What do Atheists Believe?

[Skyler]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

McCulloch: The concept of God I laid out is no more non-falsifiable than the Big Bang.

Non-falsifiable means it is impossible to disprove and McCulloch was merely remarking upon how convenient it was that another conception of God is impossible to disprove.

And finally, you declare that there is no evidence for a God. There is actually evidence for a God. Unfortunately, if a person has already reached their conclusion as to whether or not God exists, no amount of evidence is going to change their mind. It's the same as someone who has decided that the moon landing didn't happen; no amount of pictures, moon rocks, etc. will change their mind, they will come up with a seemingly logical--though incorrect--explanation.

There is the circumstantial intelligent design, which I could spend several pages poking holes in, but let's just leave it at circumstantial to save me some time here. The rest of the "evidence" is equally circumstantial, usually being derived from some sacred text which has no evidence behind it and which you only believe if you already think God is out there. That's some weak evidence there, if believing in God is a prerequisite for seeing said evidence that proves God's existence.

Now that I have gone over the two usual sources of "evidence" towards God's existence, do you have any other evidence that isn't circumstantial?[/b]

[bernee51]

All right, what would you consider sufficient evidence for the existence of a God, then?

OK, how about any evidence?

Any evidence...yet?

And secondly, one common misconception I have noted is that the JCI God is presumed to be a "super-being" but still part of the universe, inside spacetime. Meaning, he/she/it sees time the same way we see it--flowing from past to future. This is, of course, a logical impossibility as defined in the Bible.

Time is a human construct and does not exist outside of the human construct.

However, if we instead begin with what is seen in the Bible instead of a preconceived notion, we discover that the evidence points to an extra-universal God, that is, separate and outside of the universe.

Others interpret biblical writings differently. Hermeneutics solve a myriad paradoxes.

Why is you interpretation correct?

I'm saying "outside", though this is of course an imprecise term because we're trying to use spatial references do deal with things outside spacetime. It is my belief that this conception of God is not contradictory and instead fits the Bible perfectly.

You've got it back to front. The bible can be shown to fit interpretation of the nature of god perfectly. That is no surprise.

[bernee51]

McCulloch: The concept of God I laid out is no more non-falsifiable than the Big Bang.

There is evidence in support of the BB theory. You are yet to demonstrate any for the existence of your god.

nygreenguy, you made the point that "he has shown himself to individuals, spoken to individuals, created certain events, etc."

If you have ever used the computer simulation "Second Life", you'll know that you can interact with the simulated universe as well without actually occupying it.

God is a like a computer simulation, a human construct. I can totally agree.

And finally, you declare that there is no evidence for a God.

Not only that - a creator deity is a logical impossibility.

There is actually evidence for a God.

So you keep claiming. Care to present it?

Unfortunately, if a person has already reached their conclusion as to whether or not God exists, no amount of evidence is going to change their mind.

Again you have it arse about. It is the theists who have an a priori belief that fits what they see as evidence into that belief.

Regarding the existence of god(s). There are options.

God does not exist other than as a construct of the human mind.

A god exists that set everything in motion and then sat back.

A god exists that created to some degree and has a continuing interest in its creation. This interest has been variously described by the multitude of beleif systems that resulted - along with the the 'supporting' texts.

IOW the god concept is an increasingly complex idea. Working on the assumption that your belief in god fits the third option do you have and can you provide evidence in support. This evidence, naturally, must not onl;y support your particular version of god but must also negate the versions held by others.

Bear in mind - there is evidence - plenty of it - that supports the idea of an evolving god concept. From early animism, through the 'power gods' which demanded human sacrifice, to the mythic god such as the JCI god onto the various rationalist deity constructs.

[McCulloch]

McCulloch: The concept of God I laid out is no more non-falsifiable than the Big Bang.

The Big Bang fits the evidence found in the universe, namely the known physical laws, the fact that the universe is expanding and it fits the known mathematical principles. And the Big Bang still does not explain the origin of the universe. It explains the expansion of the universe from a very very small particle to what it is today. However, our theories and our mathematics break down at a certain size and we just don't know and we cannot even reasonably guess what happened for the first fraction of a second.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

However, our theories and our mathematics break down at a certain size and we just don't know and we cannot even reasonably guess what happened for the first fraction of a second.

As an addendum, I’d like to forestall any theistic responses by saying that this does not automatically mean ‘goddidit!’…

[daedalus 2.0]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

I believe more things than you. Because i don' say :"God Did It" for the complicated questions, but actually try to think about them and read about the latest science and learning.

YOu are constantly left in your own self-congratalatory circle of checking how you interpret a certain passage and decide that god said "x" because you feel like he meant it the way you want it.

YOu don't believe in anything other than you own ego to choose what to believe in. I have found this to be fruitless and a waste of time to debate with.

[Jura]

All right, what would you consider sufficient evidence for the existence of a God, then?

And secondly, one common misconception I have noted is that the JCI God is presumed to be a "super-being" but still part of the universe, inside spacetime. Meaning, he/she/it sees time the same way we see it--flowing from past to future. This is, of course, a logical impossibility as defined in the Bible. However, if we instead begin with what is seen in the Bible instead of a preconceived notion, we discover that the evidence points to an extra-universal God, that is, separate and outside of the universe. I'm saying "outside", though this is of course an imprecise term because we're trying to use spatial references do deal with things outside spacetime. It is my belief that this conception of God is not contradictory and instead fits the Bible perfectly.

are you sure you are christian
your definition of god sound a lot like hare krishna

to ask what atheists belive is a non specific question
atheists obviously do not belive in a god
i personally see existance as a chaotic sistem of varying complexity
i observe that being causes thinking, intelect becomes from matter, systems are built from the bottom up, not the other way around
it seems to me that any sistem of enough complexity develops inteligent behaviour that emanates from its specific inherent logic and the tendency to maintain and propagate itself, wich is observable in all material systems
so in the context of the question asked, you might say that is what i belive in, as it is what i see, feel and can comperhend, and god is not
i cannot say if this alows for the existance of an entity that might fit any given definition of a god or deity, it just seems to be contrary to the nature of observable reality

another reason why i cannot say any religious or agnostic system of belife is in my opinion credible, is that i cannot comperhend the need for such phenomena in reality
this is realy a personal thing, intimate you might say
the existance of god or creator is something i simply have a feling is redundant and apsurd, beyond any need to prove or disprove

still i do not feel i can say i truly disbelive in the possible existance of phenomena that might be called devine, even if not necesarily conscious or inteligent
however i do not belive these phenomena would in their nature and essence be fundamentally diferent to any observable system
for me devine is more of a word that can conditionaly be used to denote the notion of feeling of reality, wich is in its actuality ineffable

[Cmass]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

1) Correct, I do not believe in the existence of a god.
2) What do I believe? My gosh what a broad question. I believe in all sorts of things. I even regularly fool myself into all manner of silly superstitions and participate in lots of illogical rituals including Christmas. I attend my Mom's church from time to time for the music and charity auctions. I mean heck, what are you looking for? Just because I don't believe in this god creature of yours implies I don't have any beliefs of any kind? How strange. Try this: As a Christian, you don't believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy. So then, what do you believe?
3) I DO have a "position on the subject". My position is that I see no evidence for the existence of a god creature - especially as described in the bible. So what?

[olavisjo]

I mean heck, what are you looking for? Just because I don't believe in this god creature of yours implies I don't have any beliefs of any kind? How strange.

Do you believe that it is wrong to hurt others for your own gain?
I know you do so let's go to the next step, how do you justify such a belief?
For example, is it wrong for a lion to kill a deer for lunch? If we are just animals in pants why would it be wrong for me to take your 52" plasma and sell it for my lunch?
Without a god there is no absolute moral standard.

[Fallibleone]

I mean heck, what are you looking for? Just because I don't believe in this god creature of yours implies I don't have any beliefs of any kind? How strange.

Do you believe that it is wrong to hurt others for your own gain?
I know you do so let's go to the next step, how do you justify such a belief?
For example, is it wrong for a lion to kill a deer for lunch? If we are just animals in pants why would it be wrong for me to take your 52" plasma and sell it for my lunch?
Without a god there is no absolute moral standard.

Oh noes!



This is just it. For many (usually atheists), there is no moral absolute. There is no justifying a belief that something is 'right' objectively. We've decided amongst ourselves what is to be 'right' and 'wrong' based on what is convenient for us. For example, it is usually considered 'wrong' to kill someone for the fun of it. But if someone has a ticking noise coming from under their padded jacket and is sauntering towards a crowded market, there might be a general consensus that killing him before he can press the button would be a 'good' thing to do. What is 'right' is what benefits socitey on the whole, because what benefits society usually benefits the individuals in it. And conversely, what is 'wrong' is what damages society on the whole, because what damages society usually damages the individuals in it.

Although it might be nice as far as you are concerned to nick someone's telly to pay for your cheese and pickle sandwich, a society in which we were all running around breaking into each others' houses in order to fund our meals would not be a very safe or beneficial one for the people living in it.