I am an atheist

[_A]

The point i’m trying to make is that just as i would be foolish to say dogmatically that God exists, someone else would be just as unwise to say dogmatically that God does not exist.

One could say, however, that the subject has been researched by the worlds finest minds for thousands of years with *not one shred *of evidence being found. This period of study has also failed to produce one falsifiable hypothesis.
To me, this enormous lack of evidence can only lead to one reasonable conclusion.

 

[_A]

Sadly, this section on Jesus is at best a bit incoherant. Perhaps a single question asked can be given a full and thorough answer. This part of your post is just too messy for me to handle without taking multiple lengthy posts to do so. I will say this much. This part of your post shows that there are huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding of Catholic teaching on the subject of Jesus.

OK, lets take this apart one at a time.
Yahweh is one god (and I presume the one *you *worship, at least that is who was described in the bibles at my catholic school as their ‘god’, anyway, correct me if I am wrong there), but says one time that “thou shalt have no gods before me”. There are other places where he refers to other gods. (I would have to look up the quote but it is something where he worries that someone will *‘become as one of us *’) There is also the part where he says that he is jealous. Jealous of what? If it isn’t something godlike, he would have no reason to be jealous…

 

[Daddums]

.
I don’t believe in the existence of god.
I don’t believe that there is no god.

It has never been my understanding of the definition of an atheist as someone having no belief one way or the other about the existence of a deity. My understanding is that an atheist afirmatively believes there is no deity. I think others may have the same understanding of the word that I do and this may be the source of the confusion.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

**atheist **

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly -ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying the Merriam-Webster definition is wrong. If that is not what you are saying than I am completely misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Daddums

 

[_A]

WOw a double negative. YOUR SUCH A GENIUS

srry i had to put you on the spot

If you really don’t understand, what I mean is that an atheist who has not adopted the belief that there is definately no god could still be an atheist.
Of course, if you were just looking to be insulting over an error I made, thanks for saying so out loud.

 

[_A]

Does it make sense for each of us to sincerely consider with an open mind what we each have to say to one another?

It does. I have considered that some of you are suggesting that the tiny chance that god exists is enough for serious doubt. I disagree. There have been decades of research and not one shred of evidence in favour of alien abduction. Since I am certain that you cannot disprove alien abduction, I would be curious to know how much of your life you would be willing to spend protecting yourself from such an abduction.
It is wrong to require you to prove that alien abduction is not happening. If someone makes such a claim, the burden of proof is on them. Just like if someone claims that there is a god and they know somehow what that god wants, the burden of proof is on them - I haven’t got enough time to personally disprove all the gods that are out there, I know that most of them must be false (the ones that are mutually exclusive), I simply have not seen reason to follow any of the remaining ones. If there were someone trying to recruit for catholics, for example, they would have to convince me that what they had was real. This is not done anywhere, as far as I can tell. Some have claimed evidence, but eyewitness accounts might indicate a miracle, or a David Copperfield performance. The bible itself is not evidence of anything except printing.
Where is the evidence?

 

[Mirdath]

It has never been my understanding of the definition of an atheist as someone having no belief one way or the other about the existence of a deity. My understanding is that an atheist afirmatively believes there is no deity. I think others may have the same understanding of the word that I do and this may be the source of the confusion.

Atheism comes in more than one flavor. ‘Strong’ atheists say there is no God; ‘weak’ atheists take the much more defensible stance of I have no reason to think there is a God.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

I’ve a question for you A, if you care to answer it:

In all the scholarly journals and scientific research in all the libraries and databases in all the world, what percentage of this vast body of knowledge do you know and understand? would you say less than 0.001%?

Yes, i know what you mean. Me, i know far less and one one-thousandth of a percent of all the scholarly knowledge of all the world.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are vastly more intelligent and learned than myself. Lets say you actually know 0.1% of all the knowledge of the world. You would be an extremely bright and knowledgeable person, don’t you think?

If you knew 0.1% of everything there is to know, why, i think you would be justified and claiming to be the smartest person in the world! Do you agree?

No doubt your intelligence score is greater than mine! And no doubt you are quite correct in saying that it is impossible to know for certain what percentage of all the world’s knowledge you have learned and comprehend. I believe, however, one might make an educated guess that it would be impossible to know more than one tenth of one percent of all there is to know. This is just common sense that even someone as dumb as a box of rocks like myself comprehends.

Very well, then, lets say you actually do know 0.1% of all the collected knowledge in all the earth. The question to consider, then, is this:

How do you know that in the 99.9% of all the knowledge in all the world that you know absolutely nothing about there is not some convincing evidence that God exists?

Where have I seen this before…

 

[Daddums]

Atheism comes in more than one flavor. ‘Strong’ atheists say there is no God; ‘weak’ atheists take the much more defensible stance of I have no reason to think there is a God.

OK. So the weaker the atheism, the more defensible it is?

Daddums

 

[Pax]

OK, lets take this apart one at a time.
Yahweh is one god (and I presume the one *you *worship, at least that is who was described in the bibles at my catholic school as their ‘god’, anyway, correct me if I am wrong there), but says one time that “thou shalt have no gods before me”. There are other places where he refers to other gods. (I would have to look up the quote but it is something where he worries that someone will *‘become as one of us *’) There is also the part where he says that he is jealous. Jealous of what? If it isn’t something godlike, he would have no reason to be jealous…

Please be advised that the OT scriptures make it abundantly clear that there is but one God and all false gods are mere idols. Take this verse as an example:

2 Kings 19:17-19

“Of a truth, O Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands, and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone; therefore they were destroyed. So now, O Lord our God, save us, I beseech thee, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O Lord, art God alone.”

The chosen people sometimes fell into idolatry. Needless to say, this is a serious offense against God. Scripture is the inspired word of God presented in the language of men. The language is designed to help us understand in human terms the seriousness of what is going on. God does not have human emotions, but we better understand the seriousness of the issues when the descriptions of God’s view contains human emotion.

God is described as a jealous God because of his relationship to the chosen people. The chosen people are described in spousal terms and as a bride. This terminology is used so that men will understand the close bond and love that God has with his people. This also explains the use of the term “jealousy.” Jealousy is not an emotion attributable to God, but it helps explain the seriousness of God’s relationship with the chosen people. It also helps to explain the ramifications of their actions should they play the harlot and worship idols.

Spouses are jealous of the time they spend together. The time spent together is essential to the relationship. There exists a relationship and covenant between God and the chosen people. The chosen people cannot divide their attentions in this relationship or abandon it without damaging the relationship. God wants to nourish the relationship between himself and his people. He nurtures and guards this relationship. This is best understood by us in terms of human emotions. This is even more true for the OT Jews.

I hope this helps.

 

[Mirdath]

OK. So the weaker the atheism, the more defensible it is?

The words ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ are used in a slightly different sense here

Strong atheism makes a positive assertion: God does not exist. This is a problem since the burden of proof is on the positive, and there basically isn’t a satisfactory proof either way. ‘There is no God’ is just as much a statement of faith as ‘there is a God’.

Weak atheism says there’s no reason to think there is a God. It’s a negative statement; the burden of proof is on anyone debating the atheist.

 

[Daddums]

The words ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ are used in a slightly different sense here

Strong atheism makes a positive assertion: God does not exist. This is a problem since the burden of proof is on the positive, and there basically isn’t a satisfactory proof either way. ‘There is no God’ is just as much a statement of faith as ‘there is a God’.

Weak atheism says there’s no reason to think there is a God. It’s a negative statement; the burden of proof is on anyone debating the atheist.

So strong doesn’t mean strong in the sense that everyone understands it to mean and weak doesn’t mean weak in the sense that everyone understands it and it’s not possible to know what atheist means anymore unless there is an adjective in front of it. I think I get it. Since I am allowed to define what everything means I can state that my assertion is a non-assertion by definition and thereby get around the requirement that the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. Now I can be an atheist without having to defend atheism. I presume I also get to define what constitutes satisfactory proof, evidence and a reason to think there is God.

Daddums

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It is quite simple, really. If there were evidence in that pile, it would be BIG news. There has never been evidence that any god exists. If you have some, go ahead and show it off. I am guessing that it is the personal experience kind of evidence which is impossible to falsify.
I could be wrong, but if there were evidence of the existence of a god, it would not be so difficult for those on this forum to produce some.

Fair enough A! I shall share the objective evidence that i find most convincing. I promise not to present anything subjective that you cannot refute.

Out of respect for you i won’t just shove ideas down your throat. I’ll discuss them with you in a thoughtful and respectful dialog and try to answer any questions or objections you might present.

Suppose someone were to say God had spoken to him and dared you to prove God (whom you know does not exist) in fact did not speak to him. Can you imagine what you might ask him or say to him to demonstrate the falsity of his claim, and what might that be?

 

[_A]

I hope this helps.

you can’t dismiss the words of the bible. You cannot rewrite.
Deuteronomy 6:14-15 says quite unambiguously that …you should not go after other gods…
other gods…and since it is Yahweh saying it, it has to be true.
Also in Genesis 3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us,
As one of us. That refers to ‘us gods’.
So good of you to just toss it aside, but even your ‘jealous god’ Yahweh knows he is not alone as a god.
How many gods do you say you have?
Please be advised that the OT scriptures make it abundantly clear that there is but one God.
Forgive me if I take the words of your bible instead of your own writings as authority on the catholic faith. Yahweh knows, and admits here and there that there are more than one god. You said just a few posts ago something about a trinity - which also suggests more than one god…
So we have proved that the bible mentions more than one god in different ways. No worries, let’s move on to something that is more clear.

About Yahweh and his great flood…
Why did Yahweh kill every living creature except for Noah and his family, and 2 of each kind of animal? (re- the great flood)
There must be a g

 

[_A]

So strong doesn’t mean strong in the sense that everyone understands it to mean and weak doesn’t mean weak in the sense that everyone understands it and it’s not possible to know what atheist means anymore unless there is an adjective in front of it. I think I get it. Since I am allowed to define what everything means I can state that my assertion is a non-assertion by definition and thereby get around the requirement that the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. Now I can be an atheist without having to defend atheism. I presume I also get to define what constitutes satisfactory proof, evidence and a reason to think there is God.

Daddums

it is simple. Since there have been people looking for centuries, all the evidence collected will be enlightening, even if it cannot be called ‘proof’ (proofs only exist in a mathematicians mind anyway).
Not one bit of scientific evidence has been produced in all that time. That to me is enough to say that there are no gods. If someone appears with evidence to the contrary, I will look again, but for now, it would be ludicrous for me, knowing what I know to behave as if there really were a god.
If there is a god, you will, no doubt produce either evidence, or a darn good excuse for not having evidence.

 

[_A]

Fair enough A! I shall share the objective evidence that i find most convincing. I promise not to present anything subjective that you cannot refute.

Out of respect for you i won’t just shove ideas down your throat. I’ll discuss them with you in a thoughtful and respectful dialog and try to answer any questions or objections you might present.

Suppose someone were to say God had spoken to him and dared you to prove God (whom you know does not exist) in fact did not speak to him. Can you imagine what you might ask him or say to him to demonstrate the falsity of his claim, and what might that be?

I would ask, since he were the one making a claim, that he produce the evidence to back it up.
It is not for me to disprove every wild claim that is made.
If I said that god spoke to me personally and told me that the catholics had it wrong, would it be up to *you *to prove *me *wrong?

 

[believers]

Hi there, I am an atheist. I enjoy computers, astronomy, chess and fishing.
If anyone would like to ask me some questions about any of that, I will be happy to answer.

Hi Atheist!

I’m just curious about your thoughts on the following… I suppose it falls under astronomy because it applies to everything including the sun… moon… stars… etc.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another. The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter is neither created nor destroyed. And, according to Albert Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

So… where did energy and matter come from if they couldn’t be created in the first place?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I would ask, since he were the one making a claim, that he produce the evidence to back it up.
It is not for me to disprove every wild claim that is made.
If I said that god spoke to me personally and told me that the catholics had it wrong, would it be up to *you *to prove *me *wrong?

Yes, absolutely! I would do the same.

I might, for example, say to him with a smile, “Tell me something God told you that only God himself would know.”

The question, then, is what is it that only God, if he really does exist, would know. What do you think that is A?

 

[_A]

Hi Atheist!

I’m just curious about your thoughts on the following… I suppose it falls under astronomy because it applies to everything including the sun… moon… stars… etc.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another. The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter is neither created nor destroyed. And, according to Albert Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

So… where did energy and matter come from if they couldn’t be created in the first place?

Those aren’t laws the way that the faithful interpret laws. The ‘law’ of conservation of energy would be overturned in favour of a more accurate description the moment one appears on the scientific scene.
As to where it all came from, people have theories - I don’t, since I am not cosmologist enough to need it. If I need to make a prediction which includes the origin of the universe, I would use the theory that explains the most, with the fewest complications.

How about you?

 

[_A]

Yes, absolutely! I would do the same.

I might, for example, say to him with a smile, “Tell me something God told you that only God himself would know.”

The question, then, is what is it that only God, if he really does exist, would know. What do you think that is A?

With all the charlatans going around using religion as their main tool for fraud, I would suspect any claim that someone is a god. If someone claimed to be Yahweh, for example, I would call the authorities and have him locked away. Either he is insane, and needs protection, or he really is Yahweh, in which case he needs to be tried for genocide.

 

[Mirdath]

So strong doesn’t mean strong in the sense that everyone understands it to mean and weak doesn’t mean weak in the sense that everyone understands it and it’s not possible to know what atheist means anymore unless there is an adjective in front of it. I think I get it.

They’re perfectly valid uses of the terms, they just aren’t the most common.

Either type of atheist will say ‘I don’t believe in God’; only one will add ‘because there isn’t one’.

Since I am allowed to define what everything means I can state that my assertion is a non-assertion by definition and thereby get around the requirement that the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. Now I can be an atheist without having to defend atheism.

For the weak atheist, what is there to defend? The strong atheist has to defend the assertion of God’s nonexistence, but the weak atheist does not make that assertion in the first place.

I presume I also get to define what constitutes satisfactory proof, evidence and a reason to think there is God.

Wouldn’t you request the same privileges if someone undertook to prove to you that there is no God?