Thread: So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

Originally Posted by Mark75

Actually, I don't think you're going to get much. Most of us here probably are agnostic about such a god. If I would be so bold as to speak on the behalf of the atheists here, we don't believe in that god because we don't have a reason to. Obviously this could be because of something we don't know yet which is why we don't say this god certainly doesn't exist. The main problem in asking to argue against this god is that we don't really even know what it is. Is it an intelligent being or some kind of force, energy or principal of the universe?

Good reply.

This is actually along the lines of what I was trying to bring about. The true (well, "true" in the Webster's sense) meaning of the word "atheist" is one that does not believe "God" exists. So, if those of you who are staunch atheists aren't really atheists, but are actually agnostic, why not get into a little more dialogue about what a possible God is, and adhere to it? So many "atheists" call themselves "atheists" because they they compare it to any one interpretation of "God." When breaking the word atheist down into what it actually means, are so many atheists not agnostic, instead?

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Teeheehee!!

Well look, I am an atheist because I'm not the type of person to believe in something just cuz someone told me it can exist. It's the same reason why I don't believe in fairies, although I would love to believe in fairies - they are friggin' awesome.

I also feel like a very strong person who doesn't need the crutch of a god... Sooo, if I were emotionally very weak, I would completely disregard the fact that there's no evidence for any kind of supernatural being because I would NEED to believe in god. But, alas, I don't.

But I am not opposed to a god existing. I just can't bring myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Not even if I wanted to.

Anyway look, no atheist is going to say "I know for a fact there is no god."

So believing in the possibility of there being some sort of consciousness that created what we perceive is a "physical universe" is nothing but a crutch? How so?

And if you choose not to say what the moniker you choose to go by implies, are you not lying to yourself?

[edit: Oh...and you have the definition of "Agnostic" wrong, by the way. ]

Wait, what? Can you rephrase that, O?

I don't think god exists. I am an atheist.

The only reason why atheists such as myself can't say that the chance of god existing is absolutely ZERO is because you can't say something like that and call yourself any kind of intellectual.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Wait, what? Can you rephrase that, O?

I don't think god exists. I am an atheist.

The only reason why atheists such as myself can't say that the chance of god existing is absolutely ZERO is because you can't say something like that and call yourself any kind of intellectual.

Sure.

An Agnostic believes that the nature of a God (a Supreme Being / Entity / Consciousness) is either unknown, or unknowable. They do not adhere to any set belief - that a God does or does not exist.

An atheist makes an assertion that a God (in any common interpretation - "a supreme being," a "universal consciousness," whatever) does not exist.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

why not get into a little more dialogue about what a possible God is, and adhere to it?

I guess the reason you don't really see that happening from that angle is because these "atheists" would avoid using the word god in such a broad context. The word god, thanks to certain religions, has come to own a fairly specific meaning. They'd probably tend to ask and ponder about such things more broadly like "how did existence start, if at all?" and would generally not tend to necessarily look at it from a creator-being angle. Not that such an angle is inherently invalid or wrong, I think it's just a matter of the fact that these people tend to think that a creator-being just doesn't seem probable.

Personally, the only significant thing which suggests a creator-being is -- and don't laugh -- that the universe is ordered, structured and, if you will "designed to allow life". But that I would address simply by saying that a functional universe is an ordered universe and that since life requires something of a stable environment to exist, it's the only sort of universe life would exist in.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So many "atheists" call themselves "atheists" because they they compare it to any one interpretation of "God." When breaking the word atheist down into what it actually means, are so many atheists not agnostic, instead?

Yes. The reason I think they use it is one of convenience. "Agnosticism" seems to imply uniform uncertainty about all gods when this isn't really the case. The people in question, however, are quite convinced that certain gods don't exist. Those being the ones most discussed. It's just an easy way of quickly conveying one's stance, but it certainly does cause problems in that it also conveys a uniform certainty that all gods do not exist.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I guess the reason you don't really see that happening from that angle is because these "atheists" would avoid using the word god in such a broad context. The word god, thanks to certain religions, has come to own a fairly specific meaning. They'd probably tend to ask and ponder about such things more broadly like "how did existence start, if at all?" and would generally not tend to necessarily look at it from a creator-being angle. Not that such an angle is inherently invalid or wrong, I think it's just a matter of the fact that these people tend to think that a creator-being just doesn't seem probable.

Personally, the only significant thing which suggests a creator-being is -- and don't laugh -- that the universe is ordered, structured and, if you will "designed to allow life". But that I would address simply by saying that a functional universe is an ordered universe and that since life requires something of a stable environment to exist, it's the only sort of universe life would exist in.

Ok. I see what you mean about the labeling of "it" as a "God." Because of what we know of most religions, that could be a huge problem. In saying "God," I, too, am trying to minimize a broad idea into something that's probably can't be defined in one word, seeing as how there are so many different interpretations of it.

But, (and I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Holographic Paradigm but...), the way I see it, there is a very substantial argument for the existence of a Universal Consciousness (which, yes, could be interpreted as "God", and kind of where I'm, personally, coming from), in that what lies beyond our physical senses (the waves of energy/vibration/whatever that we pick up and interpret as sight/sound/etc.) is just a system of waves. IF that is true, then I believe that it presents a case for what is commonly called "God," albeit in a less-restrictive form.

Not that any of that is definitive, of course (and it's hard enough to double-back on shit that I've read before, when I've been drinking now ), but it is but one of many reasons why I think a staunch position of "atheism," as opposed to agnosticism, isn't all that logical.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Yes. The reason I think they use it is one of convenience. "Agnosticism" seems to imply uniform uncertainty about all gods when this isn't really the case. The people in question, however, are quite convinced that certain gods don't exist. Those being the ones most discussed. It's just an easy way of quickly conveying one's stance, but it certainly does cause problems in that it also conveys a uniform certainty that all gods do not exist.

I get what you're saying though, Mark. It does come down to semantics, more or less. But that's part of what I'm trying to get people to realize.