How Can Atheists Remain Atheists?

[crazzeto]

crazzeto: No. I don’t claim to believe there is no god, and I don’t take it as a matter of “faith.” I simply don’t accept any of the god claims I have ever heard, your god or any other.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you claim that there is a god, and I don’t accept your claim, it is up to you to provide evidence of the existence of this god. Similarly, if I claimed that a purple invisible dragon existed, and you didn’t accept my claim, it would be up to me to provide evidence of the existence of this dragon.

The playing field is not “equal” and atheism is not a position of “faith.” Try again.

What a fantastic and weak attempt to deflect the question for someone who describes him self as “AntiTheist”… You can tell a lot about someone by the name they choose for them selves… St. Michael’s name for instance means “Who is like God”, that says a lot about him. Yours speaks equally about your current views about God (views I do sincerly hope you’ll be open enough to change).

So I would submit to you, explain (fully) Our Lady Of Guadalupe. And in the spirit of your chosen name, I’ll expect a good scientific answer to fully explain every aspect of the miricle.

 

[AntiTheist]

Since this is going to cause confusion, let me expound on the issue of atheism and “faith.”

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. If you don’t hold a belief in a god, then you’re an atheist. It doesn’t require faith.

Some atheists go further and actually believe that there are no gods. Some atheists simply reject all god claims.

Consider: do you believe in Bigfoot? If you don’t, is it a position of faith? Of course not. The rational position is to disbelieve in claims about Bigfoot until evidence is produced.

Some people argue that “not believing in god” is the same thing as “believing that no gods exist” and that this is all one big semantic argument that is a manifestation of the “intellectual hubris” of these atheists. These people are wrong, and I will explain with an example:

Say that I flip a coin and cover it so that no one can see which side is up. Someone comes along and says, “I believe the coin is heads up.” Let’s call this person a headsist (theist). I can say that I don’t believe the coin is heads up (an aheadsist or atheist). I don’t have to believe that the coin is tails-up to say that I don’t hold the belief that it’s heads up.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[MrZetterlund]

The “first argument” should be that there is exactly zero evidence for the existence of any god or supernatural being.

How about this? youtube.com/watch?v=krNRZf-fzyQ

 

[MikeSea]

As someone who considered himself an atheist for a number of years, I can tell you it is pretty easy to remain an atheist. You do not have to work very hard at it. It does not require much time or commitment and it does not put many restrictions on you. What is so hard about these things?

In some ways, I believe I am a better person for the time I spent in that wilderness.

 

[distracted]

I don’t think that watching a paranormal show is going to change someone’s belief in God. So many of these instances have been well contrived hoaxes.

What should be a consideration though are miracles. Healings that are not explained. Apparitions that lead the way to God. Obviously the Blessed Mother is a main one. There have been Eucharistic miracles. Fatima…the occurrence with the sun is documented even atheist Russian news.

The main thing is to befriend and pray for atheist. Not out of pity by any means. But so they can know the love of God and enjoy eternal life.

the truth of God… is what they need to know.

 

[AntiTheist]

What a fantastic and weak attempt to deflect the question for someone who describes him self as “AntiTheist”

It’s not an attempt to “deflect the question.” There’s zero evidence to believe that a god exists.

My name is “AntiTheist” because I wish to distinguish myself from atheists who wish that there were evidence for the existence of god. I’m quite glad that there is no evidence for the existence of any god because the idea, in many of its manifestations, is simply monstrous.

So I would submit to you, explain (fully) Our Lady Of Guadalupe.

No.

And in the spirit of your chosen name, I’ll expect a good scientific answer to fully explain every aspect of the miricle.

Congratulations on missing the point. We don’t have to “explain every aspect” of a claim in full scientific detail to reject a supernatural explanation. “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer.

 

[crazzeto]

Since this is going to cause confusion, let me expound on the issue of atheism and “faith.”

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. If you don’t hold a belief in a god, then you’re an atheist. It doesn’t require faith.

Some atheists go further and actually believe that there are no gods. Some atheists simply reject all god claims.

Consider: do you believe in Bigfoot? If you don’t, is it a position of faith? Of course not. The rational position is to disbelieve in claims about Bigfoot until evidence is produced.

Some people argue that “not believing in god” is the same thing as “believing that no gods exist” and that this is all one big semantic argument that is a manifestation of the “intellectual hubris” of these atheists. These people are wrong, and I will explain with an example:

Say that I flip a coin and cover it so that no one can see which side is up. Someone comes along and says, “I believe the coin is heads up.” Let’s call this person a headsist (theist). I can say that I don’t believe the coin is heads up (an aheadsist or atheist). I don’t have to believe that the coin is tails-up to say that I don’t hold the belief that it’s heads up.

Hope that clears things up.

Nope, it really doesn’t clear anything up… I hope you try harder in your next post and really think about the issue.

 

[AntiTheist]

Nope, it really doesn’t clear anything up… I hope you try harder in your next post and really think about the issue.

What’s not clear about my explanation?

Certainly, you wouldn’t assert that rejecting the claim that the coin is heads and actively believing that the coin is tails are the same thing.

 

[crazzeto]

What’s not clear about my explanation?

Certainly, you wouldn’t assert that rejecting the claim that the coin is heads and actively believing that the coin is tails are the same thing.

Oh it’s quite clear, that you really didn’t take the time to think it through. Your answers are really kind of automatic, and I think it’s highly unfortunate that you are not yet willing to fully consider God. I am hoping and praying though that one day you’ll get to the point of thinking about it for real.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Seriously, did anyone watch the video in my last post on this thread?

 

[AntiTheist]

Oh it’s quite clear, that you really didn’t take the time to think it through.

And yet you can’t find anything in my post that is incorrect, can you? Not terribly surprising.

MrZetterlund:

Seriously, did anyone watch the video in my last post on this thread?

Nope. Sound is dead on my computer anyway. What is it, “photo proof of miracles”? Could you explain exactly what you find so compelling in it?

Incidentally, you do know that there are photos of Hindu mystics levitating, right? And that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle apparently believed in photographic evidence of fairies?

 

[wmscott]

Well, a lot of people need a crutch in that moment. That’s one of the reasons I admire Carl Sagan so much, as he openly declared on his deathbed that he was an atheist; that kind of courage and strength of intellectual honesty is hard to come by.

Well, I guess God’s gift of free will has enabled many to separate themselves from the Beatific Vision and enter into eternal damnation. INHO this is hardly courage and strength, rather obstinacy to the end, as for intellectual honesty more like limited scope and insight to see beyond the physical realm. Peace.

 

[crazzeto]

And yet you can’t find anything in my post that is incorrect, can you? Not terribly surprising.

MrZetterlund: Nope. Sound is dead on my computer anyway. What is it, “photo proof of miracles”? Could you explain exactly what you find so compelling in it?

Incidentally, you do know that there are photos of Hindu mystics levitating, right? And that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle apparently believed in photographic evidence of fairies?

I find your post incomplete, and not very well thought out… You accept on faith that there is no God, because supposedly you can’t prove it. That’s not a very good reason not to accept God… That’s every bit as shallow as accepting God only because that’s what your parents believed.

 

[MrZetterlund]

[QUOTEAntiTheist;6197154]It’s not an attempt to “deflect the question.” There’s zero evidence to believe that a god exists.

My name is “AntiTheist” because I wish to distinguish myself from atheists who wish that there were evidence for the existence of god. I’m quite glad that there is no evidence for the existence of any god because the idea, in many of its manifestations, is simply monstrous.

So, in other words there is “zero evidence” for God because you don’t want Him to exist. Whether or not you find Him a happy chap doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.

 

[MrZetterlund]

And yet you can’t find anything in my post that is incorrect, can you? Not terribly surprising.

MrZetterlund: Nope. Sound is dead on my computer anyway. What is it, “photo proof of miracles”? Could you explain exactly what you find so compelling in it?

Incidentally, you do know that there are photos of Hindu mystics levitating, right? And that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle apparently believed in photographic evidence of fairies?

Well I don’t really care whether or not faries exist.
There were multiple examples of paranormal phenomena. One was Virgin Mary, one was of a preformed sacrament by her, and a couple others. In one there was 1,000 eye witnesses, in the other one, hundreds. You need to get your sound working on your computer.
Some people left comments about what happened:

This is a true occurrence I witnessed myself in 1968. There were no technology to create any deception. Thousands of people witnessed it every night for several years. It was after the 1967 war. It annoyed the government’s officials because light after sunset was prohibited fearing night air invasions by the Israeli’s. The government searched the entire location to discover the light source, but could not find it. Keep in mind that best tech back then was a B & W television.

i was there in 2001, i saw the light, i saw the doves that flew over me and i was cured after. it’s true, i was there.

 

[AntiTheist]

as for intellectual honesty more like limited scope and insight to see beyond the physical realm

Provide evidence that something exists beyond the physical realm.

crazzeto:

You accept on faith that there is no God, because supposedly you can’t prove it.

No, I don’t. This demonstrates that you did not read my post carefully at all.

I don’t accept the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. I don’t accept Cthulhu, Vishnu, your god, the Zoroastrian gods, fairies, leprechauns, pixies, or the Loch Ness Monster. In none of those cases is their an act of faith on my part.

MrZetterlund:

So, in other words there is “zero evidence” for God because you don’t want Him to exist.

No, that’s precisely not what I said. Go back and read again carefully: I’m glad that there is not any evidence for a god. My gladess comes after the observation that there is no evidence.

Well I don’t really care whether or not faries exist.

My point is that no sensible person would believe in fairies on the basis of testimony and photographs, just as no sensible person believes in aliens, despite the photographs of UFOs and the testimony of people – sometimes multiple people at once! – who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

I’m afraid that it sounds like you have nothing terribly miraculous to report. Now come on. Do you seriously think that a person who has spent time rationally thinking through his beliefs is going to suddenly change his mind because a bunch of people claim to have seen a ghost?

 

[bridgeforsale]

I ask that because I just watched “Paranormal Activity” and was like =

I just had a UFO siting (and an out of body experience), her name was Julie

 

[crazzeto]

AntiThiest,

You never cease to dissapoint me with your answers. All you’re doing is trying to avoid having to come up with good well thought out answers by claiming “well I don’t accept anything”. If that’s the case, why aren’t you “agnostic”, rather than an “antithiest”. I’m sorry, but again your very name doesn’t permit this kind of sloppyness. I expect better from you.

 

[spn82756]

I just had a UFO siting (and an out of body experience), her name was Julie

Julie? Hmmmm…I had an out of body experience with Terri!

 

[AndrewJaffery]

Nope, it really doesn’t clear anything up… I hope you try harder in your next post and really think about the issue.

Well…I’ll try to clear it up, if AntiTheist’s explaination didn’t.

Take monarchy for an example. The french throne has a few claiments, Bonapardists, Legitimists, and Orléamists. These people would be called Monarchists. Now, another person believes that their should be no king of France, they would be republicans. Trying to say that Republicans are Monarchists, I think anyways, is silly. They have a bgeliefe who should be king (No one) but that doesn’t make them Monarchists. Same with atheism…they have a position on which God exists (None), but that doesn’t make them religious.

It’s like that, but explained better and more clearly…and makes sense