Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there is an introduction forum that I was supposed to visit before making my first post, I apologize. I didn't see an introduction forum.
I'm 47 years old. I was born and raised Catholic. At some point during my youth (Probably in high school or just after), I came to the following conclusion about religion:
1. I don't know for sure if there is a God.
2. I don't know for sure if there isn't a God.
3. It's doesn't seem likely that anyone, ever, has known or currently knows the truth about the existence of God(s).
In short....
1. There may be a God.
2. There may not be a God.
I suppose it's possible (But highly unlikely) that perhaps someone, multiple people or a group of people do actually know that a God exists. If this is the case, it seems that there really isn't any way of proving it. If there is, they have chosen not to for whatever reason.
The fact of the matter is that I really have no idea. Nor do I think that anyone else does. I'd say it's possible, but not likely.
It's always been my preference to leave the door open to both possibilities that there may or may not be a God, because, lets face it man, I really can't honestly answer the question either way. Nor do I think that anyone else can answer the question either way.
I have never felt that it would be correct to tell myself that there isn't a God. "Is there a God?" is not a question that I can answer with 100% certainty.
With that in mind, how is it that an Atheist can tell himself that there are no Gods?
Aren't all of us really in a state of not knowing?
I do not know if any gods exist or not. Therefore i am an agnostic.
I do not believe any gods exist (for various reasons), therefore I am an atheist.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and is IMO the more rational position to take.
Imagine we are talking about epileptic seizure 100 years ago.
Gnostic Theist: Did you see Johanna rolling on the floor? Her eyes went back into her head. She is possessed by demons.
Me(Agnostic Atheist): Well maybe but it could also be something else.
GT: Then what else could it be?
Me: I don't know. Mark hit his head really bad and he wasn't the same after that. Maybe something like that?
GT: It's demons. It looks like demons, my mother told me about this. I think you just are afraid to admit there are
demons.
Me: How is the conclusion that this is demons in any way about me? You put forth your opinions and I put forth mine. Is me rejecting your conclusions a failure on my part?
If there is an introduction forum that I was supposed to visit before making my first post, I apologize. I didn't see an introduction forum.
I'm 47 years old. I was born and raised Catholic. At some point during my youth (Probably in high school or just after), I came to the following conclusion about religion:
1. I don't know for sure if there is a God.
2. I don't know for sure if there isn't a God.
3. It's doesn't seem likely that anyone, ever, has known or currently knows the truth about the existence of God(s).
In short....
1. There may be a God.
2. There may not be a God.
I suppose it's possible (But highly unlikely) that perhaps someone, multiple people or a group of people do actually know that a God exists. If this is the case, it seems that there really isn't any way of proving it. If there is, they have chosen not to for whatever reason.
The fact of the matter is that I really have no idea. Nor do I think that anyone else does. I'd say it's possible, but not likely.
It's always been my preference to leave the door open to both possibilities that there may or may not be a God, because, lets face it man, I really can't honestly answer the question either way. Nor do I think that anyone else can answer the question either way.
I have never felt that it would be correct to tell myself that there isn't a God. "Is there a God?" is not a question that I can answer with 100% certainty.
With that in mind, how is it that an Atheist can tell himself that there are no Gods?
Aren't all of us really in a state of not knowing?
Many people have testified that God speaks to them personally. Should we consider that a form of "knowing" that God exists? My late aunt use to carry on long conversations with Jesus. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), claimed that his neighbor Sam had a dog named Harvey and that he heard Harvey's thoughts in his head telling him to kill.
So what should we make of these "voices in one's head?"
The entire concept of the existence of God/the gods is a construct of humans to explain objective reality. The nature of how God/the gods achieved objective reality themselves is left unanswered. When a question has no definitive answer the actual answer could be ANYTHING. The question therefore becomes one of reasonable likelihood. Is the existence of a Being who is exists without the necessary requirement of His/It's own creation, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and exists simultaneously at all points in time, a realistic likelihood? The way each individual answers this question seems to largely revolve around personal emotional needs.
Atheism is not the result of anyone telling themselves that there is no God. Atheists have simply concluded that the existence of such a Being is too unlikely to bother with. Atheists also, apparently, do not have personal emotional needs that require believing that such a Being necessarily must exist to give their lives meaning and purpose.
It's just seems strange to me for Atheism to even exist if in reality it seems that nobody really knows the truth.
In order to be Atheist, don't you have to actually tell yourself that there is no God?
I can only speak for myself.
There's more than one way of looking at atheism. But I think the most common actual stance is: "I see no significant evidence that there is a god, therefore, I don't believe in God.
Personally, there is another way I sometimes look at it: "There may be a god, but it is certainly not the god that is described in the x-ian bible. Perhaps, for example, there is a deistic god".
But the way you're thinking in the bolded sentence above, why would this sentence not be just as logical: "It just seems strange to me for christianity to even exist if in reality it seems that nobody really knows the truth"?
The argument that "you may as well believe since nobody knows for sure" has to be one of the most ridiculous, retrocranially-inverted thoughts of all time.
It is certainly illogical, but most people don't realise it. God -belief (and for that matter, Christian god -belief) has become so ingrained into western thought, that they (without realising it) think that God is an established fact which atheism is trying to knock holes in. Logically, there is no valid reason to believe in a god. But it really seems that you have to stop believing to even get the mind around this.
It is certainly illogical, but most people don't realize it. God -belief (and for that matter, Christian god -belief) has become so ingrained into western thought, that they (without realizing it) think that God is an established fact which atheism is trying to knock holes in. .
That is really the main thing religion has going for it, its seeming legitimacy thanks to longevity. If all religious memory could be wiped from our brains and everyone starts fresh, free to examine the claims of the older, established religions, I don't think that many would buy into any of them. They would all seem like equal nonsense chockablock with preposterous claims. The same person that now would scoff at the Navajo creation explanation of an island floating in four seas ruled over by two coyotes and some insects, would not think to apply the same test of incredulity to the water walking dude who rises from the dead.
But start blank and they will all seems like booga booga.
You appear to be thinking that not knowing the answer, and rejecting a suggested possible answer, represent a contradiction.
You are correct in stating that none of us has the answer. Let us say that there has been a murder, the body was found in a room the door to which was bolt locked on the inside, and there were no windows or any other means of entry or exit. The mortal wounds are such that they could not have been self inflicted. None of the investigators knows who did it or how it was done.
Someone suggests that it has to be the work of malevolent spirits which materialized in the room, committed the murder, and vanished without a trace.
You are certainly free to view that offered explanation as preposterous and impossible, despite your still not knowing how the crime was possible.
That is how I view the question of a god, especially the suggestion of a hands on god which is deeply interested in human conduct. I have no explanation to offer for the existence of the cosmos, only wild guesses. I see no particular reason to place any special emphasis on the god wild guess. I don't believe it.
Does that help?
Great response.
Should be required reading for anyone presuming to tell atheists what they (atheists) "believe," and then asking for evidence to support that imputed (but often inaccurate) belief.
I look at it this way, I’m agnostic as to whether there is a god. I’m atheist to all claimed gods due to no evidence. IMO, it is impossible to know a god doesn’t exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
