Does atheism make sense?

[RobbyPants]

Here are some of the questions rattling around in my head with regards to this. Does it really make sense to claim that physical stuff just exists for no reason whatsoever? and, not only does physical stuff just happen to exist, with no further explanation, it's *ordered* beyond belief. So now the claim is that all this stuff just exists in an extremely ordered state for no reason whatsoever. Why would anyone look at that and just assume there is no reason for any of it? I don't think that is the most reasonable, rational response to the state of affairs which is our universe. Assuming that there is nothing behind the existence of the universe and its exquisite ordering is itself an assumption that lacks reasoning.

You are basically starting a god of the gaps argument. Just because someone doesn't have a concrete answer to a question of "why things are the way they are" doesn't automatically assume the answer must be a god, and more specifically, it certainly doesn't assume the answer is any specific god.

Another way to put this: lets say the scientists found some evidence that completely invalidated all current scientific models for things like the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. All that would mean is that science wouldn't (currently) have any answers to those questions. It wouldn't automatically prove the existence of any gods, let alone any specific god(s). Proving any particular god exists is a separate task.

 

I don't believe that Atheism makes much sense but Agnosticism certainly does.

From my understanding, atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive; they are defining two different things. As a point in case, I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

Heres is the best definition I found regarding the terms:

 

Theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism is the lack of that belief. It's a binary proposition; either you believe in one or more gods, or you don't. There's no middle ground.

From there, you can split each belief into agnostic and gnostic. The gnostic stance holds that the belief is knowable and possibly even provable. The agnostic stance believes that it is not knowable or provable. So, this leaves you with four positions:

• Gnostic theist - Believes in one or more gods, and believes they can know (and possibly prove) this truth.
• Agnostic theist - Believes in one or more gods, but feels it must be accepted just on faith and cannot be truly known.
• Gnostic atheist - Believes that there are precisely zero gods. They don't just lack a belief in gods, they believe there are none. This is often the position that is simply labeled "atheist".
• Agnostic atheist - Lacks a belief in any gods, but does not assert that there are none. Believes the answer to the question "how many gods exist" is unknowable. This position is often simply labeled "agnostic", yet it is still an atheistic stance in that there is no belief in any gods.

So, as a general rule, when someone labels themselves "agnostic", they likely  mean "agnostic atheist", even if they take issue with the atheist portion of the label.

[missmuffet]

No

[Raimi Stranger]

 Atheism makes perfect sense for anyone still sinning against folks , for none can know God or Jesus as a sinner :-

 

 1 John 3:6  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

 

 so what makes no sense to anyone,, but especially to atheists, is the hypoctisy of sinners claiming to follow Christ who cannot receive spirit baptism ,nor have their prayers answered , because God cannot baptise anyone without that they take water baptism seriously, die to sin, cease their iniquity. stop abusing folks with sins, start Love of all as commanded by God and Jesus...

 

  it is the hypocrisy of these sinners condemning others' sin that truly galls and with good reason..  and the obviously fake faityth they are talked into saying they believe, rthat their sins are OK, but otehrs' sins, teh very same sins. condem men to eternal hell of torment or some other such nonsense denied by Jesus' own witness - Rev 20:i3 - there is no 'eternal hell' and the dead are often burned up with fire in cremation but teh dead CANNOT FEEL. so cannot suffer, the dead are not conscious, consciosuness exists only in life... and in time ...and the spirit is time-less, the creator of finite time ... time comes in aeons , beg8ns ad ends, and is craeted again, but cannot be infinite ... God is complete so not infinite, and so nothing real created can be infinite [nor infinitely divisible]

 

  anyway it is the creeds of religion that are false , they are DIVIDED which proves by logic how much is untrue that men are persuaded by sinners to say they believe [by fear ! -not Love !]  ... the evil is religious creeds, not honest atheists who say they do not as yet believe in God ....many call themselves agnostic atheists ... and God does not mind men honestly saying they do not believe in Him yet, few will find the way of Love in this life here -Matt 7:13.... and ALL religious sinners will be destroyed with non-religious sinners -matt 7:13- God needs sin removed no matter whether one says they believe in sinners' teachings or not ....Matt 7:13 - the wages of sin is death, because death alone can remove sin [Romans 6:7] if one will not choose to Love  because God and Jesus command it ...

 

 and there is the irony about atheism, many atheists have faith in Love, which the saints say is faith in God.... but atheists do not like the word 'God' because creedal religion has given God a bad name by using sinners as 'priests' ....

 

sinners CANNOT know God  or Jesus because God is KLove and sin is not Love but abuse ....

 

1 John 3:6  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

 

1 John 4:8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love...
1 John 4:16  And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

 

Matthew 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

the will of God in heaven is that men turn from sin and Love....God requires only that we Love

 

so a Loving atheist will know God without using the name 'God'  and be saved by faith in Love which is God , but  a sinner 'christian' can never be saved by faith in creeds of sinners ...

Edited September 4, 2013 by Raimi Stranger

[Guest DRS81]

Atheists are in denial, but they don't know they're in denial, if that makes sense.

[RobbyPants]

Lets see now. In the beginning nothing worked with nothing, for nothing, through nothing, by nothing, creating everything...yep, atheism makes sense to me!

 

Two things:

1. The big bang posits that everything came from a singularity not from nothing.
2. The big bang and atheism aren't the same thing. Atheism simply is a "no" answer to the question "do you believe in any gods". Anything else is over-defining the term.

[Raimi Stranger]

Lets see now. In the beginning nothing worked with nothing, for nothing, through nothing, by nothing, creating everything...yep, atheism makes sense to me!

aside from there being no beginning for anything except that which is created [like 'universes for instance] , atheists admit no-one can know what created universes although the String Theory begins to offer possible insights...  and their point is that your blind faith in sinners' teachings which are inconsistent with even scripture is LESS satisfactory by far ...now if you had spirit baptism to know all Truth from God [John 16:13] as all who truly follow Jesus have , then you could speak with at least the authority of God, but to claim sinners have authority is something even atheists recognise is self-deceit in ignorance ... even Jesus pointed out that all the world would worshiop Satan as its saviour, its Christ figure, not even knowing what Christ/Messiah even means !!! ...so it is unsurprising that many atheiists conclude that religion is superstitious false dogma born of fear , and Jesus actually agrees with them ...most 'atheists' are essentially agnostic and only say there is no 'god' because the gods worshipped by religion are so obviously false because religion is divided , God could not be divided and they know that ...

 

the irony is that most atheists believe in Love enough to be Loving, which is all God requires of men ... but religion causes many men to judge other men against the rule of God, so atheists often have standing with God , but religious sinners follow Satan :-

 

1 John 3:8  He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

 

so there is the amazing Truth of Love, that God requires faith in Love, not faith in creeds of sinners, and many atheists do indeed Love whereas all in creedal religion are sinners ... sin is abuse, the very opposite of what God commands, Jesus commands...

[Raimi Stranger]

Atheists are in denial, but they don't know they're in denial, if that makes sense.

that may be true of some , but there is time yet for anyone to realise God is Love and see that they believe in Love, not creeds of sinners in religious tradition... all in creedal religion are in denial within AND in denial of Jesus and scripture and the holy spirit of the Truth of Love, God .... which one is more likely to last all one's life ? - I would suggest creedal religion is the vastly greater evil than agnostic atheism of folks who didn;t yet see beyond the lies of religion to know God and Jesus ...!

 

1 John 3:6  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him...

1 John 3:8  He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 5:18  We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

 

the foundation of God is to stop sinning [2Tim 2:19] so one can begin Loving as Jesus commands  ... those who believe in creedal religion sin all their lives , have no desire to stop sinning but want excuses to continue which sinners are raedy to provide for straight cash, Satan's lies for this whole earth [Rev 13:3-4], but atheists reject God because they think God is supposed to be one of the the gods of divided  creedal religion which are all provably fakes ... it is religion taht causes atheists to reject God by mistake , but they often accept Love as their 'morality' for life, and that isnall that God requires of anyone... that is His command... God does not require us to use the word 'god' for Love, only that we do Love, which sinners do not do ...

 

and surely an atheist has more cahnce of seeing that before Jesus Christ than a committed dogmatic religious sinner who thinks his sin is oK but others sins are worthy of torture ... surely the hypocrisy of religion is the denial of Love which is all God commands , Love si all Jesus commands,... it is sinners that all do not Love, not all atheists...

 

did you never read that this is not the time for judgement and you are not the judge ? ... so why do you judge  without even judging yourself , and why prematurely jump to [false] conclusions God does not even require you to make ?

 

Did you not realise that by judging others you bring judgement upon yourself ... do you really believe you are without sin , so even able to judge ?

 

your judgements are very clearly false by reference to scripture, and God did not even require them of you... but does reccomend that one judge oneself instead....

 

1 Corinthians 11:31  For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

 

Luke 6:37  Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned

Edited September 5, 2013 by Raimi Stranger

[Raimi Stranger]

 

Here are some of the questions rattling around in my head with regards to this. Does it really make sense to claim that physical stuff just exists for no reason whatsoever? and, not only does physical stuff just happen to exist, with no further explanation, it's *ordered* beyond belief. So now the claim is that all this stuff just exists in an extremely ordered state for no reason whatsoever. Why would anyone look at that and just assume there is no reason for any of it? I don't think that is the most reasonable, rational response to the state of affairs which is our universe. Assuming that there is nothing behind the existence of the universe and its exquisite ordering is itself an assumption that lacks reasoning.

You are basically starting a god of the gaps argument. Just because someone doesn't have a concrete answer to a question of "why things are the way they are" doesn't automatically assume the answer must be a god, and more specifically, it certainly doesn't assume the answer is any specific god.

Another way to put this: lets say the scientists found some evidence that completely invalidated all current scientific models for things like the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. All that would mean is that science wouldn't (currently) have any answers to those questions. It wouldn't automatically prove the existence of any gods, let alone any specific god(s). Proving any particular god exists is a separate task.

 

I don't believe that Atheism makes much sense but Agnosticism certainly does.

From my understanding, atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive; they are defining two different things. As a point in case, I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

Heres is the best definition I found regarding the terms:

 

Theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism is the lack of that belief. It's a binary proposition; either you believe in one or more gods, or you don't. There's no middle ground.

From there, you can split each belief into agnostic and gnostic. The gnostic stance holds that the belief is knowable and possibly even provable. The agnostic stance believes that it is not knowable or provable. So, this leaves you with four positions:

• Gnostic theist - Believes in one or more gods, and believes they can know (and possibly prove) this truth.
• Agnostic theist - Believes in one or more gods, but feels it must be accepted just on faith and cannot be truly known.
• Gnostic atheist - Believes that there are precisely zero gods. They don't just lack a belief in gods, they believe there are none. This is often the position that is simply labeled "atheist".
• Agnostic atheist - Lacks a belief in any gods, but does not assert that there are none. Believes the answer to the question "how many gods exist" is unknowable. This position is often simply labeled "agnostic", yet it is still an atheistic stance in that there is no belief in any gods.

So, as a general rule, when someone labels themselves "agnostic", they likely  mean "agnostic atheist", even if they take issue with the atheist portion of the label.

 

 I see no reason to 'prove' there is a god for anyone , so the definitions need to be modified ... unlike creedal religion, teh bible and holy spirit convey that anyone who Loves, whose loses the desire to abuse folks with sin, will receive all Truth from God Himself, absolute Truth but received PERSONALLY... thus also the bible states -Joel 2:28- that all will receive all Truth eventually, but few in this life because few Love, stop abusing others and themselves with sin...

 

 the bible is certainly the most comprehensive religious document in the world and whilst it disagrees with all creedal religion [because God alone teaches every man individually , to keep the teaching pure] , that does NOT offer any 'proof' to anyone but each man individually when they decide abuse is not an acceptable way of life for them...

 

few find the way and the many are destroyed[Matt 7:13-14] so clearly you need a category for saints  too [those who stop sinning to receive the Truth] who can prove nothing [except that they agree with the few other saints, about two thousand alive ar any one time according to Jesus' statements ... likely not counted as proof]

 

also whilst many atheists SAY they do not know, it is important to realise that God claims they do know , but live in denial or misinformation.... for many agnostics use Love as their 'morality' for life which is exactly what God commands and no creedal religionist does Love .... but God is Love to us , that is what we can know of God before spirit baptism reveals all [to those who Love with no more desire to abuse with sin]

 

1 John 4:8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

...

1 John 4:16  And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

 

now many atheists are aware of the fact that all creedal religionists are sinners, most of them hypocrites too, and the scripture says they CANNOT know God or Jesus ...which has given God a bad name because the god of mass religions is creedal, a fake... the real God is found only by spirit baptism of those very few who stop sinning to Love in this life...

 

so one needs more understanding of God before making up the 'definitions... those with faith in Love who DO LOve, not sin any more, are fully accepted by God... God does NOT require to be called 'God', only that one Loves...

[RobbyPants]

I see no reason to 'prove' there is a god for anyone , so the definitions need to be modified ... unlike creedal religion, teh bible and holy spirit convey that anyone who Loves, whose loses the desire to abuse folks with sin, will receive all Truth from God Himself, absolute Truth but received PERSONALLY... thus also the bible states -Joel 2:28- that all will receive all Truth eventually, but few in this life because few Love, stop abusing others and themselves with sin...

 

Well, you might not feel the need to prove, and many don't. I, for example, would have classified myself as a agnostic theist for the last few years that I was still Christian, if I had seen these definitions at that point in time; however, there are plenty of Christians who do feel the need to prove God exists (I have talked to several), so I think it's still appropriate to include that definition.

[alphaparticle]

 

Here are some of the questions rattling around in my head with regards to this. Does it really make sense to claim that physical stuff just exists for no reason whatsoever? and, not only does physical stuff just happen to exist, with no further explanation, it's *ordered* beyond belief. So now the claim is that all this stuff just exists in an extremely ordered state for no reason whatsoever. Why would anyone look at that and just assume there is no reason for any of it? I don't think that is the most reasonable, rational response to the state of affairs which is our universe. Assuming that there is nothing behind the existence of the universe and its exquisite ordering is itself an assumption that lacks reasoning.

You are basically starting a god of the gaps argument. Just because someone doesn't have a concrete answer to a question of "why things are the way they are" doesn't automatically assume the answer must be a god, and more specifically, it certainly doesn't assume the answer is any specific god.

Another way to put this: lets say the scientists found some evidence that completely invalidated all current scientific models for things like the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. All that would mean is that science wouldn't (currently) have any answers to those questions. It wouldn't automatically prove the existence of any gods, let alone any specific god(s). Proving any particular god exists is a separate task.

 

 

It's actually not a "God of the gaps" argument for the following reason. I am not positing God as an explanation for any particular phenomenon that a naturalistic explanation might possibly be a perfectly good explanation. So for instance,  I hear thunder, I posit God is directly causing that because I can't think of an explanation in terms of physical causes, there is a "God of the gaps argument" because I could come up with a number of naturalistic hypotheses for the thunder. And of course, it turns out, we can explain thunder in terms of physical causation. "Why is there *anything* at all" is a state of affairs which is logically prior to there being any physical causal events happening at all. It is in fact the grounding necessary for there to be physical causal explanations to exist. There is no potential explanation in terms of physical explanations- any that you posit will have to assume the very thing we are trying to explain.