I don't want to be an Atheist

[Remagoen]

(followerofchrist;40130)
And something I am a little hazy on, do you look at things in a scientific view or do you just want answers that can be backed up.
So I'm not confused, what's the difference?

 

[followerofchrist]

(Remagoen;40135)
So I'm not confused, what's the difference?
Yeah I know they sound alot alike. I have debated with a few people who won't accept anything unless they can find it in a biology book, chemistry, scientific journal, etc. I consider that to be the scientific point of view. If you see things even without your biology book and still accept it than I would say you are the other. Did I say that in an understandable fashion?

 

[Thunder1]

(Remagoen;40068)
In many, many conversations with many religious persons (Christian or not), most of them brought out the "All Atheist's are depressed" card. It looked like it was going to surface right now, and I wanted to put a stop to it before it happened. I didn't mean to be overly aggressive with it, just became a Pavlovian response, I guess.
Thunder1:I did not know that. There are many christians who suffer from depression. We are all just humans.

 

[Remagoen]

To followerofchrist,(followerofchrist;40136)
Yeah I know they sound alot alike. I have debated with a few people who won't accept anything unless they can find it in a biology book, chemistry, scientific journal, etc. I consider that to be the scientific point of view. If you see things even without your biology book and still accept it than I would say you are the other. Did I say that in an understandable fashion?
I'm definitely glad I asked because I had the two reversed. My answer would be neither and both, though if you do show my something out of a text book, it would be a benefit, but not everything you read is true. To me, if you make a claim, my first reaction would be skepticism. Next, I would test the idea and ask, "Could anything else have caused this?" If there is more than once answer to that, instantly the result you have has lost points. As I narrow the possibilities down, hopefully with actual tests, I would be left with fewer and fewer until I'm left with less than a handful, one, or none. Basically, it's the scientific method I use, only watered down a bit.However, sometimes, I can't actually take a survey of 1,000s of people, and so I must rely on the science journals and others you mentioned above. But I always try to check to see if the credentials of the scientist are ligit, number one, and what his peers think about his theory/hypothesis.Make sense?To Thunder1,(Thunder1)
I did not know that. There are many christians who suffer from depression. We are all just humans.
It happens. I do agree though, all humans do indeed suffer from it.

 

[followerofchrist]

Ok, well I have done this before, it takes alot more work on my part but I don't mind.So is their any questions that you've asked here where you didn't get satisfactory answers, or any new questions?

 

[Amira]

Dear Remagoen,
The weak/strong terms have only recently (matter of a year or two, I think) entered into the American lexicon, and it was coined by evangelicals, if I remember correctly. The terms, to me at least, seemed logical enough to adopt, and so I've went with it. Wikipedia has a decent explaination of it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtheismJust scroll down to the definitions and distinctions.
Yes, I did see that one. Of course, I am not sure Wiki is always the most reliable source of information.

But it certainly is handy.
You say, "Atheist is someone who does believe in god(s) of any kind." I assume you meant "doesn't"? (Also, you mention that you live in Europe. Is English a second language? If so and if that is the only mistake you have, pat yourself on the back! VERY good job!)
Sorry, that is a typo. It should indeed say atheist does notbelieve in god(s). I am bilingual, or close to it in any case (I started learning and speaking English at the age of 8, so quite a long time ago). I live in the UK currently (and I have lived in the USA too for a while many years ago, by-the-by).
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that knowledge is equal but divided among groups? If so, I can't agree totally with you, but I certainly see your reasoning behind it. However, because some knowledge isn't true (the world is flat, for instance), I would have to ask you back: Is it really equal?
No, I do not mean knowledge is equal or equally distributed. First of all, people have different ideas on what is knowledge and what is belief, for example (as you point out with your example on world being flat). What I meant was that because no one can know anything, everyone bases their beliefs on limited knowledge, which often is not even considered "legitimate knowledge" by others (cf. evolution, creationism).
To me, the idea of collective knowledge has it's ups and downs. It makes sense where, say, I would know items A through M while you know N through Z, and together we know the whole alphabet of items. We could combine our knowledge to get a complete view of the universe around us. That's the positive half of CK.The downside is that it assumes that all of our bits of information is true, and it's clear that not everything any of us knows is 100% factual. Therefore, how do we know my K and your Q is actually as they appear? More, there are some things that even the whole of humanity don't know. Assuming we go with the scientific version of the creation of the universe (for argument's sake), we have not a single idea of what happened before the Big Bang. So it could be said that I'm missing items D, E, and F and you're missing W, X, and Y. So just comparing notes won't help us.However! You still do bring up a valid point. Proper discussion with two or more open minds can certainly brings us at least one step closer to knowing what we seek. Comparing notes would still be a useful tool to understand things, with a grain of salt, of course.
I think the whole idea of collective knowledge is to use it as a sort of a philosophical aid to look at different matters. If you think of any society, there is always knowledge that is taken for granted, as it were, but at the same time it is not assumed every single person knows this (say, Shakespearean or Biblical quotes in many parts of Europe or the USA). As far as being very practical, I am not sure it is, but sometimes discussing with other people can be surprisingly helpful - especially those who know very little on a specific subject or who have an opposing view to your own (well, within reason, I doubt, say, Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson could have a very fruitful discussion considering how extremely different, and strong, their world-views are).
Now to return to that through from before. I know, but it just felt to me that if I say, "I'm an atheist," it also sounds like I'm saying, "That's it! I have discovered that there is no God and it's final." It sounds closed-minded. If I added agnostic to it, I thought it would "open it up" a bit to show I still have an open mind, but I'm standing on this side of the line. But clearly, they do contradict. Do you think there is another way I could call myself an atheist while still saying that I admit there might be a God?
I think atheist would be sufficient (at least in my opinion), and as I mentioned before many atheists (some of whom are considered the most atheistic of our time, such as R.Dawkins) say they may be wrong, but they think it extremely unlikely there is a god. However, why should one have to call oneself something specific anyway? For anyone who is not really interested, you can just say you are an atheist or an agnostic or whatever, they do not really care anyway. For those who are interested, you can tell what you believe or think without giving it a name. That's what I do.

I disagree. Atheism is the lack of belief.
I do agree that atheism is indeed the lack of religious belief or belief in god(s). As I mentioned in the first post, I do grant that for an atheist to prove there is nogod would be very difficult, as it would mean proving a negative. However, there still is an element of belief, because this cannot be known for sure. Atheist is someone who believes (even if or when it is based on scientific reasoning) there is no god.
I guess you could have called me a formless blob of thoughts with no order.
Being a formless blob of thoughts from time to time would do us all good, I think. Although, at some point you have to arrange them and that's always so hard...
I'm 23, btw, and thank you for the compliment.
Ok, well, you are still quite young compared to me. (Not that I am that old either, I'm thirty.) Well, I wish you good luck with your blobby thoughts - and many more to come.

 

[Remagoen]

To Followerofchrist,(followerofchrist)
Ok, well I have done this before, it takes alot more work on my part but I don't mind.So is their any questions that you've asked here where you didn't get satisfactory answers, or any new questions?
Many answers I've received here have been unsatisfactory, which is why I'm still here. Users such as Stlizzy (who hasn't been on AIM recently to talk to are you ok?), Kalixx and Amira have all not provided absolute answers, but they have raised questions for my nonetheless and used plenty of thought behind their words. I'd love to continue to talk to them.For others, many of them don't seem to have much thought, and I've easily brushed aside their logic with either half-answers or no answers at all, so just pick a post, I guess, and see what has been left in the open. Or just go back to my original posts and see if you have any ideas for questions I asked then.To Amira,(Amira;40170)
Yes, I did see that one. Of course, I am not sure Wiki is always the most reliable source of information.

But it certainly is handy.
Yes, yes of course! What I usually use Wikipedia for is a preliminary guide. If I need to know something fast and not to detailed about a topic, I go and look there. If I need something more in depth, I check there first, see what areas Wiki covers, and bounce off there to find actual info somewhere more reliable. It's a guide, really, something to start with.(Amira;40170)
Sorry, that is a typo. It should indeed say atheist does notbelieve in god(s). I am bilingual, or close to it in any case (I started learning and speaking English at the age of 8, so quite a long time ago). I live in the UK currently (and I have lived in the USA too for a while many years ago, by-the-by).
Then definitely pat yourself on the back! If anything I'd love to learn Japanese, but I just can't seem to pick up another language. (Amira;40170)
No, I do not mean knowledge is equal or equally distributed. First of all, people have different ideas on what is knowledge and what is belief, for example (as you point out with your example on world being flat). What I meant was that because no one can know anything, everyone bases their beliefs on limited knowledge, which often is not even considered "legitimate knowledge" by others (cf. evolution, creationism). I think the whole idea of collective knowledge is to use it as a sort of a philosophical aid to look at different matters. If you think of any society, there is always knowledge that is taken for granted, as it were, but at the same time it is not assumed every single person knows this (say, Shakespearean or Biblical quotes in many parts of Europe or the USA). As far as being very practical, I am not sure it is, but sometimes discussing with other people can be surprisingly helpful - especially those who know very little on a specific subject or who have an opposing view to your own (well, within reason, I doubt, say, Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson could have a very fruitful discussion considering how extremely different, and strong, their world-views are).
I would never ever stop myself from having an intelligent conversation with someone. If someone is honestly sharing their views in an intelligent manner, it would be idiotic of me to stop that from happening. Of course, there should always be a level playing field and chances should always be given. Even the mentally disabled could offer a word or too.Sometimes, having a conversation with someone with an opposing view could be a very splendid thing. However, both sides should have an honestly open mind. I can understand that some people's minds just can't wrap themselves around a certain subject and should never be mistaken as a closed-mind, but if one or both parties are clearly attacking instead of holding a thoughtful discussion, there's no point.That brings me to the debate of Robertson and Dawkins. It would never happen, I think, and if it did I'm not too sure if I'd want to watch it as much as I like (and sometimes dislike) Dawkins. The first thing I would predict happening (provided that the mediator allows it) is the topic of Robertson's repeated failed predictions. Dawkins could rip Robertson apart on that fact alone. Next, Dawkins has stated that he, like myself, admits there might be a god after all, a sign of an open mind. If you ask Robertson if he thinks there might not be one, I'll bet he'll say no, which as I said before, is a useless conversation to have. However, I'll give Robertson the benefit of the doubt on this and at least HOPE that some form of intelligent debate could happen.(Amira;40170)
I think atheist would be sufficient (at least in my opinion), and as I mentioned before many atheists (some of whom are considered the most atheistic of our time, such as R.Dawkins) say they may be wrong, but they think it extremely unlikely there is a god. However, why should one have to call oneself something specific anyway? For anyone who is not really interested, you can just say you are an atheist or an agnostic or whatever, they do not really care anyway. For those who are interested, you can tell what you believe or think without giving it a name. That's what I do.

Then an Atheist I am, no more agnostic.Why should I call myself something specific? I just like order, I guess. I like being able to put parts of my personality into a filing cabinet so I could reference who I am with a quick thought and statement, and people (including myself) would understand what I'm saying. You have a point, though, and it looks like a similar point Sam Harris has made. Why should we label ourselves? More specifically, his quote is, "Our use of this term--"Atheism"--is a mistake, and it's a mistake of some consequence." I've not decided for myself about this, but if you care to see it yourself, the link is below. It's definitely worth a viewing (heck, might help your research out) for the simple fact of him being such an articulate, thoughtful, eloquent speaker, but the topic which he covers is also very interesting too.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6cEDIT: I forgot to mention: Just skip the first 6 minutes and save yourself from the rabid fan girl.(Amira;40170)
I do agree that atheism is indeed the lack of religious belief or belief in god(s). As I mentioned in the first post, I do grant that for an atheist to prove there is nogod would be very difficult, as it would mean proving a negative. However, there still is an element of belief, because this cannot be known for sure. Atheist is someone who believes (even if or when it is based on scientific reasoning) there is no god.
With the English language probable having the most words of all Western cultures (and I'd assume more words all ALL cultures), it's awfully unwieldy. In other words, I didn't know you meant that "belief". Yeah, I see what you mean now.(Amira;40170)
Being a formless blob of thoughts from time to time would do us all good, I think. Although, at some point you have to arrange them and that's always so hard...
I think that's why I have that filing cabinet in my head. Sure, my desk is overloaded with crap, but I still have the important stuff tucked away!(Amira;40170)
Ok, well, you are still quite young compared to me. (Not that I am that old either, I'm thirty.) Well, I wish you good luck with your blobby thoughts - and many more to come.

Bah, you're not that old! And thank you. I certainly hope to get blobs of thoughts in the future too!

 

[Thunder1]

Thanks for all the christian brothers and sisters giving up their time to try to help non christians,who want to be helped sincerely. Sometimes it's hard and even heart breaking to try to help those people. It's not necessarily what we say but are they ready and willing hear God's message or people's philosophy.May God Bless You all,Thunder1

 

[followerofchrist]

Remagoen I don't know if your much of a reader but if even if your not I would suggest you read a book by C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity. I think it would be a terriffic book for you to read!

 

[His By Grace]

Remagoen, I saw this thread title and thought how sad for you to even have a thread entitled this. You say you don't want to be an atheist, but you are hanging onto it with all of your being. Let go and see what the Lord CAN do. It will amaze you. You have argued your case with every Christian brother or sister that has tried to help you. You, of all people, seem most bitter and miserable. Your words betray you. A true Christian exudes joy, peace, patience, compassion, etc. It's obvious to anyone reading these comments that there is a God. There are two sides- good versus evil. Step back and take a closer look. Take the scales off of your eyes and be objective. True, not all Christians are kind, but many have been dealing so with you. We do love you and care about you because our Master does. Come to Christ before it's too late. It's not a game. Your eternity could be as close as your next heartbeat.

 

[Remagoen]

To followerofchrist,(followerofchrist;40443)
Remagoen I don't know if your much of a reader but if even if your not I would suggest you read a book by C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity. I think it would be a terriffic book for you to read!
I love working at a bookstore. I was flipping through the book on my lunch break and reading some of the things he was saying. I didn't get very far into the book and I was more skimming than anything else, but he does make some good, logical points. However, those logical points seem to come only after he made a case based on emotion, and used the logic to further he point. That's not proper.I admit again though that I was only skimming, but I plan to check the book out to bring it home in the near future. It seems, regardless of content, very well written and intelligently worded. My plate is rather full currently, however, and so I'm going to read it dreadfully slow though.Thank you for the recommendation.To His By Grace,(His By Grace)
Remagoen, I saw this thread title and thought how sad for you to even have a thread entitled this. You say you don't want to be an atheist, but you are hanging onto it with all of your being. Let go and see what the Lord CAN do. It will amaze you.
I'm hanging onto my atheism because I'm a skeptic. I follow the skeptical method and so I won't let myself make leaps of faith without some form of proof. Nothing which I've seen thus far contains proof, only appeals to emotion and logical fallacies. Of the few people I have met though that have form logical statements, they still have not proved God.(His By Grace)
You have argued your case with every Christian brother or sister that has tried to help you. You, of all people, seem most bitter and miserable. Your words betray you.
Of course I've argued my case. How else would I share my viewpoint? How else would I show them my way of thinking to ensure we have a proper discussion? I argue my case because I honestly don't' believe in God, and therefore, ask for proof, which I've yet to find.However, about the bitter and miserable part: You have no idea the hell I'm going through in life right now, and I'm sorry my stress has seeped into my words. I don't mean it. Just because I'm an atheist, however, isn't the reason why I'm stressed. (His By Grace)
A true Christian exudes joy, peace, patience, compassion, etc. It's obvious to anyone reading these comments that there is a God.
It's not obvious to me.(His By Grace)
There are two sides- good versus evil. Step back and take a closer look. Take the scales off of your eyes and be objective.
Be objective? What do you think skepticism is? Biased? Of course I'm being objective.(His By Grace)
True, not all Christians are kind, but many have been dealing so with you.
And I will agree with this. (His By Grace)
We do love you and care about you because our Master does.
Or, do you love and care about me because you have a human trait called empathy? I've never seen this Master, and so of course I doubt.(His By Grace)
Come to Christ before it's too late. It's not a game. Your eternity could be as close as your next heartbeat.
That's why I'm here, because I admit I could be wrong, and therefore I will give God a chance to prove his case. He has yet to do that for the past several years, and this forum is his last chance. My patience with him has worn awfully thin, and I'm close to calling it quits.Of course, I'm not blaming anyone on here for that absence of God.

 

[Jackie D]

I'm sorry but if you were truly an atheist at heart you would not be here asking us who are not to prove something to you that has been proven already. You just haven't opened your eyes to see it...the Lord said that the truth would be written on EVERY man's heart. That includes yours.

blessings

 

[Remagoen]

(Jackie D;40821)
I'm sorry but if you were truly an atheist at heart you would not be here asking us who are not to prove something to you that has been proven already.
I love how you like to assume things about me. Please stop, it's annoying.If it was proven already, I wouldn't be here. Obviously, then, it hasn't been proven.(Jackie D;40821)
You just haven't opened your eyes to see it...the Lord said that the truth would be written on EVERY man's heart. That includes yours.

The Lord apparently said a lot of things. Where did he say these things? Remember: I don't accept the unreliable Bible.

 

[Jackie D]

no assumptions my friend, but the truth is the Truth IS written on every man's heart and if you would let your heart and mind be softened instead of living by the world and the enemy you would know that what I say is the truth and not an assumption. And I would appreciate it if you would not insult God, my brothers and sisters and myself by calling the Word of God unreliable. When the fact is it is your proof or lack there of, that God isn't real is what is unreliable.How about this, you've come to a forum to make an argument that we need to prove to you that God does exist...since it is you who have come to this place, it should be up to you to prove that He doesn't!Again, you know the truth, you choose to ignore itblessings

 

[Super Kal]

(Remagoen;39972)
Is there anything I can say to you that would convince you that God isn't real?
No... I've personally felt Him work in and through me and seen Him work through people that I care about. Had you asked me 4 years ago, I probably would of said yes, but only because my mind and heart was closed to God. I chose not to see Him, even though He was screaming at me through eternity in my suffering, telling me that He did exist, and He did love me.I apologize for how I responded, but the only reason I said what I said was because you really do frustrate me... you remind me of how utterly blind and ignorant I was, and I know so much better now.

 

[Remagoen]

To Jackie D,(Jackie D;40834)
no assumptions my friend, but the truth is the Truth IS written on every man's heart and if you would let your heart and mind be softened instead of living by the world and the enemy you would know that what I say is the truth and not an assumption. And I would appreciate it if you would not insult God, my brothers and sisters and myself by calling the Word of God unreliable. When the fact is it is your proof or lack there of, that God isn't real is what is unreliable.
I call strawman! You might want to do a Google search on this logical fallacy. First, I never ever said that I have proof that God isn't real, and there have been several posters in this very thread that have understood this. So of course I have a lack of proof that God doesn't exist. So I'll say again not so politely: Stop assuming.Second, I would appreciate it if you would not insult my intelligence by claiming I have "proof" when I never even have stated anything as proof in this entire thread. (Jackie D;40834)
How about this, you've come to a forum to make an argument that we need to prove to you that God does exist...since it is you who have come to this place, it should be up to you to prove that He doesn't!
Do you honestly think I would waltz into this logic trap? No, I'm not coming here to prove God doesn't exist, and I'll never make any assurtion that he doesn't. In fact, it's impossible to prove a negative point. Amira said it bestAmira)
As I mentioned in the first post, I do grant that for an atheist to prove there is nogod would be very difficult, as it would mean proving a negative.
Jackie, I've come to seek the other side's point of view. You may want to read the rest of the thread in order to understand my position on this matter. (Jackie D;40834)
Again, you know the truth, you choose to ignore it
"And you know the truth that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has bestowed her lovely horn upon your soul. You choose to ignore it."I hope you understand those words of mine as sarcasm. Why do I say them? I say them because I know those statements sound hollow to you. You don't know the IPU, so you can't choose to ignore it. That's the same as me, I "don't know the 'truth', so I can't choose to ignore it."I should also point out that Muslims would say the same thing about "truth" bring written on hearts. That doesn't make the Christian god special, does it?To Super Kal,(Super Kal;40852)
No... I've personally felt Him work in and through me and seen Him work through people that I care about. Had you asked me 4 years ago, I probably would of said yes, but only because my mind and heart was closed to God. I chose not to see Him, even though He was screaming at me through eternity in my suffering, telling me that He did exist, and He did love me.
No? Then that shows that it is you who is closed minded. Whereas I would say that one could persuade me from my position, you don't and are therefore closed to anything I may say; hence, closed minded. I'm not sure if anything fruitful would come from a one-sided conversation.(Super Kal;40852)
I apologize for how I responded, but the only reason I said what I said was because you really do frustrate me... you remind me of how utterly blind and ignorant I was, and I know so much better now.
Apology accepted. We all get frustrated at times. However, as it's clear that this conversation between us will be one-sided, do you think we should continue?

 

[Super Kal]

(Remagoen;40857)
No? Then that shows that it is you who is closed minded. Whereas I would say that one could persuade me from my position, you don't and are therefore closed to anything I may say; hence, closed minded. I'm not sure if anything fruitful would come from a one-sided conversation.
remagoen, if I was close minded, I wouldn't even be on this forum right now, and I certainly wouldn't talk to you. I am one of the most open minded person you will ever find, and the only reason I am open minded today is because God has opened my mind and my heart in the process.

 

[Remagoen]

(Super Kal;40860)
remagoen, if I was close minded, I wouldn't even be on this forum right now, and I certainly wouldn't talk to you. I am one of the most open minded person you will ever find, and the only reason I am open minded today is because God has opened my mind and my heart in the process.
You have, however, said you are not open to the possibility of being wrong. That is close mindedness.

 

[Super Kal]

(Remagoen;40861)
You have, however, said you are not open to the possibility of being wrong. That is close mindedness.
remagoen, I know I'm not wrong... my experiences that I have in my life with God is proof enough that He does exist, but the only way I was able to see it though was when I completely opened my heart to God, and sure enough, He showed Himself... it was in that moment that I realized how wrong I was and how completely right He was.

 

[Remagoen]

(Super Kal;40864)
remagoen, I know I'm not wrong... my experiences that I have in my life with God is proof enough that He does exist, but the only way I was able to see it though was when I completely opened my heart to God, and sure enough, He showed Himself... it was in that moment that I realized how wrong I was and how completely right He was.
You know you're not wrong. That's close mindedness.The humble man knows he knows nothing.