Musings about different types of atheist! (page 3)

cofty

Anybody who reads my second response to your OP will see that you are being totally disingenuous.

If someone wants to tackle to logic of my position I’m all ears

If you could point out where the logic is perhaps somebody can oblige.

Tec, good points. Love is certainly an interesting one. I remember talking to my dad who is an atheist about his hopes for his kids after he passes on. The question of the rationality of his love and hopes for his kids after he dies came up of course. For my dad death is an absolute end to love. So with good humour I jokingly mentioned the fact that he won’t mind what I do, good or bad, healthy or not so healthy, after he dies because it won’t be relevent to him anymore. It is probably love that give meaning as you say and it probably exists after death I would say as well.

Seraphim23

Cofty I certainly don’t want all these people to think I am being disingenuous for not replying to you. If you could ask me one question at a time I can respond to you better than multiple points fired in succession. It would more of a conversation then.

adamah

Phizzy said-

The one thing only, that is the defining thing about Atheists is this: Atheists deny the existence of God.

And not surprisingly, I'm going to disagree!

Yes, that's partly correct, in that some atheists (the so-called "hard atheists") will make the positive assertion that God doesn't not exist. However, then the burden of proof falls on THEM to prove the claim.

Other atheists (the so-called "soft" form of atheism) will say that the THEIST has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove their claim that God exists, so they reject their assertion; in a sense, there's overlap between their position and that which is commonly called agnostics. Soft atheists don't take the addition step of claiming God does NOT exist, since then THEY'D have to produce evidence to support it, having the burden of proving their claim.

FWIW, I find the agnostic term as meaningless, since the term it is derived from gnosis (knowledge, as thought of by the Gnostics). The Gnostics believed that God is the source of TRUE Knowledge which is imparted to mortals, i.e. the term is reliant on a God. Hence, agnostic (not knowing secret truths) is a useless distinction, as if you don't believe in God, you obviously don't believe in a Divine source of knowledge.

I know, the term agnostic is meant to imply there not being enough evidence or proof available on which to decide, but that's more of a description of a "soft" atheist.

Long story short, the terminology is a mess and variable, so if you're going to be precise, you'd need to clarify WHAT a person who claims to be an atheist actually means by it, as various definitions exist (similar to how theism is an overly-broad term: do you mean a pantheist, henotheist, monotheist, polytheist, etc?).

Adam

latinthunder

A "rational" Atheist ? I have never met an irrational one.

Cofty is the most irrational person I have ever seen. In fact, all the outspoken atheists on this board fly in the face of basic logic and reason. It's funny to watch them present themselves as champions of academia when they are just people with too much time on their hands.

This was a great post, Seraphim23. The atheist reality is just as valid (or invalid depending on how you look at it) as any other world view. Until science can give us a 100% explanation of everything, no one can conclusively prove or disprove anything. There is no such thing as an objective reality, which puts a wrench into any absolute claim. Science will never catch up to God.

Think of reality as a video game with a first person point of view. There is the character, there is the controller of the character and then there is the designer of the game world. This is a good analogy to describe the seperation between body and spirit. The character doesn't know that all their actions are predetermined by the person playing the game. They don't know that what they percieve as "self" is actually not their true self at all. They don't see the wires and circuits needed to make their reality, but to the gamer it's just a simple peice of technology, nothing supernatural about it.

The physical reality is a byproduct of the spiritual reality. Without the spirit, the body cannot exist. Just like if the gamer turned off the video game. The spirit can exist without the physical, but not the other way around. When the spirit tangibly interacts with the physical what is experienced is called a "miracle." Like if the gamer decided to install a new version of the game with added content. It would suddenly just "be there" and to the people inside the game would it appear to be a kind of magic. When actually it's just a simple process through a certain technology that exists outside of their frame of reference.

70wksfyrs

As I only learned TTATT recently, I think the OP (I presume this stands for Opening Post) is very interesting. I am still, learning and watching how theists and atheists interact. I have observed they are all very different very interesting and would like to observe and learn more before start a topic about my beliefs.

Many are caring and respectful and others are blunt and harsh, and also a little impatient.

snare&racket

Sereaphim,

For me good and bad is based on biology and nature....

If something harms the society it harms the individual and is therefore harmful to gene survival and is bad....

If something helps the society , helps the individual, helps promote gene survival....it is good.

That's it. So yes, good and bad exists. Do you think animals experience good and bad Despite not believing in god?

Did you know animals experience such things as equality and justice? How and why? Perhaps you should get some books on the matter, a forum is not the best place to explore science and knowledge, with the greatest respect. Just as I am sure quantum physics or higher math is confusing to yoh (and me) because we havent studied it, likewise the topics you are struggling to appreciate require ecfort and study to appreciate.

There is no short cuts to knowledge, it is going fi require reading and studying,

All the best with that.

snare x

cantleave

Many are caring and respectful and others are blunt and harsh, and also a little impatient.

Hmmm ....could that not be said of any group? I have noticed with teachers, policeman, social workers, conservationists, politicians that m any are caring and respectful and others are blunt and harsh, and also a little impatient.

cantleave

For my dad death is an absolute end to love.

Of course it is from the dead person's perspective ALL emotions have ended - without brain function there is nothing!

cantleave

I jokingly mentioned the fact that he won’t mind what I do, good or bad, healthy or not so healthy, after he dies because it won’t be relevent to him anymore.

How you behave won't matter to him - he will be dead! But I expect whilst he is alive he would like to think that once he has gone you remain a useful member of society.

Musings about different types of atheist!

Share this