Question for the Atheists

[oscarkipling]

Oscar,
Your definitiont of 'atheist' sounds 'agnostic' to me. How do you distinguish these two words?

Atheist- does not believe there are gods

Agnostic- does not know whether there are gods or not

one is a question about what you know (or at least believe you know) and the other is a question of what you merely believe. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. here are some examples from John and and the ever skeptical Mary:

John: I can turn into the Cloverfield monster.

Mary: okay, do it right now so that I may witness your terrible majesty.

John: umm I cant, I can only do it when I'm not being observed.

Mary: Well,I don't believe you. I like you john, but that is a pretty fantastic assertion. (here Mary becomes an atheist...or acloverfieldist)

John: hmm, we are at an impasse

Mary: indeed, wait I have an idea! Lets turn off the lights and then you can turn into the CM. When you grow to enormous proportions you will surely destroy the living room...and you could make some make some giant monster noises to boot. I would accept the mangled ruins of my home and a bone chilling bray as convincing evidence of your claim.

John: Well, not only does my petrifying beast form stymie direct observation, any and all effects,atmospheric perturbations, damages and so forth likewise cannot be observed. When you turn the lights back on everything will instantly revert to its un-obliterated state.

Mary: I must admit that you could turn into the CM when you are not being observed, and I have absolutely no way of proving it one way or another.(agnostic)

John: Right! so now do you believe me?

Mary: absolutely not! you have provided no proof, furthermore there can be no proof. (atheist & agnostic)

Oscar: I'm with Mary, I don't believe it! (athiest)

Mary: Of course you do Oscar, because you are the smartest and most handsome most kind and gentle intell...

Oscar: Please, you make me blush. Anyway I will go a step further than Mary and say that i know that you don't turn into the Cloverleaf monster!

John: Cloverfield

Oscar: What?

John: Its the Cloverfield monster.

Oscar: What did I say?

John: Cloverleaf.

Oscar: I'm pretty sure i said Cloverfeild

John: No, and that time you spelled field wrong, its "i" before "e" exce....

Oscar: Whatever, the point is that not only is the monster a fictional beast from an overrated movie, there is no evidence that such a thing could even happen....wait how would you know that I spelled "field" wrong if we're having a conversation?.....Anyway, nothing That we know about the universe even suggests the possibility of such a thing! Therefore I call mishegaas (Still atheist, but not agnostic)

John: its shenanigans!

Oscar: w/e

Mary: I love you Oscar!

Oscar: I know.




THE END

[watchinginawe]

Atheist- does not believe there are gods

Agnostic- does not know whether there are gods or not

Hello Oscar, good to see you posting!

Those definitions seem about right. But let's refine them a bit.

Your definition for atheism is an absence of belief, but to really be an atheist, the corrollary to that must be true for one to be an atheist IMO. An atheist believes there are no gods. Both atheists and theists have determined points of view.

That is an important distinction since one could ask an agnostic by your definition whether they believe in gods and they would have to answer no. Not coming to a belief in gods is therefore only half of the position and does not in itself make one an atheist.

Also, the mature agnostic often does have a belief as a result of their contemplations. Usually it is in the form of something like: A belief that it cannot be known whether there are gods or not. In this case, the agnostic doesn't deny that there might be gods, but believes that it is impossible to know and therefore improper to form a determined point of view one way or the other.

You also have those who are still ignorant on the matter.

[oscarkipling]

Hello Oscar, good to see you posting!

Those definitions seem about right. But let's refine them a bit.

Your definition for atheism is an absence of belief, but to really be an atheist, the corrollary to that must be true for one to be an atheist IMO. An atheist believes there are no gods. Both atheists and theists have determined points of view.

That is an important distinction since one could ask an agnostic by your definition whether they believe in gods and they would have to answer no. Not coming to a belief in gods is therefore only half of the position and does not in itself make one an atheist.

sure you could refine my perfect definitions if you want to be wrong for the rest of your life...that's your choice, I don't agree, but i'll fight to the death to defend your right to be wrong...well maybe not to the death, but to the point of a long hospital stay...well not that long...maybe a few stitches and overnight observation...okay a dab of Neosporin and a Pokemon band-aid. I kid, but I think that an agnostic that does not believe in god is an atheist and an agnostic. What I didn't cover was the theist/agnostic combo one could believe in god(s) but still consider it to be unknowable. I think that the knowledge question and belief question are different questions. Agnosticism is coming to a belief about the ability to know, not coming to a belief about existence of imo...well its not just my opinion, its also the proper and correct one true path to not having to answer this question anymore. Of course the plebs and laymen like to use atheist/agnostic/theist as 3 opposing positions, but really an agnostic is dealing with a different question , just look at this chart like construction filled with things a person could be:

Knowledge| Belief
----------------------------------------------------------
Agnostic|Atheist

gnostic|Atheist

Agnostic|Theist

gnostic|Theist

Agnostic|Ambivalent
----------------------------------------------------------


see, 2 columns...its a chart like thing so you now know its true and your beliefs have instantly changed accordingly. anyway, I don't really care if people consider me an atheist or an agnostic it just makes me cringe whenever someone assumes that merely being atheist means that you assert that there are no god(s) at all. cuz then you have people calling you intellectually dishonest and impractical and getting all up in your corollaries and whatnot.

Also, the mature agnostic often does have a belief as a result of their contemplations. Usually it is in the form of something like: A belief that it cannot be known whether there are gods or not. In this case, the agnostic doesn't deny that there might be gods, but believes that it is impossible to know and therefore improper to form a determined point of view one way or the other.

You also have those who are still ignorant on the matter.

yes I agree...I think...by the beard of Zeus cant we talk about something else? don't you people want to know what atheists like to eat or something? oh yes and nice to speak to ou again too, dont we have an unfinished conversation about something?









not babies

[watchinginawe]

Well, I think there is more at work in those terms that do make them 3 distinct positions, and probably opposing. Agnostics would not agree that their position is an opposing one though. I think it is very tempting to slap on relativistic meaning to all of this and therefore everyone's position is "right" for them, but in truth, it ultimately can't work that way.

I think adopted philosophy (world view) comes into play with all of this. What one believes at first (or instructed in, endoctrinated in) may result in the assembling of a philosophical world view, and then from that world view are formed contingent and compatible beliefs. It is a house of cards of sorts that is held in place by the core belief(s).

However, there is a chicken and egg kind of thing that I haven't entirely worked out yet.

For example, an atheist might therefore conclude materialism. Or is it that a materialist might therefore conclude atheism? Or is there something else altogether that both positions are derived from? Regardless, new information is processed through this world view and interpretted in a compatible manner. If enough new information is processed that is incompatible with the world view, then other actions might be in order.

Information >>>> Philosophy >>>> World View >>>> Contingent Belief

Something like that.

Anyway, that is the way I look at those terms. They aren't merely classification labels but rather the result of one's introspection on the matter and how the potential of gods is resolved in a compatible manner with one's world view.

yes I agree...I think...by the beard of Zeus cant we talk about something else? don't you people want to know what atheists like to eat or something? oh yes and nice to speak to ou again too, dont we have an unfinished conversation about something?

I think we were discussing stuff like this, and by the beard of Zeus, can't we talk about something else? I also think we never did getting around to addressing reprobation.

[Otter77]

There certainly can't be a single concise answer as to "why" a self-proclaimed Atheist would come to this message board.

I was - what I would personally define as a "militant Atheist" for all 28 years of my life until I totally accepted Grace and Love for the first time a little over 5 years ago.

When I was an Atheist, I lived my life for myself alone. I enjoyed the company of my wife but she was ultimately a tool to make my life better - in my opinion - at that time... and I treated her as such. If I cheated on her, it was ok as long as she didn't know... because my lifestyle could persist to serve me in that way. Getting caught cheating on her was more like failing a final exam than it was a horrible crime - to me - at that time.

Perspective for your comprehension.

During that time if I were to have wandered onto this site then my purpose would have been clear: Personal entertainment. If I could subvert the board administration and convince at least one of you to re-consider your Faith then that would have been a fun abuse for me. It would have been like a game for me... how many fake Christians can I expose, mock, convert. I'd get excited and it would pump up my ego.

I KNOW that I'm not speaking for all Atheists in this perspective... and I'm about as opposite to that lifestyle now as you might imagine I could be... but I'm certainly speaking for the person who I was... and likely for a few others.

Basically - I was a bad person. What perplexes me today as a Christian are the Atheists who I know who are truly "good people". I'm friends with one right now and I greatly enjoy his company. I feel that in many ways he's a better person than I am - even now as a saved Christian and serving Christ... from a sociological perspective he often makes better choices. I still don't comprehend WHY he bothers. He can't explain it to me either other than saying something like "it's just how I was raised"... which is a fair retort to my own upbringing.

Did I NEED to be a Christian just to become a better person? Yeah - I did.... but that's not the real reason why I have Faith. I'm glad it's not... because if that was the reason alone, I wouldn't last long as a Christian.

---

I think the best thing we can do here as Christians... when we actually find ourselves an Atheist who wants to talk to us... is to Love him. Do nothing other than Love him. Regardless of what he says. If you can't Love him, ignore him entirely. Otherwise... LOVE THE HECK OUT OF HIM (quite literally).

[Gypsy]

Atheist- does not believe there are gods

Agnostic- does not know whether there are gods or not

one is a question about what you know (or at least believe you know) and the other is a question of what you merely believe. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. here are some examples from John and and the ever skeptical Mary:

John: I can turn into the Cloverfield monster.

Mary: okay, do it right now so that I may witness your terrible majesty.

John: umm I cant, I can only do it when I'm not being observed.

Mary: Well,I don't believe you. I like you john, but that is a pretty fantastic assertion. (here Mary becomes an atheist...or acloverfieldist)

John: hmm, we are at an impasse

Mary: indeed, wait I have an idea! Lets turn off the lights and then you can turn into the CM. When you grow to enormous proportions you will surely destroy the living room...and you could make some make some giant monster noises to boot. I would accept the mangled ruins of my home and a bone chilling bray as convincing evidence of your claim.

John: Well, not only does my petrifying beast form stymie direct observation, any and all effects,atmospheric perturbations, damages and so forth likewise cannot be observed. When you turn the lights back on everything will instantly revert to its un-obliterated state.

Mary: I must admit that you could turn into the CM when you are not being observed, and I have absolutely no way of proving it one way or another.(agnostic)

John: Right! so now do you believe me?

Mary: absolutely not! you have provided no proof, furthermore there can be no proof. (atheist & agnostic)

Oscar: I'm with Mary, I don't believe it! (athiest)

Mary: Of course you do Oscar, because you are the smartest and most handsome most kind and gentle intell...

Oscar: Please, you make me blush. Anyway I will go a step further than Mary and say that i know that you don't turn into the Cloverleaf monster!

John: Cloverfield

Oscar: What?

John: Its the Cloverfield monster.

Oscar: What did I say?

John: Cloverleaf.

Oscar: I'm pretty sure i said Cloverfeild

John: No, and that time you spelled field wrong, its "i" before "e" exce....

Oscar: Whatever, the point is that not only is the monster a fictional beast from an overrated movie, there is no evidence that such a thing could even happen....wait how would you know that I spelled "field" wrong if we're having a conversation?.....Anyway, nothing That we know about the universe even suggests the possibility of such a thing! Therefore I call mishegaas (Still atheist, but not agnostic)

John: its shenanigans!

Oscar: w/e

Mary: I love you Oscar!

Oscar: I know.




THE END

Ha! Thanks for the laugh. That end part was clever.

As I understand then, the only difference between your definitions, is the use of the word 'know' and 'believe', no? May I infer then that if the condition of atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive then the notions of 'believing' and 'knowing' are also not? i.e. Not that once we know something to be true, we no longer need to believe in it? And vice versa, if my assertion that something is true is a function of belief then I cannot truly know it is true?

Or are you saying that once we accrue a certain amount of knowledge about a thing then we can upgrade our position from that of believing it to be true to knowing it to be true?

If it's the former, would this not imply that what we believe is purly a matter of choice? e.g. I could choose right now to believe that my truck is red instead of blue.

If it's the latter, then can we truly ever say with certainty that we know anything? e.g. We had chicken and dumplings for supper last night and then I put the leftovers in the fridge. Can I know that they'll be waiting for me when I get home? I just talked to my wife on the phone and 'know' (believe her when she tells me) that she did not go home at lunch and eat them. Could we have been robbed by the local 'chicken and dumplings' burglar? Possible, but less probable. I can call my nosey neighbor, who I know has been watching my house all day and confirm that there has been no dumpling larsonry. Could space alians, with a hankerin for some dumplings, have beamed themselves into my kitchen and gobbled up all my dumplings? Again possible, but even less probable. At what percentage of certainty can I upgrade my belief that there will be leftover dumplings waiting for me to knowing that there will be?

If I may further complicate matters, may I ask what, if any, do you see as being the difference between 'belief' and 'faith'?

[Dani H]

Basically - I was a bad person.

Negatory. You were a sinner far removed from God and from God's perspective on anything.

What perplexes me today as a Christian are the Atheists who I know who are truly "good people".

Based on whose standards?

from a sociological perspective he often makes better choices.

God's perspective is what matters, and that's it. How would he fare, based on that, you think?

I still don't comprehend WHY he bothers. He can't explain it to me either other than saying something like "it's just how I was raised"... which is a fair retort to my own upbringing.

Good for him! That doesn't save him, though. And it doesn't get him any closer to God (did I mention this is about GOD?) than any other upbringing he might have had.

Did I NEED to be a Christian just to become a better person? Yeah - I did.... but that's not the real reason why I have Faith. I'm glad it's not... because if that was the reason alone, I wouldn't last long as a Christian.

No, you needed to get your head out of your own derriere, widen your scope, and actually include GOD in it. Fo' realz (as opposed to for just inside somebody's head, which doesn't matter ).

Following self-help books probably will make you a better person (whatever that means, honestly?) Following the Bible and its authority and then surrendering to Jesus based on that, will make you an adopted child of the living God and give you the right to call Him "Father". It will transform you from death to life, from darkness to light, and from sin to righteousness. It will change God's relation to you, from Somebody/something afar off on the outskirts of your conscience (if present at all) to Immanuel, God with us.

This is about God having the people He created, with Him for all eternity, and for Jesus getting that which He died for. It's not about us bettering ourselves!

Again, bottom line: IT'S ALL ABOUT GOD. FROM START TO FINISH.

I think the best thing we can do here as Christians... when we actually find ourselves an Atheist who wants to talk to us... is to Love him. Do nothing other than Love him. Regardless of what he says. If you can't Love him, ignore him entirely. Otherwise... LOVE THE HECK OUT OF HIM (quite literally).

Couldn't agree more.

Disclaimer: None of the above was meant as a rebuke. Just adjusting perspectives, is all. Love you, brother.

[Otter77]

I didn't take it as a rebuke but I appreciate you making sure!

You are - of course - 100% correct on all accounts. Thank you for the keen, timely, loving and accurate adjustment!

[moonglow]

sure you could refine my perfect definitions if you want to be wrong for the rest of your life...that's your choice, I don't agree, but i'll fight to the death to defend your right to be wrong...well maybe not to the death, but to the point of a long hospital stay...well not that long...maybe a few stitches and overnight observation...okay a dab of Neosporin and a Pokemon band-aid. I kid, but I think that an agnostic that does not believe in god is an atheist and an agnostic. What I didn't cover was the theist/agnostic combo one could believe in god(s) but still consider it to be unknowable. I think that the knowledge question and belief question are different questions. Agnosticism is coming to a belief about the ability to know, not coming to a belief about existence of imo...well its not just my opinion, its also the proper and correct one true path to not having to answer this question anymore. Of course the plebs and laymen like to use atheist/agnostic/theist as 3 opposing positions, but really an agnostic is dealing with a different question , just look at this chart like construction filled with things a person could be:

Knowledge| Belief
----------------------------------------------------------
Agnostic|Atheist

gnostic|Atheist

Agnostic|Theist

gnostic|Theist

Agnostic|Ambivalent
----------------------------------------------------------


see, 2 columns...its a chart like thing so you now know its true and your beliefs have instantly changed accordingly. anyway, I don't really care if people consider me an atheist or an agnostic it just makes me cringe whenever someone assumes that merely being atheist means that you assert that there are no god(s) at all. cuz then you have people calling you intellectually dishonest and impractical and getting all up in your corollaries and whatnot.




yes I agree...I think...by the beard of Zeus cant we talk about something else? don't you people want to know what atheists like to eat or something? oh yes and nice to speak to ou again too, dont we have an unfinished conversation about something?









not babies

According to a brain test I just took my brain is a 100 years old so i can't possibly participate in this conversation because I can't possible begin to understand it but I can do this:

cant we talk about something else? don't you people want to know what atheists like to eat or something?

Ok what kind of foods do you as an atheist like to eat? I am sure the foods must be vastly different from what us humble Christians eat...mostly bread and water...or am I getting that confused with monks or it is prisoners of war?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Atheist- does not believe there are gods

Agnostic- does not know whether there are gods or not

one is a question about what you know (or at least believe you know) and the other is a question of what you merely believe. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. here are some examples from John and and the ever skeptical Mary:

John: I can turn into the Cloverfield monster.

Mary: okay, do it right now so that I may witness your terrible majesty.

John: umm I cant, I can only do it when I'm not being observed.

Mary: Well,I don't believe you. I like you john, but that is a pretty fantastic assertion. (here Mary becomes an atheist...or acloverfieldist)

John: hmm, we are at an impasse

Mary: indeed, wait I have an idea! Lets turn off the lights and then you can turn into the CM. When you grow to enormous proportions you will surely destroy the living room...and you could make some make some giant monster noises to boot. I would accept the mangled ruins of my home and a bone chilling bray as convincing evidence of your claim.

John: Well, not only does my petrifying beast form stymie direct observation, any and all effects,atmospheric perturbations, damages and so forth likewise cannot be observed. When you turn the lights back on everything will instantly revert to its un-obliterated state.

Mary: I must admit that you could turn into the CM when you are not being observed, and I have absolutely no way of proving it one way or another.(agnostic)

John: Right! so now do you believe me?

Mary: absolutely not! you have provided no proof, furthermore there can be no proof. (atheist & agnostic)

Oscar: I'm with Mary, I don't believe it! (athiest)

Mary: Of course you do Oscar, because you are the smartest and most handsome most kind and gentle intell...

Oscar: Please, you make me blush. Anyway I will go a step further than Mary and say that i know that you don't turn into the Cloverleaf monster!

John: Cloverfield

Oscar: What?

John: Its the Cloverfield monster.

Oscar: What did I say?

John: Cloverleaf.

Oscar: I'm pretty sure i said Cloverfeild

John: No, and that time you spelled field wrong, its "i" before "e" exce....

Oscar: Whatever, the point is that not only is the monster a fictional beast from an overrated movie, there is no evidence that such a thing could even happen....wait how would you know that I spelled "field" wrong if we're having a conversation?.....Anyway, nothing That we know about the universe even suggests the possibility of such a thing! Therefore I call mishegaas (Still atheist, but not agnostic)

John: its shenanigans!

Oscar: w/e

Mary: I love you Oscar!

Oscar: I know.

THE END

Riotous stuff. A welcome relief from the normal maliciously obfuscatory conversations from your side of the court.

Surely you see that Science has its own "orthodox" beloved bovine, as well.

So... what DO "you people" like to eat, anyway?! Please do NOT tell me you're Vegan. :-)

[Otter77]

So... what DO "you people" like to eat, anyway?! Please do NOT tell me you're Vegan. :-)

Yeah totally... when I went from Atheist to Christian I had to completely change what I ate.... from loving things like Steak, Sushi, Thai, Burgers, Brats, and everything...

to pretty much totally differently loving things like Steak, Sushi, Thai, Burgers, Brats, and everything!

Yep.

Now what I drank? what I drank DID change.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yeah totally... when I went from Atheist to Christian I had to completely change what I ate.... from loving things like Steak, Sushi, Thai, Burgers, Brats, and everything...

to pretty much totally differently loving things like Steak, Sushi, Thai, Burgers, Brats, and everything!

Yep.

Now what I drank? what I drank DID change.

Steak, Sushi, Thai, Burgers, Brats... Toss in BBQ, Mexican, and Italian, and we've got the week booked.

[Gypsy]

Steak, Sushi, Thai, Burgers, Brats... Toss in BBQ, Mexican, and Italian, and we've got the week booked.

[18]And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

Don't you with you could add 'or raise his cholesterol and triglicerides' to the end of this? Becoming a Christian didn't change my diet, but letting my wife join me when the nurse explained the results of my blood test sure did!

[oscarkipling]

Well, I think there is more at work in those terms that do make them 3 distinct positions, and probably opposing. Agnostics would not agree that their position is an opposing one though. I think it is very tempting to slap on relativistic meaning to all of this and therefore everyone's position is "right" for them, but in truth, it ultimately can't work that way.

I think adopted philosophy (world view) comes into play with all of this. What one believes at first (or instructed in, endoctrinated in) may result in the assembling of a philosophical world view, and then from that world view are formed contingent and compatible beliefs. It is a house of cards of sorts that is held in place by the core belief(s).

However, there is a chicken and egg kind of thing that I haven't entirely worked out yet.

For example, an atheist might therefore conclude materialism. Or is it that a materialist might therefore conclude atheism? Or is there something else altogether that both positions are derived from? Regardless, new information is processed through this world view and interpretted in a compatible manner. If enough new information is processed that is incompatible with the world view, then other actions might be in order.

Information >>>> Philosophy >>>> World View >>>> Contingent Belief

Something like that.

Anyway, that is the way I look at those terms. They aren't merely classification labels but rather the result of one's introspection on the matter and how the potential of gods is resolved in a compatible manner with one's world view.

hmmm, I think I have stuff to say about this, but it hasn't coalesced into anything i'd write out just yet.

I think we were discussing stuff like this, and by the beard of Zeus, can't we talk about something else? I also think we never did getting around to addressing reprobation.

hmm i don't think we were talking about reprobation, obviously I don't believe its an actual existing issue but I'm always up for criticizing God's methods and what have you, pm me and we can have one of those long drawn out discussions just as Al Gore intended.

[oscarkipling]

There certainly can't be a single concise answer as to "why" a self-proclaimed Atheist would come to this message board.

I was - what I would personally define as a "militant Atheist" for all 28 years of my life until I totally accepted Grace and Love for the first time a little over 5 years ago.

When I was an Atheist, I lived my life for myself alone. I enjoyed the company of my wife but she was ultimately a tool to make my life better - in my opinion - at that time... and I treated her as such. If I cheated on her, it was ok as long as she didn't know... because my lifestyle could persist to serve me in that way. Getting caught cheating on her was more like failing a final exam than it was a horrible crime - to me - at that time.

Perspective for your comprehension.

During that time if I were to have wandered onto this site then my purpose would have been clear: Personal entertainment. If I could subvert the board administration and convince at least one of you to re-consider your Faith then that would have been a fun abuse for me. It would have been like a game for me... how many fake Christians can I expose, mock, convert. I'd get excited and it would pump up my ego.

I KNOW that I'm not speaking for all Atheists in this perspective... and I'm about as opposite to that lifestyle now as you might imagine I could be... but I'm certainly speaking for the person who I was... and likely for a few others.

Basically - I was a bad person. What perplexes me today as a Christian are the Atheists who I know who are truly "good people". I'm friends with one right now and I greatly enjoy his company. I feel that in many ways he's a better person than I am - even now as a saved Christian and serving Christ... from a sociological perspective he often makes better choices. I still don't comprehend WHY he bothers. He can't explain it to me either other than saying something like "it's just how I was raised"... which is a fair retort to my own upbringing.

Did I NEED to be a Christian just to become a better person? Yeah - I did.... but that's not the real reason why I have Faith. I'm glad it's not... because if that was the reason alone, I wouldn't last long as a Christian.

---

I think the best thing we can do here as Christians... when we actually find ourselves an Atheist who wants to talk to us... is to Love him. Do nothing other than Love him. Regardless of what he says. If you can't Love him, ignore him entirely. Otherwise... LOVE THE HECK OUT OF HIM (quite literally).

love....you havent even said hello to me....psfft