atheists

[IntoTheVoid]

Not at all; all that it means is that you're intellectually honest.

Beliefs should properly be based on observation and experience. All humans are limited creatures, which means that our observation is never perfect or our experiences complete. In turn this means that there's always the possibility that what we haven't yet observed or don't yet experience may show our current beliefs to be wrong.

A belief may be very strong - it may be confirmed by lots of different observations and experiences such that we find it very, very likely to be true. But no matter how strong, an intellectually honest person must always concede the possibility that it may be wrong, or else wrongfully claim a completeness to their knowledge and understanding that is simply not possible for a human being.

I'll respectfully disagree.

What I'm about to say is no way intended to offend or upset anyone.

I, 100 percent don't believe in a deity. There is no margin for error and I'm not open to the fact that I might be wrong and I'm not open to the possibility that there might be a god.

That's just my believe, my strong belief

 

[Red_Tory]

I'll respectfully disagree.

What I'm about to say is no way intended to offend or upset anyone.

I, 100 percent don't believe in a deity. There is no margin for error and I'm not open to the fact that I might be wrong and I'm not open to the possibility that there might be a god.

That's just my believe, my strong belief

What makes you certain of this fact?

 

[T_Laurich]

I'll respectfully disagree.

What I'm about to say is no way intended to offend or upset anyone.

I, 100 percent don't believe in a deity. There is no margin for error and I'm not open to the fact that I might be wrong and I'm not open to the possibility that there might be a god.

That's just my believe, my strong belief

There is a saying I heard today that goes like this...

The people who truly do not believe in a God are the ones who will never talk about it or admit it... What is the point of talking about something that doesn't exist...
Which makes sense because I don't see people going around the world preaching that Santa Clause does not exist because if someone does believe in Santa Clause; yet they don't have rich parents they won't get anything... Why because who cares....
They don't run around saying that Unicorns don't exist because if someone does believe in them; then their gum drop and lollipop world is about to be destroyed...
So why do it about God... People can try to implement that there are severe implications of believing in a God... I can not deny some religions are very violent and condone it... However why not rebuke the ones who endorse killing, rape, and murder... You can point at the Crusades, they where completely defensive... You can say that Christians dropped the atomic bombs... America is a secularist country from birth...

You can point to battles of the OT then I ask why not the same hatred towards Jews?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I didn't get to really finish what I was going to say, didn't mean to post just that and tried to edit lol.

Anyway, with my firm belief the way it is, It would be very hard to accept evidence that opposes my belief. You could show me a verse from the bible that might be the ultimate proof, but because of my internal 'programming' I can never accept that as evidence. Some would say that's close minded, others would look at it as firm belief.

If I didn't hold that firm belief then I would be a different person with a different outlook on the world.

I'm not afraid to stand my belief,
And I won't shy away from them by saying I'm open to be wrong because I don't believe I am.

Again, no disrespect intended. Just highlighting both the futility of debate on the matter and that if you leave yourself open to other options then you don't really strongly believe in something in the first place

 

[T_Laurich]

I didn't get to really finish what I was going to say, didn't mean to post just that and tried to edit lol.

Anyway, with my firm belief the way it is, It would be very hard to accept evidence that opposes my belief. You could show me a verse from the bible that might be the ultimate proof, but because of my internal 'programming' I can never accept that as evidence. Some would say that's close minded, others would look at it as firm belief.

If I didn't hold that firm belief then I would be a different person with a different outlook on the world.

I'm not afraid to stand my belief,
And I won't shy away from them by saying I'm open to be wrong because I don't believe I am.

Again, no disrespect intended. Just highlighting both the futility of debate on the matter and that if you leave yourself open to other options then you don't really strongly believe in something in the first place

The way I see your post is in an analogy so correct me if I am wrong...

You are a 'naturally' skinny guy who wants big muscles...
Yes you want big muscles but according to the fact you are naturally skinny you never try... You let the world pumble you into submission instead of try for yourself... You never try to see that if you can get big muscles... You just take what others tell you as fact...

Funny thing about Christianity is, you don't realize its truly correct until you truly want it... I am not saying read the bible and what not: or pray a prayer to 'save' your soul... But truly wanting a relationship with Jesus and searching His word for the Truth...

I was the biggest atheist in my High School all my friends new me by being a devout atheist able to crush all theological debates that came into my path... I thought I was hard wired to never accept a God, then I thought I was morally superior to believers... Man just try it... God LOVES you!!!

 

[danschance]

Firm belief is not fact. It is merely a conviction that you are correct. It is possible to be sincere and be sincerely wrong.

I am also convinced that my conclusions about God are 100% correct. I also have experienced things that augment my belief. Even so, we must all arrive at our core beliefs, one way or another.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Firm belief is not fact. It is merely a conviction that you are correct. It is possible to be sincere and be sincerely wrong.

I am also convinced that my conclusions about God are 100% correct. I also have experienced things that augment my belief. Even so, we must all arrive at our core beliefs, one way or another.

Oh absolutely Dan, obviously I'm correct in my own little bubble but that doesn't make it universal fact.

As for 'intellectual honesty' that was mentioned earlier. To me it's more intellectually honest to sometimes say 'I don't know!'.

It's not intellectually honest to say 'I don't know why X happened so therefore I'll accept Y'

All your doing is solving a mystery... with a mystery. That's not intellectually honest.

 

[Cycel]

What makes you certain of this fact?

I feel much the same way as Void, but maybe I am not quite as implacable. Atheists become believers from time to time and Believers become atheists, with likely the same frequency. I can't see myself joining the Christian ranks as I can't conceive what kind of evidence it would take to persuade me; it would have to be pretty good.

What makes us certain is largely the lack of evidence for God. At least this is so from my perspective. Also, back in the days when I wanted to believe and called out to God to receive me, I heard only silence. No response from God and an inability to find evidence for his existence lead to the loss of belief.

 

[Cycel]

I, 100 percent don't believe in a deity. There is no margin for error and I'm not open to the fact that I might be wrong and I'm not open to the possibility that there might be a god.

I am pretty much in full agreement with you. I know that some atheists do return to a belief in God, though I can't see that happening with myself. I am guessing they lacked the same level of conviction.

Did you read the God Delusion? Dawkins thought most atheists were likely sixes on his scale. I am a seven. Looks like you are as well.

 

[Starcrash]

I'll respectfully disagree...

I, 100 percent don't believe in a deity. There is no margin for error and I'm not open to the fact that I might be wrong and I'm not open to the possibility that there might be a god.

As AvalonXQ said, this makes you intellectually dishonest. An "intellectually honest" person takes all the evidence on both sides of the issue, weighs them, and comes to a conclusion by siding with the stronger evidence. But new evidence is always a possibility, and if you've already concluded that this new evidence wouldn't change your mind then you're not weighing it and siding with the stronger evidence -- you're being dogmatic.

Does this mean that certainty is impossible for a rational person? Of course not. No amount of "new evidence" will make me believe that the bible is perfect because there is already evidence of imperfection in the bible that proves such a conclusion impossible. But most arguments don't lend themselves to proving one conclusion or another, unfortunately...

 

[Starcrash]

There is a saying I heard today that goes like this...

The people who truly do not believe in a God are the ones who will never talk about it or admit it... What is the point of talking about something that doesn't exist...
Which makes sense because I don't see people going around the world preaching that Santa Clause does not exist...

...But if there were many people preaching that Santa Clause existed, and their Clausian religion was trying to prevent people from buying things around Christmas time for fear that such purchases might disprove their belief, then you would have people actively fighting this false belief. (If you can't get the analogy, the "Clausians" are Christians and their block on purchases could be likened to blocking evolution education in schools).

It's so silly that you'd even make this argument. Do you never discuss Scientology? Or Islam? Or any of the multitude of religious practices that you don't engage in? Would arguing with a believer of these faiths constitute your secret belief in their gods? Of course not.

 

[Cycel]

I lean towards an old earth, as you call it.

Well, it's not a title of my creation, that's the term everyone uses. That I know of there are only two kinds of creationists: Young and Old Earth. Young Earth creationists typically believe they are the only true Christians. This accusation comes up frequently in these discussions.

Yes there have been many. It was a theory that a human embryo went thru the stages of evolution as it grew in the womb. That has been fully discredited.

Discredited by whom? Creationists? This branch of science is alive and well and has received a fresh burst of life from genetics. The science of embryology began with the father of embryology, Karl Ernst von Baer, in the 1830s. If you tell the embryologists their field has been fully discredited they will laugh at you. Again, be careful what sources you are relying on.

It was once assumed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Yes, that ancient view of the world was put to rest by Copernicus in the 1500s. I believe the Bible even says the Earth is fixed. Perhaps you could find the passage for me? It was a common sense notion given that there are no obvious ways to recognize that the Earth is hurtling around the Sun at 67,062 miles per hour or that the Sun is moving around the outside of the Milkyway at about 137 miles per second. I am not really surprised the ancients got it wrong, but wouldn’t you say the idea the Earth was stationary was more a belief than a theory? A theory is not a guess. The old idea that the Earth did not move was a guess.

In modern times I think the major laws of science have been discovered. Newtonian physics were considered absolute until Einstein proved they were a special case.

Newtonian physics still stands though and is used to calculate orbits for spacecraft. Every first year astronomy student learns the formal. It has not been overthrown – has it. Relativity did not displace the old physics, only added to it.

No, I can’t think of any theories that have been replaced.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

As AvalonXQ said, this makes you intellectually dishonest. An "intellectually honest" person takes all the evidence on both sides of the issue, weighs them, and comes to a conclusion by siding with the stronger evidence. But new evidence is always a possibility, and if you've already concluded that this new evidence wouldn't change your mind then you're not weighing it and siding with the stronger evidence -- you're being dogmatic.

Does this mean that certainty is impossible for a rational person? Of course not. No amount of "new evidence" will make me believe that the bible is perfect because there is already evidence of imperfection in the bible that proves such a conclusion impossible. But most arguments don't lend themselves to proving one conclusion or another, unfortunately...

Is it intellectually dishonest to have an unwavering disbelief in Santa? Or Fairies? Should I look at all sides first and just sway towards the stronger evidence? I'll wager you are 100 percent convinced neither of the above exist. And if you say you aren't then your just falsely saying to try and reinforce your point.

No, it's not intellectually dishonest.

See, What's happening here is what always happens in this type of discussions. We end up not debating the issue at hand anymore, we just start arguing about arguing.

We can't prove one side or disprove another so we end up taking swings at each other's words, semantics or descriptions instead.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I am pretty much in full agreement with you. I know that some atheists do return to a belief in God, though I can't see that happening with myself. I am guessing they lacked the same level of conviction.

Did you read the God Delusion? Dawkins thought most atheists were likely sixes on his scale. I am a seven. Looks like you are as well.

I have read it, I don't recall the part you mentioned though, but that's mainly due to the sheer amount of books I've read in the last few years

Plus I have a hard time reading things that agree with me sometimes. I just end up skimming, going 'yep... Yep... Yep....' Cos it's telling me what I already know (At least in my own Mind anyway lol) and therefore it doesn't challenge me or stick in my mind as much as something that opposes my mindset.

 

[zone]

I didn't get to really finish what I was going to say, didn't mean to post just that and tried to edit lol.

Anyway, with my firm belief the way it is, It would be very hard to accept evidence that opposes my belief. You could show me a verse from the bible that might be the ultimate proof, but because of my internal 'programming' I can never accept that as evidence. Some would say that's close minded, others would look at it as firm belief.

If I didn't hold that firm belief then I would be a different person with a different outlook on the world.

I'm not afraid to stand my belief,
And I won't shy away from them by saying I'm open to be wrong because I don't believe I am.

Again, no disrespect intended. Just highlighting both the futility of debate on the matter and that if you leave yourself open to other options then you don't really strongly believe in something in the first place

can you say you know everything there is know, with absolute certainty...i.e - you know with absolute certainty that there is nothing you do not know.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

can you say you know everything there is know, with absolute certainty...i.e - you know with absolute certainty that there is nothing you do not know.

There's a lot I don't know.

The issue at hand here is not what I know. There's plenty I don't know, but just because I don't know something or can't explain something then it doesn't mean I have to jump on an explanation or theory that doesn't sit right with me.

If I don't know something or can't explain then I will not accept an unprovable explanation as an answer.

I'm not claiming to know everything,
I just refuse to solve a mystery with a mystery.

Poor analogy: Jack the Ripper was never caught, no one knows who he was. He was a total mystery. I can't get my head around the fact he was never caught therefore he must have been a ghost.

You know what I'm trying to get at

 

[zone]

There's a lot I don't know.

The issue at hand here is not what I know. There's plenty I don't know, but just because I don't know something or can't explain something then it doesn't mean I have to jump on an explanation or theory that doesn't sit right with me.

If I don't know something or can't explain then I will not accept an unprovable explanation as an answer.

I'm not claiming to know everything,
I just refuse to solve a mystery with a mystery.

i understand.
excluding any possibility of God is out of the question, then, since you already know that you do not know everything there is to know.

so you are an agnostic at ...oops....at LEAST

 

[IntoTheVoid]

i understand.
excluding any possibility of God is out of the question, then, since you already know that you do not know everything there is to know.

so you are an agnostic at best.

No I'm not agnostic, I'm not open to the possibility. Read my edit on the my last post.

 

[zone]

There's a lot I don't know.

The issue at hand here is not what I know. There's plenty I don't know, but just because I don't know something or can't explain something then it doesn't mean I have to jump on an explanation or theory that doesn't sit right with me.

If I don't know something or can't explain then I will not accept an unprovable explanation as an answer.

I'm not claiming to know everything,
I just refuse to solve a mystery with a mystery.

Poor analogy: Jack the Ripper was never caught, no one knows who he was. He was a total mystery. I can't get my head around the fact he was never caught therefore he must have been a ghost.

You know what I'm trying to get at

but we know there was a killer and we know what he did.
so what if he didn't get caught?
we even gave him a name.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I said it was a lame example, I was just pointing out the logic shift