makes falsification possible. How does that relate to your idea of "god"?

NN

Is it really the case that proof is needed for "positive statements about the world"? This seems like a stipulation that needs justifying, especially since it would seem to prevent all manner of inquiry (primarily, scientific inquiry) which relies on less than proof. That is, the statements (sentences with truth values) most inquiries churn out have a probability associated with their being true but are not proof-amenable. We're never certain about any of it the way we are with proof-amenable statements derived from, say, logic.

Is this claim from Popper (I haven't read him yet)?

[avxo]

This is why I laugh at you because you some how think that this shit your saying above is logical. Time had a beginning and you can not ask what was before  , WTF does that explain, FUCK ALL, we still are left with no answers and a big dilemma here. Nothing logical about that scenario, think about for a second, common sense.

You cannot ask using the framework of logic and the laws and properties of the Universe such as temporal causality.

You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered but you should not seek to give those supernatural answers a status equal to the answers provided by logic and science which operate on the natural plane and don't concern themselves with the supernatural.

Whether you find this rational or not is your business. Whether it is rational is a whole 'nother question.

I will also point out one thing: you say that with my "answer" to this, we're still left with no answers and a big dilemma. That may be so, but ask yourself, what does your "answer", such as it is, leave you with? You merely push those questions one level further away by saying "Goddidit".

Answer two simple questions for me: (a) why does the universe require a creator but your God does not? (b) how do you know this?

[The Scott]

It can be said that an Atheist is an individual that thinks their existence, their very life if you will, is nothing more than mere chance.   An "accident" of nature or the universe.  But a person that believes in God more often than not, thinks that while they were created by the Lord the are somehow guilty of life itself.    Hence the terms, "original sin",  "Catholic guilt" or "Jewish guilt".

Muslims are currently guilty of a great many crimes against humanity, none of which the perpetrators seem to feel guilty for.  Why?  Because like any nutcase they think "God" or in their case "Allah" told them to do it.  Muhammad taught them evil and men are prone to evil especially when they can falsely justify it by saying that some deity wills it so. 

Jesus taught us otherwise.  To deny that is to deny the truth. 

I have no problem with Atheists in general, so long as the do not make a habit of forcing their lack of faith down my throat (a turn of events  there, eh my Atheist friends!).    The ones I know are well aware of my beliefs and that if asked I would discuss it with them.  I have found that if you define everything, and I mean everything in your life by your faith or lack thereof then it is a certainty that you will miss out on a great many chances to demonstrate that what you are is more than that.

This thought may well escape the likes of tbombz as it deals neither with putrid self portraits by him in a filthy, poorly lit subway bathroom nor with having a giant penis inserted into his bum. 

[syntaxmachine]

Atheists, by definition, believe there is no higher power. So they do have a belief system.

Presumably everyone has a belief system, so your statement that atheists have one too isn't particularly interesting. If you mean that they have a particular belief the possession of which makes them atheist 'by definition', well, we can stipulate as much if you like (in fact, that does seem to be the commonly accepted meaning of the term), but nothing much hinges upon our doing so.

Fretting over whether that's the case or not would be like arguing about whether submarines swim or not -- a clash over the way words are used rather than about some substantive issue about the way the world is.

[NordicNerd]

Is it really the case that proof is needed for "positive statements about the world"? This seems like a stipulation that needs justifying, especially since it would seem to prevent all manner of inquiry (primarily, scientific inquiry) which relies on less than proof. That is, the statements (sentences with truth values) most inquiries churn out have a probability associated with their being true but are not proof-amenable. We're never certain about any of it the way we are with proof-amenable statements derived from, say, logic.

Is this claim from Popper (I haven't read him yet)?

Sorry, not proof, but rather positive "evidence"/observations etc that can be reasonably interpreted as fitting with some coherent system. The empiricists showed us how inductive evidence never can be "proof", but Popper tried to amend that by introducing the requirement of falsifiability for a statement to belong to the scientific discourse. Hence, we accept induction if it leads to falsifiable hypotheses.

NN

[OTHstrong]

You cannot ask using the framework of logic and the laws and properties of the Universe such as temporal causality.

You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered but you should not seek to give those supernatural answers a status equal to the answers provided by logic and science which operate on the natural plane and don't concern themselves with the supernatural.

Whether you find this rational or not is your business. Whether it is rational is a whole 'nother question.

I will also point out one thing: you say that with my "answer" to this, we're still left with no answers and a big dilemma. That may be so, but ask yourself, what does your "answer", such as it is, leave you with? You merely push those questions one level further away by saying "Goddidit".

Answer two simple questions for me: (a) why does the universe require a creator but your God does not? (b) how do you know this?

Thank you, finally getting through to you. You see if you go back to all my posts ever, I never ever held the position of my answer being any better then yours, mine still leaves me with the `dilema`(for lack of a better term) that I accused your position leaves you with. The only difference is you like to sweep it under the rug and pretend you have the final answer when you and me both know that answers you can come up with simply pushes those questions one step further as you pointed out that saying `God`does the same thing.

So here is my point and this has been my only point and nothing more; To finally put a concrete answer to to those questions we are describing as you  said;

 You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered

There is no way around it, a supernatural way is the only remaining option to fully solving this puzzle.  Or I can be like you `Time has a beginning but it`s like a circle`OK Einstein  

[tbombz]

The idea that time is circular is an intriguing one. I don't personally think its the case however.

[avxo]

So here is my point and this has been my only point and nothing more; To finally put a concrete answer to to those questions we are describing as you  said;

 You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered

You are - but don't pretend that your answers are anything more than mystical hocus pocus, or that they are, in any way, different from what the "medium" reading palms and tea-leaves or using ouija boards employs.

There is no way around it, a supernatural way is the only remaining option to fully solving this puzzle.  Or I can be like you `Time has a beginning but it`s like a circle`OK Einstein  

I never said that time is like a circle. You can twist my words if it makes you feel better, but my position is infinitely more honest than yours: I say "I can't answer that question." You say: "Magical mystical insight!" and when challenged, your answer, ultimately boils down to: "Well, uhm. Nobody can answer that except the magical, mystical being I posit exists because of some magical, mystical knowledge I received in some unknownable way."

Time is a dimension of the Universe, and provides a way to order temporal events and define causality. No universe, no time. Terms like "before" and "after" become meaningless outside of the frame of reference in which "before" and "after" can be used to order events.

I understand you may find this to be a difficult concept, but your difficulty doesn't make the concept any less valid.

[Griffith]

No-one knows the answers.

We can all only speculate and guess.

To say otherwise and with some kind of absolute authority on what the 'truth' is, is completely ridiculous and extremely arrogant of us specks of humans in this universe of trillions of stars and perhaps even a multiverse of who can even guess what kind of existence out there beyond our own.

[OTHstrong]

You are - but don't pretend that your answers are anything more than mystical hocus pocus, or that they are, in any way, different from what the "medium" reading palms and tea-leaves or using ouija boards employs.


I never said that time is like a circle. You can twist my words if it makes you feel better, but my position is infinitely more honest than yours: I say "I can't answer that question." You say: "Magical mystical insight!" and when challenged, your answer, ultimately boils down to: "Well, uhm. Nobody can answer that except the magical, mystical being I posit exists because of some magical, mystical knowledge I received in some unknownable way."

Time is a dimension of the Universe, and provides a way to order temporal events and define causality. No universe, no time. Terms like "before" and "after" become meaningless outside of the frame of reference in which "before" and "after" can be used to order events.

I understand you may find this to be a difficult concept, but your difficulty doesn't make the concept any less valid.

What part do you not understand. You have repeated this a million times, why would you, I never disagreed with this ever. You keep pointing this out like it is an answer and it is not any answer and does not solve shit by saying something so logical. Who the fuck doesn`t know what you just wrote, a 2 year old knows this shit.wow you feel smart. Stop repeating the obvious.... wooooooooosh

Now back to square one we need an answer still and you can not provide one. So this is where your journey ends and since you can not go any further that means you do not know if there is a GOd or there is not, siple as that.

[OTHstrong]

No-one knows the answers.

We can all only speculate and guess.

To say otherwise and with some kind of absolute authority on what the 'truth' is, is completely ridiculous and extremely arrogant of us specks of humans in this universe of trillions of stars and perhaps even a multiverse of who can even guess what kind of existence out there beyond our own.

Thank you sir, I agree. I have been debating avxo for months and all my whole goal was this whole time is for him to write what you just wrote, that`s it nothing more, that is all I want him to admit but his agenda or biased thoughts do not allow him to write what you just wrote he is to close minded.