Yes, Atheists do Exist.

[Pygoscelis]

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.

I see what you are missing. I have defined what I mean by atheism a few times above and you seem to have missed it. Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods. It is simply not being convinced that Gods exist. I can prove that there is no God anymore than I can prove that I will win the lottery tomorrow. I don't have any good reason to believe either one though, so I don't hold those beliefs. So I don't go to church and I don't buy a sports car.

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.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim and wants others to believe it. If you want others to believe in your God then the burden of proof is on you. If you don't care what others believe, then there is nothing to prove. Personally, I'll cool with that. You can go on seeing me as blind, having not seen what you have seen, and I can go on seeing you as believing in something I don't.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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...

That has not been my experience. The views expressed on this board are very very different than those expressed by other muslims I know. You can pretend that everybody agrees with you, or you can call the others "not real muslims", the same way Christians so often do that to each other, but I have seen what I have seen.

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

Don't worry. You haven't done any such thing. I haven't even expressed my world view. It isn't relevant to this thread. I have only said I am atheist.

 

[Pygoscelis]

“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.

You hold a belief that I lack. And I don't know you personally, but I will bet very strongly that you hold this belief pretty strongly and that it is dear to you. Atheism isn't dear to me at all, and I don't hold to it with intent. I am a skeptic, but if actual convincing evidence came along, I would be quite open to accepting the facts as they are proved. Unfortunately theists usually make their Gods and the claims about them unfalsifiable, so no such evidence is likely to be found.

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.

Do you see why that phrase matters? It isn't a "sheild". It is an important distinction. In this thread over and over people are demanding I prove God doesn't exist. They claim that I have "faith" God doesn't exist, etc. I don't have any ability or desire to prove God doesn't exist, no more than I could or would want to prove I won't win the lottery tomorrow. I don't believe I will win the lottery tomorrow. That is all. Somebody else may think they have lucky numbers and will win it. I don't find that convincing. I lack that belief.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

No, it isn't. Anything beyond that absence of belief in God goes beyond mere atheism. Of course, atheists do have belief systems and world views, and not believing in God may open the door to some of them or make some of them more likely than others, but atheism in itself is not world view. Atheists are not all humanists. They are not all materialists. They are not all evolutionists.

 

[Scimitar]

That has not been my experience. The views expressed on this board are very very different than those expressed by other muslims I know. You can pretend that everybody agrees with you, or you can call the others "not real muslims", the same way Christians so often do that to each other, but I have seen what I have seen.



Don't worry. You haven't done any such thing. I haven't even expressed my world view. It isn't relevant to this thread. I have only said I am atheist.

In a thread titled "yes atheists do exist" you decided to say "I'm here, sir" like you do in classrooms? come on... pull the other one. You are trying to express your world view within the context of this thread. It's THAT obvious.

Scimi

 

[Pygoscelis]

IF you CANNOT prove what you think you can't see, you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT disprove it based upon the same evidence!

... and enter Russel's teapot, the FSM, the UPI, faeries, and ghosts. You absolutely cannot disprove any of those either. That doesn't mean you should believe they exist, or that they are remotely likely to exist.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

The meaning of the word "atheism" is twofold. It can mean mean the atheist doesn't believe in God or that the atheist believes there is no God. The distinction is an important one. I mean the former when I use the term, because I find the definition more useful and fitting (a-theist, one who is not theist; theist meaning one who believes in Gods), and I have made that explicit multiple times in this thread. Others here seem to be meaning the latter.

When I first realized I was atheist (or better put, when I realized other people actually believed in God literally) I wondered for a long time what I should call myself. If I defined atheist as one who knows with certainty there is no God, and denies the very possibility, then I am not one, and neither is any other "atheist" I had met. I called myself "agnostic" for a while but that term suffers just as much confusion as "atheist" does. Many think agnostic means one who isn't sure, or doesn't know, or can't decide if they think God exists. But agnostic is also used to mean one who believes we CAN NOT know if God exists (a much more useful definition).

I later learned that people have come up with additional useful definitions regarding atheism. "Strong Atheists" are people who boldly assert there is no possibilty of Gods. "Weak Atheists" are those who simply lack belief in Gods. And then you can fall on a spectrum between strong and weak. I'm somewhere in the middle. I can't say with certainty that Gods can't exist, but I can say that I find the idea highly implausible and have seen no evidence to push me towards thinking it likely. I find a deist creator "God" or creation force a little plausible (first cause and all that) but a personal God who looks over us, much less any particular one currently being pushed, not so much. Of course with these God claims always made unfalsifiable, there is no way to know for sure.

In my day to day life, if asked about religion I say I am a Skeptic (that wasn't an option when I made my profile here). I like that name, "Skeptic", because it applies to far more than religious claims and it is more than a state of non-belief. It is an approach to understanding the world. Skepticism is not a complete worldview of course, but it says a lot more than atheism does.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Oh but I'm not the one who debated with him. And we weren't all muslims talking to him either. I think he possibly despises the whole idea of submitting to God. But does what you're saying mean that this particular description of God does not appeal to you? How would you have wanted it otherwise?. And would it be able to restore the lack of belief you are experiencing?.

I'd rather not go into why I dislike the literalist or fundamentalist version of the Abrahamic God. That would have to be a whole other thread, and would probably get locked quickly, as it would probably make some here angry.

More on point though, no, you could take away the authoritarian tyrant fire and brimstone type God and substitute in the loving caring father figure God, and it wouldn't change a thing in terms of my belief. I don't believe because I don't see reason to. You could edit Darth Vader to be a cute bunny with cape and respirator and I still wouldn't believe in him either

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

They would have no way of knowing this though. They may correctly guess it to be true, but that would be mere luck. They also may come up with some religious creation story or another. They may even dream up Gods and declare that these Gods want them to do certain things and to worship them. Imagine the surprise on the CERN scientists faces if they ever looked in and saw all this, these people worshiping imaginary Gods, because these humans have active imaginations and don't like not knowing stuff, and CERN didn't give them any actual communication.

Or, what if CERN went beyond mere deism, and wanted to interact and communicate with the humans. As soon as it did so, as soon as it interacted with the human's world, of course then there would be evidence for the humans to find that CERN exists.

Having created these humans, would CERN want them to worship it? I can't imagine why. But lets say CERN did. Would it communicate its demands and instructions to the humans through a written text, indiscernible to most of the humans from all the other false "holy books" they themselves invented? Would it send a messenger, to one remote area of the world only, that looks to most of the humans who hear about him just like the false prophets from the false religions the humans created before? Would they punish humans that were not convinced by this?

Or maybe they would provide some actual convincing evidence, maybe arrange some planets in the form of sentences and write the holy book that way, or maybe just beam the knowledge that they exist into the minds of the humans. Being CERN, and not actually omnipotent beings, they would have their limits, but I'm sure they could do a better job than the claims of most modern day religions' purported Gods have done.

Our own earth looks pretty much how one would expect it to look absent an interested or personal God looking over it. We can't know for sure how our universe started, and a creation force, or being, or deist "God" if you want to call it that, is one possibility. But just like these humans in your story, we have no way of knowing if it is so.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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

Scimi

Interesting choice of video to post. I watched it. He never answers the question "Where is God". He says we shouldn't ask that question, because we don't know a whole lot. He seems to want us to remain in eternal ignorance about things. He then says he doesn't want to link Islam to science too much, and he is wise in this, because scientific understanding is constantly changing as we gain better understanding through study. Science is falsifiable, that's how it progresses, and if Islam made falsifiable claims, it could be falsified and that simply wouldn't do, because then he'd then have to admit that he didn't have the absolute truth handed down from on high.

 

[Pygoscelis]

In a thread titled "yes atheists do exist" you decided to say "I'm here, sir" like you do in classrooms? come on... pull the other one. You are trying to express your world view within the context of this thread. It's THAT obvious.

I find it ironic that people here complain that atheists are arrogant, and yet we get posts like this here from Muslims....

Yes, I posted the OP to state simply that atheists DO exist. Frequently here I have seen statements that claim that everybody believes in God, and that some are simply in denial or rebelling against him. We see statements here like "Atheists are arrogant to reject God" (as if there was a choice), or "Atheists don't appreciate what God did for them" (assuming they know God exists), or "atheists are selfish and don't want to acknowledge God because they don't want to be accountable to God". We see that here a lot. We've even seen it in this thread.

So yes, I started this thread to state flatly that I exist and I really am an atheist. I am not in rebellion against a non-existing God. I do not feign a lack of belief in some attempt to avoid personal responsibility. I simply do not believe. I never have. I only realized other people literally did when I became an adult, and I found it perplexing, and fascinating.

 

[Pygoscelis]

LOL ok I have posted waaaaay too much here tonight, but a lot of you addressed me.

One final thing I will post is this video. It addresses the false understanding that "atheists reject God". Since we have so many people here trying to analyze the minds of atheists, here is a good look in the opposite direction.

 

[glo]

What kind of tests do you have in mind?

Quite.
I cannot think of a test which would prove (or disprove) God's existence either. Hence it continues to be a question of faith.

 

[Scimitar]

LOL ok I have posted waaaaay too much here tonight, but a lot of you addressed me.

One final thing I will post is this video. It addresses the false understanding that "atheists reject God". Since we have so many people here trying to analyze the minds of atheists, here is a good look in the opposite direction.

that's a bit strong. Suffer from an inferiority complex much there pygo? seems like it.

I have friends I've known since childhood who are atheists, 3 on my street alone - so when you go and post a video which plays the "oh feel sorry for me coz I'm an atheist" card, it really does seem like you're grasping at straws...

as for this:

Interesting choice of video to post. I watched it. He never answers the question "Where is God". He says we shouldn't ask that question, because we don't know a whole lot. He seems to want us to remain in eternal ignorance about things. He then says he doesn't want to link Islam to science too much, and he is wise in this, because scientific understanding is constantly changing as we gain better understanding through study. Science is falsifiable, that's how it progresses, and if Islam made falsifiable claims, it could be falsified and that simply wouldn't do, because then he'd then have to admit that he didn't have the absolute truth handed down from on high.

I already answered that in the previous post, which you entirely ignored - so i'll put it in your face once more:

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.

And this something you just can't wrap your head around is it? And you talk to me of science... sure I fell off my chair laughing at your lack of logic here.

Your blind faith in a science which itself is always evolving and full of uncertainties, really makes me think you have invested "faith" in a new age belief system. it's a good thing you wasn't a teen in the 60's eh?

enjoy your day

Scimi

 

[tearose]

The views expressed on this board are very very different than those expressed by other muslims I know. You can pretend that everybody agrees with you, or you can call the others "not real muslims", the same way Christians so often do that to each other, but I have seen what I have seen.

You have no reason to believe that the reaction would be either one of the unlikely options you posted. You could only know what the reactions would be if you posted the different views and if others responded to them. What Christians do is of no relevance. As I said in the other thread, the reasons or roots of differences of opinion can usually be identified, in my experience. wa Allahu a3lam.

 

[Independent]

It's such an odd thread that atheists have to prove they exist! A couple of observations with regard to proof of religion by science:

I do not think atheism based on the scientific method exists. You get a bunch of scientists and pseudo-scientists (mostly this) who come in an try to use science to somehow prove atheism. When in reality, atheism is more faith-based than really any religion out there. One must make a huge leap of faith when deciding to become an atheist. Going strictly by science, and no faith, one would probably land somewhere in agnosticism

Is science opposed to faith? Are scientists trying to destroy religion? If you choose to say that your faith can in fact be proven by science, then at that point you make your religion 'fair game' for scientific debate, just like any other scientific concept. You have to accept that scientists will examine your supposed proof and may find it wanting. If you choose to play the science game, you have to accept the rough and tumble and stop accusing scientists of evil intentions!

He then says he doesn't want to link Islam to science too much, and he is wise in this, because scientific understanding is constantly changing as we gain better understanding through study.

This criticism is often made of science in this forum. The idea is, science says nothing of value because it changes all the time, whereas God is immutable. This is not a fair reflection of what's going on.

Although science is constantly changing, growing, tackling new questions, and sometimes revising old answers, that doesn't mean that the whole thing is unstable. The mathematics of science is mostly unchanging. Many specific ideas and theories are established once and for all and don't change (eg the planets orbit in parabola, not a perfect circle). Or, what was once the supposed final explanation remains true, but is added to by further levels - eg neutrons and electrons turn out to made up of even smaller particles, all the way down to the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson.

This doesn't mean the previous science is rejected, it has been supplemented in a non-contradictory way.

So, it's not accurate to say that there is no constancy in science, simply because some parts of it may change. Science does not claim to be the finished article and that's one of the things that makes it so exciting!

And incidentally....

This doesn't make sense to me. Aren't there non-Christian history books, Roman Empire records and archaeologists that have proven that Jesus (PBUH) existed?

He is recorded in various non-Christian texts such as the Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 70 years after his death (and also talking about Pontius Pilate). Tacitus would have had direct access to Roman records.

 

[Indian Bro]

It's such an odd thread that atheists have to prove they exist!

From my understanding, atheists are people who don't have any faith that there is a God, this doesn't mean they rule out the existence of God but they just don't have faith that there is one. I don't see anything wrong with that, we have free-will after all

Is science opposed to faith? Are scientists trying to destroy religion? If you choose to say that your faith can in fact be proven by science, then at that point you make your religion 'fair game' for scientific debate, just like any other scientific concept. You have to accept that scientists will examine your supposed proof and may find it wanting. If you choose to play the science game, you have to accept the rough and tumble and stop accusing scientists of evil intentions!

Science is just ONE of the aspects that can be used to prove Islam is the truth, it's not the only aspect. The Qur'an isn't a science book, we're not asking schools to throw away their books on biology, chemistry and physics and replace them with the Qur'an, no! We Muslims just find it miraculous that many scientific statements made in the Qur'an 1400 years ago are turning out to be consistent with science even today based on recent scientific breakthroughs and discoveries. There could be scientists who might or might not have their anti-religion agendas when they take their approach towards science (Charles Darwin anyone?) but this doesn't mean anything to be honest because all they will come up against proving the existence of God will be nothing more than theories! For example, what happened before the big-bang? Scientists will suggest the multi-verse theory, an infinite big-bangs of universes or something of the sort - ideally they'll accept that something "infinite" existed before time and space and was the cause of the universe but they wont want to accept that this "infinite" source is God. I'm fine with that as long as people don't blindly believe in these scientific theories just to fulfill their hate-agenda towards God, because if they do then that's just blind-faith (ironically something atheists accuse us theists of, lol).

So, it's not accurate to say that there is no constancy in science, simply because some parts of it may change. Science does not claim to be the finished article and that's one of the things that makes it so exciting!

I don't think any Muslims can say religion and science cant co-exist in peace but it rather depends on where you're going with science. Are you just trying to prove a point or trying to find new ways to benefit society as a whole, if its the latter then I don't see any reason why you cant believe in God at the same time!

But as for those scientists trying to prove an atheistic point, well...

/grabs popcorn, its gon' be a long ride!

 

[IAmZamzam]

Atheism isn't dear to me at all, and I don't hold to it with intent. I am a skeptic, but if actual convincing evidence came along, I would be quite open to accepting the facts as they are proved.

Forgive me but I don’t think that you would. You would just brush it all off as still being too tribalistic for your taste. I think you even told me once that you care just as much what effect beliefs have on people as whether or not they’re actually true.

I was going to congratulate you for taking a step up with the lottery analogy, but then I deleted my kudos when I saw this:

...and enter Russel's teapot, the FSM, the UPI, faeries, and ghosts. You absolutely cannot disprove any of those either. That doesn't mean you should believe they exist, or that they are remotely likely to exist.

I am now convinced that you’re incapable of learning. Thanks for bursting my bubble.

Atheists are…not all materialists. They are not all evolutionists.

Just like a fair number of them become atheists as old men. Again it’s true in theory. And again you present absolutely no evidence.

I’ll say it again, Pygoscelis, although you’ll just dance around it again. Most theists aren’t absolutely 100% certain that God does exist. Therefore we “lack belief” in atheism. That puts us in the same boat as you—along with, for that matter, most people taking most positions on most subjects in the world throughout history. If you had any confidence in your position at all then you would have no problem ceding such a small point as this. Is there any reason why you can’t just come out and call a spade a spade?

Interesting choice of video to post. I watched it. He never answers the question "Where is God". He says we shouldn't ask that question, because we don't know a whole lot. He seems to want us to remain in eternal ignorance about things. He then says he doesn't want to link Islam to science too much, and he is wise in this, because scientific understanding is constantly changing as we gain better understanding through study. Science is falsifiable, that's how it progresses, and if Islam made falsifiable claims, it could be falsified and that simply wouldn't do, because then he'd then have to admit that he didn't have the absolute truth handed down from on high

Ah yes, the old sermon. Brave, modern science moves forward; cowardly, bruja-stick-waving religion stays in place. I’m getting tired of explaining the numerous logical problems with these assertions. Besides which (1) You never listen to a word I say about anything. (2) It never does any good to explain these things to anyone: the sermon is rooted entirely in holier-than-thou “us vs. them” scorn, not reasoning, and thus the people making it are not open to persuasion of any kind, and (3) a paper I’m working on already is going to address it anyway. You want to know why “people here complain that atheists are arrogant”? Try the fact that you yourself make statements like “He is wise in this…science is falsifiable, that’s how it progresses, and if Islam made falsifiable claims, it could be falsified and that simply wouldn’t do, because then he’d have to admit that he didn’t have the absolute truth handed down from on high”. If I can’t convince you that comparing people’s beliefs to fairies is arrogant, can’t I at least make you see that? Oh who am I kidding? Of course I can’t! What am I saying???

 

[Independent]

all they will come up against proving the existence of God will be nothing more than theories!

This is not correct because, as I said, much of science is established and agreed and no longer theoretical. Evolution (since you mention Darwin) remains theoretical. You are wrong about him being intentionally anti-religion, however.

I don't think any Muslims can say religion and science cant co-exist in peace but it rather depends on where you're going with science. Are you just trying to prove a point or trying to find new ways to benefit society as a whole, if its the latter then I don't see any reason why you cant believe in God at the same time!

The great majority of scientists (including Darwin) simply follow where their studies take them. The implications for religion, if any, are almost always accidental.

As i say, if you choose to try and prove a religion by science (which i personally think is a mistake) you must accept scientific analysis and criticism.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Speaking of that video (which uses Youtube commenters, of all people, as an example of how theists are really aggressive people—classic!) , have you noticed how despite supposedly being about theism it shows its true colors at the end and reveals itself to really only be about Christianity? Somehow the matter always seems to boil down in the end to the religion the antireligious person was raised in or has had a bad experience with, or which is dominant in their culture. “Be honest with yourself”, the video says. This guy really should take his own advice.