• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conflicted Atheism

Wake said:
The more I read books like Dawkins and Hitchens, the more atheistic I became.

Last night a few things were bothering me about atheism, so now I don't know with certainty what the truth is.

1) If god didn't create all of existence, then...? All of existence couldn't have "always existed," could it? Everything must have a beginning and an end, so how could existence have begun without the possibility of a deity?
Click to expand...
You are trying to frame the universe by what your tiny corner of it appears to be to you. What most people do not understand about the big bang is that time isnt relevant to it. Before the big bang the universe did not exist that means that neither space or time existed. Without time there isnt a beginning or a cause.

2) If a god created everything, then that god must also have had a beginning and will certainly have an end. Could it also be true that the Creator was created, and if so, by who?
Click to expand...
Religion cannot answer this question nor any real question. And it just isnt a question for science.

3) The only explanation for the beginning of life excluding a deity would be abiogenesis. How is that possible? Does the Higgs-Boson particle play a role in creation?
Click to expand...
What creation would that be? If you are thinking in terms of a deity created something then you are talking about religion. Religious matters defy science because it is the fantasy of the human mind that came up with religious concepts.

4) If heaven and hell exist, they must both have a beginning and an end.
Click to expand...
More religious talk, and a pointless question.

That's it in a nutshell. How can this be explained from an atheistic perspective?
Click to expand...
Simple, most of what you presented here are questions that religious people ask and lack any real context in reality.
 
Thorgasm said:
Atheism is the lack of belief in God, not the belief in the lack of a God.
Click to expand...

exactly, for them what is the point of inventin god being the only existence if they cannot force then whatever anyother say is bc they mean god too

any word makin sense but different then watever everyone seem to know is immediately labeled as seekin for attention and from that god, as if u can b different then all just to get smthg exclusive from all source

believin is an individual act meaning to confirm an objective fact that the conscious individually is never its reason

so freedom is surely involved there

that is how some prefer to believe science bc they can get cash out of it, which is not wrong of course
others prefer to believe absolute abstractions mayb also bc they can get conscious properties out of it, so not wrong either
while religious types are clearly what prefer to believe a supernatural power, they call it love what one livin can do
 
but wat is totally fascinatin is when people reject what they dont prefer to believe as nonexistin at all ever
those are called hypocrits, liars, cheap opportunists, animals, lackin the min of conscious quality, havin no right to exist
 
how a preference become the only thing there, or worse the opposite of what exist to call it wrong anyways

a belief is a preference individual conscious have bc they hold it for themselves for positive constant mean in being existing

but it is surely out then a reference of standard which guarantee the nothing backin whatever standards too

how a preference become a force will to invade the ground as being the only thing, kill the word belief sirs u cant use it anymore, as i said u r not qualified to use words so it is surely a sign of decadence edges makin the end certain
 
Paul Austin said:
Lol yes there is. I know thats an uncomfortable fact for many atheists to face, but it is the reality.

Aetheist have a belief in no gods, but without proof, & without all the answers, therefore, just as with religious people, their belief requires a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist, and that does not require that I believe there are no gods. It merely requires that I don't believe in god, which is a different thing. Withholding belief is not the same as believing that something does not exist.

If someone said to me "There is a sea of molten plutonium at the center of the Universe", but offered nothing but their belief that it was true as evidence, I wouldn't believe that it doesn't exist. I have no way (currently) of proving that it doesn't exist. Instead I would simply dismiss the notion of believing it. Even if it turns out I was 'wrong', it was still the reasonable thing to do to dismiss it. This is what I do with belief in god. Utterly dismiss the notion of believing it, because there is zero evidence to behave otherwise. This is a difficult thing, it seems, for believers to grasp.

Non-belief =/= belief in non-existence

Thus, there is no leap of faith. I realize that believers want desperately to believe that faith is involved, but there is no faith.

Furthermore, even if there was, you would not have succeeded in arguing for belief in god. You would merely have succeeded in arguing against belief in non-existence. Arguing against belief in non-existence does not help your argument for belief in god, not even one little tiny bit. I know it is comforting to believe "You do it (faith), too, so there", but that really is nothing but a way to distract yourself from the fact that you apparently have nothing.

*Note: Some atheists do make an argument against the existence of god, and believe that god does not exist. But, this path is not necessary to count oneself an atheist.
 
Paschendale said:
Show me proof that there are no unicorns. There isn't any. Other than there never being evidence of unicorns existing. The same is true of gods, ghosts, vampires, a soul, karma, ESP, witchcraft, or any other supernatural things. If there is no evidence, then it's stupid to assume that something does exist. By your logic here, it's a leap of faith to assume that there's no gorilla in my kitchen. Should I act as if there is, or assume that since I cannot see or hear it, nor is it interacting with the items in my kitchen, nor is it weighing down the floor, nor exerting gravitational force on anything in the room, it's almost assuredly not there?
Click to expand...

I know. There could be a gorilla in your kitchen every time there are no people there or cameras to watch or other devices to detect it. It could be popping into existence every time it can't be detected and then popping out of existence whenever it can. Some people equate this popping out of existence to death. Just so you know, you might be actually killing a gorilla every time you walk into your kitchen!! And there is no way to tell if it is true or not so maybe you should stay out of your kitchen. Just a thought.
 
Paschendale said:
Show me proof that there are no unicorns.
Click to expand...

Why would I want to do that?

Its not relevant to anything.

There isn't any. Other than there never being evidence of unicorns existing. The same is true of gods, ghosts, vampires, a soul, karma, ESP, witchcraft, or any other supernatural things. If there is no evidence, then it's stupid to assume that something does exist.
Click to expand...

You dont seem to be able to differentiate between faith in something presented as fictional, & something believed to be real.

Have you actually read the thread & thought about things?

By your logic here, it's a leap of faith to assume that there's no gorilla in my kitchen.
Click to expand...

It would require a leap of faith for me to believe that, yes.

How else would I come to that conclusion without evidence?

Should I act as if there is, or assume that since I cannot see or hear it, nor is it interacting with the items in my kitchen, nor is it weighing down the floor, nor exerting gravitational force on anything in the room, it's almost assuredly not there?
Click to expand...

I wouldnt know. Im not there...

Have you thought of talking to someone about this?
 
Dezaad said:
I am an atheist, and that does not require that I believe there are no gods. It merely requires that I don't believe in god, which is a different thing.
Click to expand...

To not believe in god, without evidence requires a leap of faith.

It really is simple.

I realize that believers want desperately to believe that faith is involved, but there is no faith.
Click to expand...

Well Im not a "believer", so I cant answer that from a personal perspective.

However its interesting to note how many "religous atheists", assume everyone 'against' them must be a "believer".
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You are trying to frame the universe by what your tiny corner of it appears to be to you. What most people do not understand about the big bang is that time isnt relevant to it. Before the big bang the universe did not exist that means that neither space or time existed. Without time there isnt a beginning or a cause.
Click to expand...

Simultaneous causation, also the big bang represents teh begining of phuysical time in this universe.

Religion cannot answer this question nor any real question. And it just isnt a question for science.
Click to expand...

God has alwasy beeng thought of a necessary being, or uncreated.

What creation would that be? If you are thinking in terms of a deity created something then you are talking about religion. Religious matters defy science because it is the fantasy of the human mind that came up with religious concepts.
Click to expand...

Begging the question ...
 
Paul Austin said:
To not believe in god, without evidence requires a leap of faith.
Click to expand...
So you've taken a leap of faith then? Because for any given defined god, you either believe they exist or you don't (accepting that they might is still not believing they do).
 
iangb said:
Link me to it? Google does not help me here.
Click to expand...

Why do so many people form opinions, without research, & then demand links?

Life is much easier when you get the evidence first, then have the debate.

I am going to assume you have no theological background as this seems to be something youre not aware of.

Basically, in short, most of the attempts to redefine atheism are actually based on the contradiction we've been talking about, & the fact that atheism turned out to require a similar leap of faith to theism.

Its named after Charles Bradlaugh, founder of the national secular society, who was one of the first to try & redefine atheism (although it isnt specific to his arguments).

Basically the "religous" atheist is compelled to redefine atheism as atheism shares to much ground to theism, contradicting itself, so its pushed by the "religous" atheist further & further from atheism, to an agnostic position, to try & defend & protect the need of the atheist to retain his faith & belief.

You do realize that a large percentage of atheists can be defined as religous, dont you?

Most religions can be broken down into core components and the belief in a diety turned out not to be a requirement. It turns out the commonality is a belief in an unknown, and theist merely place god as that unknown.

All the other components are often shared (in fact you see that today with many goddless religions).

So when someone throws up a redefined defenition of atheism, in order to protect their faith of atheism its called Bradlaughs fallacy, as its using a religous disconnect to defend a religous faith, in the supposed name of anti-religion.

Look at the thread here, look at the arguments & disconnects.

Youre watching religous faith, & the defense of religous faith in action.

I bet 90% of the people arguing havent actually studied theology in a formal sense, most look blankly when you mention Bradlaughs fallacy, are unaware of genetic links to religion, & religous activities & will use illogical disconnects & excessive emotional responses, to defend their faith.

Its also why so many go after christians, its the need to attack a competing faith, to bolster their own faith, because their own faith can no more be proven than any other religions.

This has long been observed.

Real atheism is essentially a "religion" & redefined atheism is merely an attempt by a "religous" man to distance himself from the fact that his attack on religion is actually founded in "religion" itself.

Turns out the world discovered atheism & theism are actually two sides of the same coin.
 
HonestJoe said:
So you've taken a leap of faith then? Because for any given defined god, you either believe they exist or you don't.
Click to expand...

The world is not binary.

However, away from religion, yes, I have made many leaps of faith, we all do.

Im also aware of them though & have no compulsion to form disconnects.

I also cant be hypnotized, which might sound like a random aside, but it is connected, in terms of suggestability, & belief.

It seems Im not "built" to be religous, theist, or atheist.
 
Paul Austin said:
Why do so many people form opinions, without research, & then demand links?
Click to expand...
Because that's the way proper debating works. When you wrote proper papers in school, you had to cite your sources to prove that you weren't just making it up. You have shown a complete aversion to providing absolutely any kind of sources to back up any of your fringe views. That's fine, but just don't act all baffled when people try to call you on it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Because that's the way proper debating works.
Click to expand...

No. Its not.

When you wrote proper papers in school, you had to cite your sources to prove that you weren't just making it up.
Click to expand...

Exactly! You had to do your research first. You didnt just spout nonsense & then when your teacher told you that you were wrong throw insults at him and demand he provide you with links.

You have shown a complete aversion to providing absolutely any kind of sources to back up any of your fringe views
Click to expand...

Would they be the fringe views that turned out to be mainstream, backed by links, in response to your nonsense attacks that your yet to provide any links to?

I thought so...

So hows it going with your hunt for links that no ones ever heard of a link between genetics and religion/belief?

Still got none?

Seriously, stop digging, youre only making me see you as less & less credible.

Why not go read what all these non-existant (according to your argument) people have said on the subject:

genetic religion - Google Search
 
Paul Austin said:
No. Its not.



Exactly! You had to do your research first. You didnt just spout nonsense & then when your teacher told you that you were wrong throw insults at him and demand he provide you with links.



Would they be the fringe views that turned out to be mainstream, backed by links, in response to your nonsense attacks that your yet to provide any links to?

I thought so...

So hows it going with your hunt for links that no ones ever heard of a link between genetics and religion/belief?

Still got none?

Seriously, stop digging, youre only making me see you as less & less credible.

Why not go read what all these non-existant (according to your argument) people have said on the subject:

genetic religion - Google Search
Click to expand...
A) What the "god gene" is, is a predisposition to believe in supernatural things, which is rooted in one's mental weakness. Religion can not be genetic. Children are what they are raised to be. You can't say that you can take a baby from christian parents and put him somewhere else and he'll turn out christian because of his genetics.
B) You're not a teacher, you're someone who makes fringe, unsourced statements.
C) Why is it that every thread you're posting in you are met with an unbelievable amount of resistance?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A) What the "god gene" is, is a predisposition to believe in supernatural things, which is rooted in one's mental weakness. Religion can not be genetic. Children are what they are raised to be. You can't say that you can take a baby from christian parents and put him somewhere else and he'll turn out christian because of his genetics.
B) You're not a teacher, you're someone who makes fringe, unsourced statements.
C) Why is it that every thread you're posting in you are met with an unbelievable amount of resistance?
Click to expand...

A) Is there only one link on that page?

B) Ad hominem

C) Fallacy

Got any links yet, or are you just going to follow me around with fallacies & ad hominems?

Remind me, aside from your openning statement, that turned out to be wrong, have you contributed anything on topic since?

All Ive seen is one giant sulk, full of ad hominems & untruths.

Now wheres those links?

They dont exist, do they, because you were wrong.

Get over it & stop stalking me.
 
Paul Austin said:
Why do so many people form opinions, without research, & then demand links?

Life is much easier when you get the evidence first, then have the debate.

I am going to assume you have no theological background as this seems to be something youre not aware of.

Basically, in short, most of the attempts to redefine atheism are actually based on the contradiction we've been talking about, & the fact that atheism turned out to require a similar leap of faith to theism.

Its named after Charles Bradlaugh, founder of the national secular society, who was one of the first to try & redefine atheism (although it isnt specific to his arguments).

Basically the "religous" atheist is compelled to redefine atheism as atheism shares to much ground to theism, contradicting itself, so its pushed by the "religous" atheist further & further from atheism, to an agnostic position, to try & defend & protect the need of the atheist to retain his faith & belief.

You do realize that a large percentage of atheists can be defined as religous, dont you?

Most religions can be broken down into core components and the belief in a diety turned out not to be a requirement. It turns out the commonality is a belief in an unknown, and theist merely place god as that unknown.

All the other components are often shared (in fact you see that today with many goddless religions).

So when someone throws up a redefined defenition of atheism, in order to protect their faith of atheism its called Bradlaughs fallacy, as its using a religous disconnect to defend a religous faith, in the supposed name of anti-religion.

Look at the thread here, look at the arguments & disconnects.

Youre watching religous faith, & the defense of religous faith in action.

I bet 90% of the people arguing havent actually studied theology in a formal sense, most look blankly when you mention Bradlaughs fallacy, are unaware of genetic links to religion, & religous activities & will use illogical disconnects & excessive emotional responses, to defend their faith.

Its also why so many go after christians, its the need to attack a competing faith, to bolster their own faith, because their own faith can no more be proven than any other religions.

This has long been observed.

Real atheism is essentially a "religion" & redefined atheism is merely an attempt by a "religous" man to distance himself from the fact that his attack on religion is actually founded in "religion" itself.

Turns out the world discovered atheism & theism are actually two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...
All of your theorising here is based on your assumption that your definition of the word 'atheist' is the correct one, and is aimed purely at those atheists who actively reject God. I have no issue with your argument as aimed thusly - what I do take issue with is your constant and unchanging belief that your definition is the 'correct' one, and that I am merely trying to 'redefine' in order to somehow protect a faith that I do not hold.

You do not need belief in order to be an atheist.

As for the lack of research - just as it's difficult to believe in the absence of something you have never before considered, it's difficult to research something until you know the name. Now that I do know the name - Bradlaugh's fallacy - I'm trying to research it rather than believe a singluar post from an anonymous internet expert. Since Google provides me very little on a search, I am so far concluding that you're making up terms as an appeal to authority rather than anything else.

I did find the excerpt from Bradlaugh which you're probably referring to:

"The Atheist does not say "There is no God," but he says, "I know not what you mean by God: I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I can not deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me." ~An appeal for atheism, Bradlaugh.

However, that is simply a philosophical position as taken by Bradlaugh - it isn't fallacious. In fact, the fallacy would be one which you are making, by insisting that every use of the term atheism which differs from your own version is incorrect - probably best defined as the genetic fallacy.
 
Atheist means no deities. An atheist can believe in non-deity god(s), supernatural stuff, ghosts, reincarnation, whatever, just no deities. It's not complicated.
 
iangb said:
All of your theorising here is based on your assumption that your definition of the word 'atheist' is the correct one
Click to expand...

Actually, reread it & the opposite is true.

The whole point about re-defenition is that its re-defining a word, therefore it relies on the change, & re-defining words.

I have no issue with your argument as aimed thusly - what I do take issue with is your constant and unchanging belief that your definition is the 'correct' one, and that I am merely trying to 'redefine' in order to somehow protect a faith that I do not hold.
Click to expand...

But thats the point, the word has been redefined, & including for the reasons given.

You do not need belief in order to be an atheist.
Click to expand...

Yes you do, hence religous atheism, but even looking at this thread, look at the need for people to deny a leap of faith.

I can hold my hands up & admit to all sorts of leaps of faith, most of the world can, so why have people needed to make an irrational defense against such a natural thing here?

To protect faith & beliefs.

You dont do that unless you have them.


As for the lack of research - just as it's difficult to believe in the absence of something you have never before considered, it's difficult to research something until you know the name
Click to expand...

If you study a subject then names come up.

You cant blame me, or attribute it to fallacies, if you havent put the work in.

If you threw Issac Newton into the discussion, & Id never heard of him, it wouldnt be your fault, nor would it suggest a fallacy, it would just prove that I hadnt studied that area.

In the case of Bradlaugh, Bradlaughs fallacy, etc. It is such a significant thing that even cursory study should have thrown up his name & views & debates surrounding him & his theories.

As I said in the previous post the only thing it demonstrates is youve not really studied theology.

I did find the excerpt from Bradlaugh which you're probably referring to:

"The Atheist does not say "There is no God," but he says, "I know not what you mean by God: I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I can not deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me." ~An appeal for atheism, Bradlaugh.

However, that is simply a philosophical position as taken by Bradlaugh - it isn't fallacious.
Click to expand...

Youre clearly missing whats said.

Yes, as I stated in a previous post that quote does show Bradlaughs philosophical position, but its significant because it was an attempt to redifine atheism (its why I knew you hadnt studied the subject because its famous for that reason).

What you are missing (because you hadnt studied & hadnt heard of Bradlaugh) is everything after that, from Bradlaughs fallacy, up to court rulings on the religous aspect of atheism.

What you have found there is the very first step on a journey.

What I was trying to explain was where the journey went next.

I guess I failed, but keep reading, youre on a path now pointed in the right direction, so maybe you can find people with the ability, time, & inclination to take you down that path (assuming you have a genuine interest).

But yes, you have found an actual redifining of the word, as it happened, so thats a start.

Keep going & you will get there.
 
Paul Austin said:
To not believe in god, without evidence requires a leap of faith.

It really is simple.
Click to expand...

It is simple. It requires no faith to not believe in anything that has no evidence of existing ever.
 
Ikari said:
It is simple. It requires no faith to not believe in anything that has no evidence of existing ever.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that?

No.

Thank you for demonstrating a leap of faith.

To believe, or not believe something, requires either evidence, or a leap of faith.

This is why Bradlaugh is famous, he tried to redifine atheism to combat this contradiction in atheist belief.

Its a hugely talked about subject. Im shocked no one heres encountered this before as I first hit it at school.

Its a mainstream debate. Even Dawkins has debated on this subject.

You can not prove the non-existance, therefore your left with faith.

Its not just applied to religion.
 
Aliens have not visited because of my faith in them not having done so?
 
Last edited:
Paul Austin said:
Can you prove that?
Click to expand...

Can I prove that it takes no faith to not believe in something that has never been demonstrated? It's logic. If there is no evidence of something existing ever, no measurement, no interactions, nothing of substance, there is no faith required to not believe in it. Is it belief to not believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy? Zeus or Athena? If the positive cannot be shown, the negative is the logical conclusion.

No, what we have here is your agenda. You want to reclassify atheism as some form of religion because it fits your arguments better, so you’re making things up in order to try to achieve that. Perhaps if people were professing knowledge of no deities you could say there was some amount of faith. But no one is claiming that knowledge, no one knows and in absence of any true measurement we’ll never really know. But repeatedly measuring zero for long periods of time is a strong indication of zero. And thus likely gods do not exist. And that is not a statement of faith, and it required no faith.

I don’t believe gods don’t exist, I don’t believe that gods exist. Those are two different statements. You’re merely trying to pigeonhole atheists into one definition for ease of your categorization and argument.
 
Ikari said:
Can I prove that it takes no faith to not believe in something that has never been demonstrated?
Click to expand...

Is it belief to not believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy? Zeus or Athena? If the positive cannot be shown, the negative is the logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

Addressed in earlier posts. We've already had the tooth fairy in the thread.

No, what we have here is your agenda. You want to reclassify atheism as some form of religion because it fits your arguments better, so you’re making things up in order to try to achieve that. Perhaps if people were professing knowledge of no deities you could say there was some amount of faith. But no one is claiming that knowledge, no one knows and in absence of any true measurement we’ll never really know. But repeatedly measuring zero for long periods of time is a strong indication of zero. And thus likely gods do not exist. And that is not a statement of faith, and it required no faith.
Click to expand...

Absolute fantasy.

Read the thread, the redefining began before I was born. This has already been discussed.

I don’t believe gods don’t exist, I don’t believe that gods exist. Those are two different statements. You’re merely trying to pigeonhole atheists into one definition for ease of your categorization and argument.
Click to expand...

Nope. Complete fallacy. I didnt define atheism as religous, courts decided that (amongst others).

So, having dealt with your fallacies & strawmen, back on topic.

Can you prove there is no good?

You cant. We can go on in circles until the end of time, but the belief in god, or disbelief, will remain unproven, & require a leap of faith.

You can keep trying if you want, but in the absence of proof, which you cant provide, the answer will always be faith & belief.

Funny how away from religion this isnt a problem, isnt it?

I wonder why... (Or perhaps the answer is in previous posts?)
 
RGacky3 said:
Simultaneous causation, also the big bang represents teh begining of phuysical time in this universe.
Click to expand...
Seems to be a self-contradictory statement (if time does not exist, then there is no past/present/future). Also seems to contradict the evidence that time can change based on its interaction with space (Time Dilation).
No space no time, no time no measurement of time is relevant.


God has alwasy beeng thought of a necessary being, or uncreated.
Click to expand...
Well since humans created the concept of gods it is meaningless to go any further than that.



Begging the question ...
Click to expand...
Prove that any religion is based on empirical proofs. Oh yea thats right all religions are based on the beliefs of humans...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom