Atheism

[Botz]

Dear Botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

I really do not agree with the Wikipedia's nomenclature. They define me as a "weak atheist." However, I dislike the connotation associated with being a "weak" anything. I do not think of myself as being weak. I think there are perhaps as many different types of atheists as there are different types of christians.

FYI, Agnostic, in my definition is:

A = without

gnostic = knowledge of the existence of any god/s

Agnostic = without knowledge of the existence of any god/s

Knowledge is different from belief, IMHO. Therefore if you accept my definitions, there can be the following combinations:

Agnostic Atheists = person who has no knowledge of belief in any god/s.

Agnostic Christians = person who has no knowledge, but has belief in a certain god.

Knowledge claims strong evidence, which would undermine faith (the will to believe without evidence).

Hope this helps clarify my position,

UndecidedFrog

Hi Frog...Yes it does somewhat and thanks for the reply...I am just slightly puzzled and intrigued by your name which suggests more of an Agnostic Frog than an Atheist Frog...but maybe I am reading too much into it.

I would say there can only be one type of Christian...many denominations...but just one type of Christian.

Atheism is different because there is a nebulous area in definition and no strict criteria...you can't convert to Atheism...revert maybe.

In another reply to someone you said...

For example, if someone claimed there was an invisible pink unicorn that watches over him and protects him, I would ask for some evidence to back that up if he asked me to believe the same thing too. Wouldn't you?

There is some pretty solid evidence for the Biblical accounts...but Pink Unicorns have no history that I know of ...although alcoholics might say otherwise.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

There are many denominations of christianity, even if they share certain core beliefs. Simarly, even though there are many types of atheists, they share one core disbelief.....they do not have any beliefs in any god/s.

Atheism is a disbelief in god/s. One may convert to disbelief. Be careful, if you claim only reversion to atheism, you are admiting that the natural state is atheism. I am sure many of your fellow christians will have opposing views to that.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Guest LightLink]

This isnt INCREDIBLY relevent, but interesting nonetheless.

I read a couple years ago about a study done on whether or not humans are supposed to beleive in something.

Aparently, to be truly truly atheistic, and believe in nothing at all, is a medical problem. Supposedly, humans are wired to believe in something, weather one god, or 600.

However its still just a theory, there is not enough evidence to say its a fact. But an interesting theory and study nonetheless, I think.

[Botz]

Dear Botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

There are many denominations of christianity, even if they share certain core beliefs. Simarly, even though there are many types of atheists, they share one core disbelief.....they do not have any beliefs in any god/s.

Atheism is a disbelief in god/s. One may convert to disbelief. Be careful, if you claim only reversion to atheism, you are admiting that the natural state is atheism. I am sure many of your fellow christians will have opposing views to that.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

I think many of us Christians have opposing views about things...that is the nature of being an individual..I happen to believe it is possible for a Christian to turn away from G-d and in a sense they could revert to not believing in G-d...which I also happen to believe is the natural state of man...no one is born knowing G-d...that is why the Bible talks about the absolute necessity of being 'born again'.

Also when I think about it..Atheism/Agnosticism is the natural state of man and therefore does not require anything of any individual..it is inherent.

Also it would be an interesting exercise to understand the attraction and benefit of being an Atheist ? Why not believe in G-d...when just a walk in the hills or along the beach or a glance in the sky at night ....crys out that there is a Creator.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Also when I think about it..Atheism/Agnosticism is the natural state of man and therefore does not require anything of any individual..it is inherent.

I agree with you that atheism is indeed the natural state.

Also it would be an interesting exercise to understand the attraction and benefit of being an Atheist ? Why not believe in G-d...when just a walk in the hills or along the beach or a glance in the sky at night ....crys out that there is a Creator.

There is no inherent attractiveness or benefit per se of being an atheist. Do you think that people believe in a deity (or not) for reward? I hope not. I cannot speak for others, but for me, I would rather believe in the truth. I certainly will not believe in a deity for promise of reward, real or not. It sounds mercenary to me.

While you may walk the hills or along the beach or glance at the night sky and infer the existence of a creator, when I do the same, I do not infer any such creator. It just goes to show you that we are of different inclinations.

Your implication of nature being created brings back our previous discussion. We agree that our natural state is the state of disbelief, the state in which your creator created us. The big question becomes....why didn't your creator design us with inherent belief instead of disbelief if he/she/it really wanted us to believe?

Allow me to quote from R. Finley, Sr.

  "Surely a god would know what evidences would be necessary for me to believe in him. Failing to do that, I will remain an atheist. If God has a reason why he doesn't provide those evidences, then atheism is justified."

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Edited October 17, 2004 by UndecidedFrog

[Botz]

Hi UndecidedFrog .

I actually believe that although man is born with out a relationship with G-d...he has been created in such a way that he craves to fill this void in his life...he may not recognize it...he may choose to fill it with other things...but I believe it is there...and without knowing G-d... a true sense of purpose and ones place in the Universe can only be poorly substituted. IMHO.

That is why I believe going for a walk and considering creation...whether it is looking on the ground at a perfectly formed purpose driven ant...or up in the night sky at the distant moon looking like a giant toenail..it is enough to consider the possiblities of order...and thus G-d. I don't believe even the hardest-hearted Atheist that rejoices in that title has never considered at some time of other the possiblity that there is a G-d...this too is inherent....it is in the nature of man to cry out from the depths of his being...G-d you out there?

You wrote...

Allow me to quote from R. Finley, Sr.

QUOTE 

  "Surely a god would know what evidences would be necessary for me to believe in him. Failing to do that, I will remain an atheist. If God has a reason why he doesn't provide those evidences, then atheism is justified." 

I would say some people will always think themselves cleverer than G-d and despise whatever evidence is presented to them...In the Gospels there were a whole bunch of people who thought they knew better than G-d how to run the show...and they tried to demonstrate just how wise and clever they were...but ended up looking pretty foolish.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

I would say some people will always think themselves cleverer than G-d and despise whatever evidence is presented to them...In the Gospels there were a whole bunch of people who thought they knew better than G-d how to run the show...and they tried to demonstrate just how wise and clever they were...but ended up looking pretty foolish.

I think you misunderstood Mr. Finley's quote. In fact Mr. Finley stated pretty specifically that if god existed, then surely god will know what evidence and how to present such evidence to him to ensure his belief. Mr. Finley did not claim to be wiser or more clever than such a being, but attributed the omniscience to god (if he exists). I think his premise is pretty solid.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Khristeeanos]

I am still here, but don't have much to add right now. I appreciate the defining of the term. Thanks.

[Botz]

QUOTE 

I would say some people will always think themselves cleverer than G-d and despise whatever evidence is presented to them...In the Gospels there were a whole bunch of people who thought they knew better than G-d how to run the show...and they tried to demonstrate just how wise and clever they were...but ended up looking pretty foolish.

I think you misunderstood Mr. Finley's quote. In fact Mr. Finley stated pretty specifically that if god existed, then surely god will know what evidence and how to present such evidence to him to ensure his belief. Mr. Finley did not claim to be wiser or more clever than such a being, but attributed the omniscience to god (if he exists). I think his premise is pretty solid.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Sorry UndecidedFrog...I guess I thought Mr Finley meant something different...

QUOTE 

  "Surely a god would know what evidences would be necessary for me to believe in him. Failing to do that, I will remain an atheist. If God has a reason why he doesn't provide those evidences, then atheism is justified." 

It seems that Mr Finleys statement is a challenge to the impotence of G-d because He has not sucessfully convinced Mr Finley of His existence.

I felt Finley was expecting a personal dinner invite.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Botz,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

QUOTE 

QUOTE 

  "Surely a god would know what evidences would be necessary for me to believe in him. Failing to do that, I will remain an atheist. If God has a reason why he doesn't provide those evidences, then atheism is justified." 

It seems that Mr Finleys statement is a challenge to the impotence of G-d because He has not sucessfully convinced Mr Finley of His existence.

I felt Finley was expecting a personal dinner invite. 

The way I interpreted Mr. Finley's statement is that:

1) If god exists, god would know what evidence could be used to persuade Mr, Finley of his existence, since god is omniscient.

2) If no such evidence is presented to Mr. Finley, and if god still exists, then Mr. Finley claims that god has a reason why he wishes Mr. Finley to disbelieve.

3) And if #2 is true, then Mr, Finley's disbelief is therefore justified.

I don't see what Mr. Finley said was a challenge to god, but rather an acceptance of some reason that god might have for not having the evidence presented. I think Mr. Finley is pretty solid in his reasoning.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog