Yes, Atheists do Exist.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam

You know a lot more of your ilk than I do, Pygoscelis, so answer me this. How many atheists do you ever meet who didn't stop believing before they reached the age of, oh, say, twenty-five-ish or so? Didn't you tell me that you pretty much never believed even as a little kid? I've heard that one quite a lot too. For example I don’t know how many Wikipedia articles I’ve come across with some variation of the exact words “decided early on he was an atheist”. So, so many. Dan Barker was, to be sure, in his mid-thirties (which isn't very far removed from the age range I spoke of) but he's the only exception that springs quickly to mind.

I have seen both. Yes, I myself was never really a believer. I went through the rituals as a child but when I put my mind to it I realized I never really believed in any of it. Other people become atheists later in life. I know some who became atheists as seniors. If you want to talk to a bunch of atheists about this, I know a pretty cordial atheist board I can refer you to so you can ask many atheists their story.

Flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, fairies, leprechauns in your attic...of course our old pal Santa Claus is always sure to rear his hoary head eventually.

You think atheism is a juvenile stage. There are plenty of atheists who think theism is (and yes, liken belief in God to belief in Santa). I don't think it behooves us to speak of either in that manner.

When I refused to give him the time of day by responding to his childishness he got even more childish—so much so, in fact, that he told me that if I was going to be a great big crybaby and run and cry to mommy instead of coming out and fighting him like a big kid then FINE ALREADY!

He looks like a troll or a bully, looking to attack you for the sake of attacking you. Most web forums have a culture that forms an ingroup (even atheist boards do), and then some members of it decide to see themselves as champions of it and attack anybody who doesn't agree with the board's stance, and make posts full of venom and childishness. We have plenty of that here too. I'm actually refreshed that hasn't hit this thread yet. It will once certain board members read it.

People always seem to set themselves in opposition to religion when they’re young, or at the very least have traits easily associated with youthfulness or all out immaturity in their personalities. In contrast what are old people more infamous for? Being strongly religious. I’m sorry but I’m fighting a losing battle here. Oh atheists are real, all right. And it’s not a good thing that they are either.

Old people are more conservative in general, more set in their ways, less adaptive to change, to challenging the norm, to challenging tradition, and to seeing things a new way or with their own fresh eyes. When new scientific breakthroughs happen you often have older scientists hanging on to the old theory until they die too. They have invested too much time and energy into their beliefs to change them. The major shifts usually only happen once the new generation comes through. If that happens with science, where the whole point of the enterprise is to challenge what we thought we knew, it will be even stronger in religion.

Seems atheism is popular here too:

Priest alone in the church yesterday:



Local mosque was full of prayers at the same time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

No. They are just not believers. Did you choose not to believe you are a dolphin dreaming? Or do you just not believe that?



A lot of atheists may believe that, but that isn't atheism. You can be atheist and not believe that.



There is no need to disprove God. If you are going to claim God then the burden of proof is on you, not them.

Moreover, if you define God as unfalsifiable, then they couldn't possibly disprove God anyway.



That is a pretty strange meaning of "Faith". Do you also have faith that Darth Vader and Santa do not exist, and that you are not a dolphin dreaming? That's a lot of faith, since we could come up with a very long list of things you don't believe.

Bottomline, if your belief in atheism is not held in faith, then what ? Do you have empirical evidence that proves your atheism? If not, then you're in the same boat as the theists. I don't see what I'm missing here.

Why would the burden of proof be on the theist. Religion has been and is still the norm. The atheist is the one going against the grain.

format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'Forest

This reminds me of someone I met a long time ago. He said he was an atheist, but when people tried to reason with him, he admitted that he doesn't actually belive that God doesn't exist but he just doesn't want to worship him. He even said that he finds Hell much more exciting than paradise.....

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I'll wager that you misunderstood him, just as many here are misunderstanding me.

I bet what he meant is that he doesn't like the God you have described and would not worship him if he did exist, and that the heaven you describe also doesn't appeal to him. I could be wrong, but I bet that is what he meant. A lot of atheists would agree with that, including me (assuming you described God and heaven as it has been described on this board).

huh?

let's take a closer look at your confused self:

Berries: This reminds me of someone I met a long time ago. He said he was an atheist, but when people tried to reason with him, he admitted that he doesn't actually belive that God doesn't exist


Pygo: I bet what he meant is that (subjectivity is failure in itself my friend) he doesn't like the God you have described and would not worship him if he did exist

No Pygo, play ball here. Do not insert your own interpretations from someone elses account my friend, it only serves to make you look weak and desperate... are you?

Let's carry on:

Berries: but he just doesn't want to worship him. He even said that he finds Hell much more exciting than paradise....

Pygo: and that the heaven you describe also doesn't appeal to him. I could be wrong, (do you really think you are wrong when you are only repeating back what the other guy had said? Pygo, you do realise that stating the obvious yet unrelated, does not earn you more kudos here, right?) but I bet that is what he meant. A lot of atheists would agree with that, including me (assuming you described God and heaven as it has been described on this board).

Assuming that God and Heaven were described as they are in this board? Listen up Pygo, Muslims differ from Christian and Jews in the sense that we remain constant in our understanding of the Quran and the Sunnah, and therefore, you will find 99.99% of all Muslims giving the same information regarding God and Heaven...

You've not said anything in your post to lend your world view any weight. If your post was a stop-gap for a breather, then pardon me for knocking the metaphorical wind out of your chest

...I can't wait to read more of you. You seem like someone I would enjoy picking apart.

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I don't take offense at all.

cool!

I fully expect that you would believe your holy book over something I say. When your holy book tells you that there are no people who completely lack belief in your God, and then I come along and tell you I completely lack belief in your God, I'm not really offended when you go with your holy book and see what I am saying as a lie.

i AM NOT saying that you are lying. that would be rude. i am merely instructing you on the proper viewpoint.

Makes perfect sense to me that you would then tell your brothers and sisters in Islam that there are no atheists. What confuses me is when you try to tell me that.

it is our obligation to instruct others on Islamic monotheism. first, i'm dying from heart disease, so it is not like i can put this off. second, it isn't like i went out and found you somewhere where it might be considered inappropriate to discuss it. you come here, this is an Islamic message board. so, imagine that i'll be dead by year's end, i'm not going to Canada anytime soon, and i doubt you'll be in Auburn, WA anytime soon; when or where else might seem like a more appropriate place?

I know that I don't believe in your God and nothing you say or believe is going to change that reality.

so, you consider yourself a god? you ABSOLUTELY KNOW what is going to happen in the future? got any stock tips?

It would be like me telling you I am a millionaire. You may be absolutely convinced I am not. But if I have the money in my hand, telling me that isn't going to sway me very much

our only responsibility is to deliver the message. it is NOT our job to "sway" anyone. me, being a tad short on time, will be a little more direct than some others. not sure how much time there is to "beat around the bush".

Theism and atheism are a major divide, like having hair or not having hair is. Then on top of that, for those who have hair, you have hairstyles. There are some very big differences between religions, but they all have that one thing in common that I lack, a belief in the supernatural. Unless of course we are talking about eastern philosophies that I really wouldn't call religion.

Yes, of course, but not huge differences in outcome. With polytheism you may have different people with different Gods, and they may war, or they may be accepting of each other. With monotheism you have people who insist there is only one God, their God. Their God is the only God, and so their God is the only God it is tolerable to worship, which has caused a lot of conflict.

They are pretty serious about their religion. They accept me though, and I think it actually may be bolstered rather than inhibited by their religion. They see that I treat their daughter well and that I am stable and do good in the community. That seems to make them like me.

being a(n alleged) atheist, and knowing all the issues that arise living with a woman, how can you get married if you don't believe in love?

peace

Some who became atheists as seniors…a pretty cordial atheist board

Good news—but “produce your proof, if you speak truly”.

He looks like a troll or a bully, looking to attack you for the sake of attacking you.

Oh, certainly. But he’s also a very, very old scientist, who is anything but conservative—and who told me he never really believed in religion even as a child. Example number seventy gajillion.

If you are going to claim God then the burden of proof is on you, not them.

“If you are going to claim God”, eh? But we never claimed God's existence with total, 100% certainty, now did we? We therefore merely have a “lack of belief” in atheism. The burden of proof is now on you instead of us.

Just. Give. Up. With. That. Awful. Phrase.

But of course you’re not gonna. You guys need that phrase. Semantics is your rod, your shield and your armor.

format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro

Don't mean to derail the thread, however, I find it strange that a Christian doubts the existence of God. We have historical evidence to prove the existence of Jesus Christ (PBUH), so isn't that enough for any Christian to be satisfied that there is a God? Or is your faith linked to the divinity of Jesus Christ (PBUH), or in other words your faith depends on whether he was a God or not?

Of course I believe that God exists. What makes you think that I don't?

But I don't think that we have any proof of his existence which stand up to scientific scrutiny. Do you think we have? Since this is a thread by and about atheists, I think it is only right and fair to make that clear.

I have many, many reasons to believe in God and the divinity of Jesus - but scientific proof is not the reason for it.

Interesting that you mention historic evidence for the existence of Jesus.
I understand that even many non-believers are of the opinion that Jesus existed. But do we have hard historic evidence?
Let me know what evidence you are talking about. I would be interested to hear more about it.

I don't know of any physical proof of the existence of Jesus but the fact is generally accepted even by atheists. It's a complex subject which I admit I'm rusty on and never read too terribly extensively into to begin with but in short "Christ mythicism" is considered a sort of fringe movement and for good reason. In order to make it work people like Robert Price really have to go out of their way to forcibly reinterpret certain facts. (I suspect that he misrepresented the words of Barbara Mikkelson too--but I admit I've only seen the interview and not read the book.) I would summarize the situation by saying that if you're going to doubt the existence of Jesus then you may as well go ahead and doubt the existence of at least one-fourth of all the other people filling the history textbooks you grew up with as well, because they tend to be in the same boat in terms of sheerly provable historicity. That's just the way it works. If we can't take it that he was real then we pretty much can't understand anything when you think about it. And of course that's still leaving aside altogether the question of whether The Qur'an is true, which settles things anyway.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

I understand that even many non-believers are of the opinion that Jesus existed. But do we have hard historic evidence?
Let me know what evidence you are talking about. I would be interested to hear more about it.

To be fair we don't have "hard" historical evidence for almost anything that dates beyond a millennium, but we have enough evidence which is sufficient for even a non-theist to believe that a man named Jesus Christ (PBUH) did walk on this Earth around 2000 years ago.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I am starting to get your point that atheism actually is a belief system and that it goes beyond the absence of belief or faith in God. Atheist actually do believe that God does NOT exist! They have no evidence on which to base this negative belief and actually have less evidence than theist which is the creation being evidence of a Creator. Atheism is actually not supported by anything other than the absence of scientific, physical evidence of God's existence. A stronger position is held by the agnostic who says God may or may not exist, but he does not accept anything unless he has evidence for its existence.

that's what i'm saying! you CANNOT say God does not exist! because a) it isn't true, and b) you CANNOT prove it! ergo, there is no such thing as an atheist, there are only people that either "think" they are, "proclaim" they are, or any combination of the two.

IF you CANNOT prove what you think you can't see, you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT disprove it based upon the same evidence! it is simply not possible. it isn't even logical.

and agnosticism, while an incorrect belief system, is perfectly logical. if you believe that you don't know something, then, "i don't know" is a totally rational answer. ANY other answer would have to begin with, "i think..." but if you "think" something, and then based upon what you "think", you say "i know"...you are not telling the truth!

and Allahu Alam

a·the·ist


noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

which stand up to scientific scrutiny

What kind of tests do you have in mind?

Loner: does love exist?

Romeo: yeah, of course it does

Loner: prove it

Romeo: Did your parents not love you?

Loner: I'm an orphan and was raised by wolves

Romeo: did the wolves not care for you? is that not an extension of love?

Loner: they're animals, they're incapable of human emotion

Romeo: what makes you say that?

Loner: experience

Romeo: so the experience you had in early childhood, being raised by wolves is disregarded because they are not humans?

Loner: precisely

Romeo: ok (bewildered expression)

Loner: So can you prove that love exists?

Romeo: only from my own personal experiences

Loner: but that's not proof, that's your experiences

Romeo: I am but the sum total of my experiences, and I am witness to these, therefore I am the proof that love exists. I claim it exists, and so would the lady I married. Alhamdulilllah.

Loner: that's just BS, you loverboys clearly lack the faculty of reason and often cite from experiences that are open to interpretation, yet to throw these out as facts?

Romeo: I feel sad that you cannot use YOUR faculty of reason on this. You asked me for proof of love's existence, I gave you the only proof I knew how to give - my experiences. It would seem that if you had it your way, you would like to trap "love" in a box and keep it in your pocket, sorry bro, but that's not the way love works. What validates your experiences over mine? nothing. SO you cannot operate on a double standard here - that would be hypocritical of you.

....

I always find it odd that atheists will constantly ask for empirical proofs for the existence of God, whilst at the same time knowing that universe (effect) is limitied to a space time continuum.... meaning that the cause would be outside of that - how do you measure something that is outside of the space time continuum? Answer - you cannot.

Oooh, this will get the atheists goat:

Let's speculate here, on the hadron collider
let's say the pinky's at CERN managed to formulate a model of the universe - and from concept, BIG BANG. Let's say that this experiment yielded in planetary formulations, orbits, galaxies etc, all that we have in our universe... now let's say that a tiny blue sphere of a planet gave rise to intelligent life, the dna of which, was formulated by those pinkys at CERN and their ilk...

...Now, let's say this species (let's call them human) started to argue abuout the possibility of a god?

Theologically speaking, it would make more sense for these humans to understand that the universe was the effect and the cause is outside of the effect (space time continuum) and therefore a higher being does exist, just not in our universe, and definitely not in our dimension.

So when those humans who claim there is no god, ask for empirical proofs in order to lend their theory more weight, we have to remind them that the standard by which they are looking to conclude, is wholly flawed from the offset...

...ofcourse, you know where that goes: "You're just another stupid person who doesn't understand science" et al...

...enter Mustafa MC, and they can't claim that line anymore. Atheist? on the back foot.

Scimi

Where is God? explained in under 3 mins by Shaikh Hamza Yusuf Hansen


Scimi