I am, genuinely, intrigued by the idea of what an atheist is...? What don't you believe in? No God? What sort of entity do u consider God to be, for u to 100% assert the mendacity behind its existence and concept? Please talk... and I will like to inquire more deeply into the matter with someone who knows what they're talking about. This is not another "believer vs. non-believer" thread -- I am honestly interested in hearing out the opinions of an "atheist"... but first, I need to find out what an "atheist" is...
If anything... this thread needs to be about epistemology, and metaphysics. If u say u "know" something, or that u know that something isn't "real"... I will definitely need to understand YOUR theory of, or just YOUR take on, what knowledge and Being are.
Someone who rejects and/or suspends the concept of a god, gods or deities. You mean what sort of entity that you consider God to be? It depends, really. I'm not good with disproving anyones concept of god, but I am good at pointing out how other peoples concepts play no basis in reality. I'm good at this because a lot of people, especially on this forum, aren't that good at providing a logical, or even lucid, coherent description of what they imagine their god should be. And just because I'll say I don't believe those concepts, doesn't mean I'm 100% sure it's not true. But with such a fickle, and not-so-well-though out explanation for how you came to your conclusion, I have very little reason to take your opinion into consideration.
Thanks for the response... But, yea, okay, let us discuss -- 1.) Okay, for someone to deny, or accept, something, means that they are in a position to manifest this judgment; now, this is a judgment -- a judgement of whether something is "true" or "false". You say you don't believe in a(the) Deity... so, what do u conceive a "deity" to be, for u to be able to positively reject its validity, or truth? And how did u go about validating ur denial in a "deity"? I can deny the existence of a 18 legged elephant, because I know what it entails - it is an elephant with 18 legs. I've never seen one, so I AM in a position to deny that I've never experienced an elephant with 18 legs; and, at the most, I can say I never think there will ever be a 18 legged elephant in the future -- But, I cannot 100% deny its possibility (this the induction fallacy; post hoc fallacy). 2.) No, not at all... 3.) What is ur take on the metaphysics (the make-up) of reality? Are your views in accord with modern empirical science? Evoultion, the big bang, and what not...?
I've always gone with the common notion that deities are people with supernatural strength, knowledge, etc. Pretty much the exact same way you used your '18 legged elephant example'. Unfalsifiable hypothesis. Okay. It's not something I dwell on, on a regular basis, so I couldn't really tell you. Not necessarily. The supposed supernatural plays little-to-no position on my understanding of scientific inquiry.
That is not what I am here to discuss... lol nice try . I am addressing someone who, supposedly, asserts that they are this thing known as an "atheist"; and I am here to understand what he or she, thinks, they "know"? But, first, I need to know what you, supposed, "atheist" believe...
Well, atheists only claim what can be proven with scientific testing real. You can not prove God exists, therefore, he does not exist. That's what an atheist is. I used to be one. I still love science with a passion tho.
1.) How about omnipresence? Can a "deity", you still haven't really defined what u mean by this word, be something ubiquitous? 2.) Uh, not really; I am aware of the number 18, and I have experienced an elephant; so, how is this, mental, convergence, "unfalsifiable"? You being able to imagine an 18 legged elephant, subjectively, is falsifiable??? U need a little imagination power, bro. 3.) I'm basically asking u what u consider to be "real"... , or, better yet, what do "scientific inquirers" consider as "real"?
If you broaden the scope, then yes you can (but, first I need to understand what an "atheist" considers proof?). If science posits that logic is something real... then how is it possible to evade the first cause? To deny the unmoved mover?
The first cause? Do you mean who or what atheists think caused the Big Bang? It's hard to explain. I used to be an atheist so I completely understand the logic.
Basically... if everything is dependent (which is truth in our reality), logically, there must be a starting point to this concatenation of dependency. So, if logic is real and reflects reality, how can one say there is no such thing as a "first cause"? Or deny its validity?
I would say if you can use a few of your 5 senses on something, that thing is real. Though, I know ideas are real and stuff. Never smelt one though. I feel like you are asking us to explain why the apple in your hand is real. Well, its because that apple is existing in your hand, and I can "prove" that apple is in your hand. Thats how my thought process works I guess. But what about hallucinations? Shit sure seems real, but is it? Haha. This is going to be a difficult thread.
So if God caused the Big Bang, then who or what caused God? You can't say God has just always been because that doesn't work in our logic. Everything is dependent. Your God is independent. It doesn't make sense to us. So we don't discuss what caused the Big Bang. We are still trying to understand the observable universe. That's why we do not mention a God.
1.) Whoa, I never said that, brethren... whose to say the big bang wasn't just a product of another long line of dependent effects, like evolution? But, do u consider that to be the case? Also, does evolution not also have a beginning point? Don't all organisms stem from one root? And to take the argument even further... how can u prove to me that the world existed the way it does today when subject to our modern homosapien physical perception... before sight could anything be seen? Do "things" have appearances without eyes ready to perceive them? And you say that everything is dependent, do u not? Yes, u do... so, if everything is dependent how can you deny a "first cause"? Not "the cause of the big bang", but a first cause for movement in the long line of dependency?
1.) Kind sir, have you every smelt something in a dream? An idea is subjective, and so is a dream, so if u've smelt something in a dream, than u can smell an "idea", so to speak... I know I have. 2.) What does it mean for something to "exist"?
It is not the job of an atheist to do the homework of the theist. How does a theist define and view God? When a theist says, "I believe in God," what does that mean? What does the theist believe in?
I don't know. You tell us. Are you trying to convince us that "God exists?" Then what do YOU mean when you say, "God exists?" What does it mean to "exist?"
lol someones taking it personal -- Did I say I am a "theist"? No, I did not. Again, I am addressing those who assert that they are this thing known as an "atheist". If one denies something, he or she must have a valid position to make a positive judgment! So, I am here, friend, to understand what this alien known as "atheist" is, in order to ascertain the validity of their stance...