Thank you for so many replies. I have come to the conclusion that the proclaimed atheists do not even exhibit 1% of the characteristics of an Atheists. They are very hollow and shallow in their lives and they are constantly looking for a God in their lives. Maybe one day, you all will find what you people are looking for. Perserverence and positive attitude is the key here. I am sure you also would have learnt alot about the theists and their characteristics. A few of the guys are not even clear in their basics of mathematics. They are not clear about the set and the subset theories.
I know you all want to talk much about God like 100,000 comments or so but Like Plato emphasised on studying Mathematics, I would also recommend you all to learn Mathematics before you try to understand God in a much better way because you want to theorize God in a theorem. Maybe with mathematics, you will get basic reasoning. The basic reasoning skills like One Ma'am was telling me that C14 doesn't disintegrate into C12, Thank you again for clarifying which I read in High school but if you would increase your reasoning abilities then you would be able to grasp that what matters is it disintegrates and yet Another Ma'am was telling me about the difference between radiometry and carbon dating and telling me that it was not accurate. If it is not accurate then what is the possibility that the genome dating, napping is accurate. Scientists are not even scientific enough to find a nice vaccine for COVID - 19 after these 3 years of studies and people are still suffering from COVID in different parts of the world even now and they are talking about genome dating. That sounds paradoxical to me. Then, another Sir was eager and troubled so much with this post that he wanted my words in my mouth so he wanted to comfort himself in listening from me that people are fake inside a religion too. I told him so and it is true to some extent because when people are pretending to be Atheist and people are not Atheist then I am sure, people are devoted to some religion, even their own version of religion and that makes them count in not being true to a religion. Subset theory would clarify that those 40% people whom I said are not Christians really are confused whether they are Atheist or they are following Christianity. But anyways, I didn't want to upset him. And he is a Happy man now. Even if I can make 1 person happy, it makes my day.
I am already overwhelmed by your immense replies on this post. So, I can see how bad you all want a God. Some of you are even searching the religions of the World in search of God. But the comfort is always back home. We don't have a bed in the office (in most cases). Bed is back home.
@samueltyler2 I have no problem with the ones that make public their faiths and want to share them with others. I can only hope that they realize that such intention is better served by being an example of good people. With the kind of goodness that can be recognized not solely by their own people standards but from other also good people that don´t need to agree with said standards. And that implies a deep respect for their human fellows.
When this do not happen you may have good reasons to suspect on their motivations.
@TheOrionbeltseeker A Christian is someone who believes Jesus’ crucifixion atones for their sins, and that he rose from the dead three days later. Everything else is just window dressing.
It is a very common thing for so-called atheists to be mad at the God they profess not to believe in. Haven’t you ever watched some of them on the television in debate getting madder and madder in their reasoning about this God they hate but not believing in? It was a phenomenon with the so-called new atheists.
And it is very prevalent here if you read some of the posts. Of course they deny it like anything because they kid themselves that it’s reason working but no it’s denial. But then you notice how many times they go off into abuse
@TheOrionbeltseeker agnostic adjective UK /æɡˈnɒs.tɪk/ US /æɡˈnɑː.stɪk/ agnostic: adjective (not knowing)
Not knowing or not having an opinion about whether something is true, good, correct, etc.: He claims to be agnostic on the question of man-made global warming. I am agnostic when it comes to his art and its merits.
not knowing or not having an opinion about whether something is true, good, correct, etc.: She remained agnostic on the question of whether to join the war. We could never be agnostic about the virtues of political freedom.
agnostic: adjective (COMPUTING)
COMPUTING specialized relating to hardware or software that can be used with many different types of platform (= system)
As I said (perhaps you missed that part):
Uninformed usage of 'agnostic' as a noun is common, but that does not make it correct.
Perhaps you'll now respond to my comment pointing out that you are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
@newjaninev2 You are confused within yourself. Your dictionary is also confused with what you are trying to find. Are you going to tell me what I should respond. I mean, there are two type of communications. One is open and the other is closed. When you give a judgement, then it's a closed one. What point of reference should I take to comment. I don't know which particular thing you want me to comment on. Is it the word 'Agnostic' or 'Uninformed usage of agnostic' or like you want to have a general conversation with me regarding world politics, world geography like the reasons of Earthquake in Turkey. I can't comprehend. Sorry.
@newjaninev2 Atheism is a cult of unreasoning because it is blindfold to the mystic creation of nature just as if someone rolls the dice six times and everytime he gets the same number 1.
You could call it Luck, I would, being reasoning oriented would call it either a GAME FIX or his Master plan.
@Sharon In whichever form it changes, it changes from one form to other and that's how we measure the age. Didn't want to go back to classes. I may have read that. Thanks for refreshing memories.
@TheOrionbeltseeker It's not a belief system at all, it's simply not believing in the proposition of a God. There shouldn't even be a name for it. Is there a name for not believing in the Tooth Fairy? Is not believing in the Tooth Fairy a belief system in itself?
@TheOrionbeltseeker I have pointed out to you there is no need to "differentiate between Agnostics and Atheists"
An Atheist can be agnostic
If it helps, here's something I wrote a few years ago....
I often hear "what’s an agnostic atheist?", so perhaps I should first define the term.
First, let's split the world up into theists and atheists. A theist is anyone who has some sort of god or gods An atheist is someone who has no god or gods
Now, this division is further divided into two more groups the gnostic and the agnostic Gnostic means: having specific knowledge about something. Agnostic, obviously, means: not having specific knowledge about something (Yes, I know that 'agnostic' is commonly used as an adjectival noun, but it's actually an adjective. It seems to me that using it as an adjectival noun leads to confusion)
So now we have four groups: 1. Gnostic theist: this is usually someone who subscribes to a particular religion. This person has a god or gods, and claims to have specific knowledge about their god or gods. 2. Agnostic theist: this is someone who has a god or gods, but does not claim specific knowledge about that god. Such people often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘. 3. Gnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, and who claims to know as a certainty that there are no gods. 4. Agnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, does not claim to know as a certainty that there are no gods, but also sees no need for them. OK, let‘s look at each of these in more detail
Gnostic theists have the problem that they carry a burden of proof. This is because they claim to have knowledge about their gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. Of course, they can‘t (otherwise everyone would be theists), and they end up saying that ‘you have to have faith’ which means ‘I have no proof for my claims’ (faith is pretending to know something that you do not know)
Gnostic atheists have the same problem. They claim to know for certain that there are no gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. They too carry a burden of proof that they cannot meet (otherwise everyone would be atheists).
Agnostic theists aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have gods, but that they don't know anything about those gods (other than that they are, presumably, god-like).
Agnostic atheists have the easiest position. They aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have no gods. There‘s nothing to know and nothing to discuss.
Most of the arguing about these matters comes from gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. Both groups claim to have evidence and both groups endlessly debate that ‘evidence‘ with each other. In fact, there is no evidence, and neither group is able to support its claims. It's rare to meet a gnostic atheist, but gnostic theists are ubiquitous (fortunately it‘s quite easy to deal with them).
These days people are tending to eschew organised religion, so there are probably more agnostic theists around than there used to be. Agnostic theists often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘ and say that ‘there must be something‘, but without saying why there must be something.
As I said, agnostic atheists have an easy time of it (you’ll have worked out that I’m an agnostic atheist). My position is ‘I have no gods‘. It is not possible to prove the existence of gods (otherwise we’d all be theists), and it is not possible to prove that gods do not exist (they might be lurking around some mountain-top somewhere). In any event, we have no need of them, so the whole argument is both unnecessary and pointless.
Whenever I tell a theist that I have no gods, they always react as if I had said ‘there are no gods‘ and they immediately insist that I prove my claim that the gods don't exist (i.e. they assume that I am a gnostic atheist). I patiently point out to them that I am not making such a claim, and that, in fact, I'm not making any claim whatsoever I'm simply saying that I have no gods. Usually, at this point, they’ll say something like ‘but you‘re saying that god doesn’t exist!‘. I then point out that isn't what I'm saying, that there's no proof that gods exist, and that there‘s no proof that gods don't exist, and as we have no need of them for anything, then I simply have no gods.
I usually summarise this as: 1. there's no evidence that gods exist 2. there's no evidence that gods don't exist 3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away. 4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
Of course, theists desperately need all atheists to be gnostic atheists so that they can demand proof that gods don't exist. Because agnostic atheists aren't making any such claim, theists are unable to divert attention away from the burden of proof for their own claim that gods exist. It’s astonishing how, even when you’ve clearly established that you‘re an agnostic atheist and you‘re therefore not making any claims, the theist will keep trying to argue as if you were a gnostic atheist.
this is a common misconception of believers. if we are angry? it is at the evil that religion does. i cannot be angry with a thing that does not exist.
I’d like you to describe the process of being mad at something that doesn’t exist. I’m not mad at Ronald McDonald, but the food sucks and is really unhealthful. I’m not mad at Captain Morgan but alcoholism is a scourge.
Believers like you are simply troubled that most of us have escaped the chains of your silly belief and you want to rationalize your stale adherence to myth by claiming that we too, on some level, must believe.
The world grapples with the question of belief in God. The vast number of different religions, already tells us that humans have been grasping at the divine, from the very beginning.
This alone speaks to the existence of God, actually. All humans have an innate desire for something — an emptiness in their souls, that longs for fulfillment. God made us with a conscience that makes us aware of our Maker and that's why God gave us a conscience to know right from wrong, so we could make choices. Along with choices comes responsibility and that's where the rub comes in. Many don't want to be accountable for their own actions. They want to do what they will, even if it hurts other people. It is our spirit that longs for fellowship with God. That's the way we are made. Filling this hole/void in our spirit, with worldly desires like riches, power, and sensual pleasures, might distract us for a little while, but it's ultimately unfulfilling. If money and power made people happy, then people like movie stars wouldn't be killing themselves. Some just don't know how to fill that void. They neglect it, because people don't like choices or change, and they think it's going to make things worse, but the complete opposite is true.
It comes down to two choices. First, you can trust in mankind's limited knowledge. Religions, philosophies, "isms," and more, were made by humans desperately looking for answers. But humanity's reasoning can only go so far, as it starts with itself and ends with itself.
The second option is to "lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). Instead, lean on God. Many equate trust in God, to a rejection of logic or reason. But belief in God, doesn't mean you aren't using reason. In fact, it's the act of seeking God, that can open your eyes and grants you wisdom (Psalm 119:18,Proverbs 8). Scripture tells us that God is Truth, and the truth sets us free...in body, mind and Spirit.
A better phrase maybe non-theist but I prefer freethinker.
"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
That's interesting because i can't off the top of my head think of an atheist who actually believes in god but is mad at him. Are you sure that, that's actually your experience and not a Christian meme?
Because i have spoken with many Christians who believe that atheists are just mad at god...no atheists though, who describe that as the reason for their atheism.
There are Atheists who became disillusioned with the church or with the values of their Christian communities. There are atheists who became atheists when they finally read the Bible for themselves and became convinced it was less than divine.
I mean...do you actually believe that Santa Claus is real but say that you don't believe in him because he didn't bring you that toy you wanted? Probably not, right? But that's the sort of argument you're making when you say atheists are "just mad at god for whatever reasons".
@TheOrionbeltseeker I have never spoke with an atheist who is angry at God. So I would say that the majority of atheistics aren't angry at God. What I do think is that the author of this post is angry at atheists.
You're right, and they dish it out, but they sure can't take it. They claim they don't believe in God, yet they go out of their way to run over to our posts, to whine.
Most atheists are not angry at God because atheists don't believe that God or gods exist. How can someone be angry at something they don't believe exists?
I'm not atheist but I have friends that are atheists they don't like the idea of god perhaps the personal concept of a god. A person that hates God and it's angry at a deity would be considered a misotheist and an antitheist not an atheist.
Some may be angry at God and became atheists out of anger because of the hurt and trauma they've endured in their life like being abused in the church or bad experiences by religious people or they have an incurable disease they've tried to pray away and it didn't work. So they get disappointed or angry at God.
"Both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief, if they do not hide away from themselves and from the truth of their being. The believer does not live immune to doubt but is always threatened by the plunge into the void. The non-believer may assert that he is a pure positivist, who has long left behind him supernatural temptations and weaknesses, and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he will never be free of the secret uncertainty whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth by the ocean of uncertainty, so the non-believer is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world which he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. "
Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in his book "Introduction to Christianity" (1968).
@helenS What he actually said, was just as you stated from the first:
"....But is always threatened by the plunge into the void." Which is completely different than saying one can never escape doubt.
Even Popes can make blunders, but being he is loved by so many and has a huge following, I would think that he would choose his words very carefully as he is responsible for what he teaches people.
For example, he states that believers are always threatened by the plunge into the void. The Pope does not know each and every person's heart, so to assume he does, then add that "believers are always threatened by the plunge into the void.", would be inaccurate. It also doesn't speak well for his "faith". Further, his words invoke doubt that although one may be a Christian, they will actually never be completely sure of their security in Christ, for salvation. Even Christ did not teach that. I find that to be a terrible testimony, given it comes from a pope. The Bible teaches us that the security of the believers faith in Christ and salvation, rests not in our ability to keep ourselves saved, but in God's ability to keep us saved, and secure in His promises.
I think that's one reason Jesus used the phrase, "Oh ye of little faith."
There's nothing wrong with doubt. Doubt only becomes a sin, when we are excessively consumed with fear or worry. So much so, that it overrides our faith and then we begin to disbelieve God can or will, answer our prayers. It actually hurts God's heart that we won't believe him, as he wants to do so much for us and help us, out of the love in his heart for his creation. Excessive worry, eventually cancels out the faith you were exercising at the time you prayed for help, then halts the permission you had given God, to start working on your behalf to solve the problem. God's ability to help us is based on, and activated by our faith, through His grace, just as a car can go nowhere, without gas.
It is not a sin to doubt. It only becomes a sin when that doubt crosses over into fear and unbelief. God cannot work, absent our faith.
On the other hand, fear and doubt can also work on our behalf. When we become fearful and doubt that help is on its way from the Lord, that gets us searching for answers and in doing so, return to God's Word for the solution/remedy. Once the answer is found, that not only builds our faith, but restores it. As a result, doubt is tossed out the door and replaced with the assurance that God keeps his promises, hears and answers our prayers, and shall never abandon us. As believers, we can either believe and receive, or doubt and do without.
"Thou will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed/focused on Him, because he trusts in Him." [Isaiah 26:3].
Trust means, we are placing all our faith and trust in the Lord, believing He will keep His Word and promises to us, without fail.
If what the Pope claimed was true, there would be no hope or security in Christ. Combine God's grace with our faith, and miracles are possible. Jesus didn't say we might have eternal life. He said if we believe, we shall inherit eternal life in heaven, with our Heavenly Father.
There is no fear in perfect love, and God's love is perfect. That's why Christians never have to feel insecure or threatened by death or the afterlife. They shall never be plunged into the void, upon death. For nothing can separate us from the love of God or his promise of Heaven. Romans 8:31-39 Instead, the second they step into eternity, they'll be greeted and accompanied by Angels, till they reach Heaven's door.
@helenS For the record, I don't have a pinch of doubt that I shall be going to heaven when I die. Never. God is no liar and he always keeps his promises.
I have security in Christ, not because I'm better, smarter, or more special than anyone else. The Bible teaches us that the security of the believers faith in Christ and salvation, rests not in our ability to keep ourselves saved, but in God's ability to keep us saved, safe, and secure in His promises.
The ocean calls to me the blood calls to me the dreamer purifies me the souls consume me
The pipes call to me their blood screams to me the water caresses the wind the earth caresses your life and the souls cry for me
The eye watches me the pipes call to me the wind carries my soul my body my blood through the ocean rise Cthulhu accept me remember me dream of me, Cthulhu and die to live dream to create
Yes, I believe that many have had tragedies in their lives and conclude that if there is a God, he isn't loving, and they have a poor understanding of His redemption plan.
@Sharon Well, it was unintentional. Okay, then I will have to tell you something about my post. I was attending a lecture on subject specific and the lecturer was of the view that half of the people who say that they are atheist don't even emphasize on the words like Nihilism and Agnosticism because in their dictionary, these Two words don't exist. They are either believer or an Atheist.
@Sharon I wanted it to go in this direction. For example someone would have asked me, "Who do you think I am? " I kind of wanted to tell him about the difference between the three. But it went on like uncontrolled chain reaction.
Now, I will keep a note of it that the next time I write a post, I write it in full.
@TheOrionbeltseeker Well I have no proof, but I have never personally met an atheist who is angry at God, but I have met many religious people who hate atheists. I have also met many atheists who hate religious people but not God.
@Bushranger It was for the people who really are atheists and just don't believe that they are atheists.
Like the people who believe that North Korea would be a nuclear power someday, would come at a post and discuss about what they feel about it. The rest would not be even bothered because they believe North Korea would never be a nuclear power so the news article is rubbish.
My point is since you invest your time, therefore you are open to debate and do not conclude that there is no God makes you eligible for discussion as well as makes you stand out of that circle of Atheism because you are not done yet. You are searching for answers just like others on this post.
SW-User
I'd say anyone angry with god, even if they deny their existence, has something up their sleeve against. I'm not religious or believing in a god, but find it nonsensical one goes out of their way to "prove" disbelief.
You're probably right in that their expressed reasons are not genuine. Whenever I hear and atheist justify his position, it's always the same thing: the Bible has contradictions, the Bible supports slavery, the Bible condones rape... But most of the time, they don't even know where it says these things. So all we can really know about why they are atheists is that it's something they don't want to reveal
There’s also plenty of people on here who Like to convince others that the Trumpster got cheated out of an election victory. What would you call those people?
@Sharon When she left, all her posts got deleted and Noone got to know who trolled her badly. So, these selective posts left in this conversation are to know who trolled whom.
@Sharon I would leave it to your jurisdiction. Just told you my side of the story. I will try to find some of his posts and will send it to you and in case, he is clean chit, I will publically apologize.
