Different kinds of Atheism

[davo]

First of all I know many atheists, yet they seem to have different definitions of what an atheist actually is. So far I've come up with the following ideas of non-religions (correct me if I'm wrong).

Agnostic - Believes there's no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheist - Believes there's no God.

Deist - Believes the existence of a supreme being but not any man-made scriptures. The supreme being usually represents what we currently don't know.

Secular Humanist - Doesn't believe in God but believes one is morally bound to serve the interests of humanity as a whole. Believes in human rights, equality etc. Does not believe in devotion to a specific nation or group.

[moses2792796]

None of those listed above really have any validity. Atheism is the only one that can, but it is very rare in modern times, and intellectually valid atheism really only differs from religion in word choice.

[DavoT]

I think the best way to describe an atheist is that they're absolutely certain there's no God.....every other belief system is a failure to think properly.
One doesn't need to believe in a God of some form to live morally, also, if God is a lie/mistake, then it follows that religious ethics will be inadequate if not idiotic at times.

Don't get me wrong, some of the nicest people I've ever met have been Christians, but I'd much prefer the whole system was based upon the provable truth.

[moses2792796]

So you're absolutely certain there's no God?

[preservanation]

Shit?
What did you do to davo, moses?

[moses2792796]

aaaaaaahahahahahaha

[Questerr]

First of all I know many atheists, yet they seem to have different definitions of what an atheist actually is. So far I've come up with the following ideas of non-religions (correct me if I'm wrong).

Agnostic - Believes there's no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheist - Believes there's no God.

Deist - Believes the existence of a supreme being but not any man-made scriptures. The supreme being usually represents what we currently don't know.

Secular Humanist - Doesn't believe in God but believes one is morally bound to serve the interests of humanity as a whole. Believes in human rights, equality etc. Does not believe in devotion to a specific nation or group.


I'm a deist and I've got to say that your definition is way off.

Deists believe that a creator formed the universe and all of the laws and principles that make it work, but no longer interacts. The natural laws of the universe govern it now and the creator simply watches on.

It's the "God as a Watchmaker" concept.

[Tsky]

The inability of atheists to agree on what they believe in and the fact that there are organized atheist and Deist groups means atheists and Deists cannot use the fact that religions disagree about what they believe in and the organization of religious groups as reasons to deny that God exists or deny that he is concerned about earth's affairs.

What if the Bible predicted the ascension of world powers (down to today) and indicated that God would intervene in earth's affairs during the time of the last world power? Would that make any of you change your minds about God not existing or just being the 'Watchmaker'?

[Truth_and_Power]

Athiest!=Agnostic!=Deist

As for the agnostics, there are some who believe in some form of spiritualism but don't propose an answer to the question of a god.

[Questerr]

The inability of atheists to agree on what they believe in and the fact that there are organized atheist and Deist groups means atheists and Deists cannot use the fact that religions disagree about what they believe in and the organization of religious groups as reasons to deny that God exists or deny that he is concerned about earth's affairs.

What if the Bible predicted the ascension of world powers (down to today) and indicated that God would intervene in earth's affairs during the time of the last world power? Would that make any of you change your minds about God not existing or just being the 'Watchmaker'?


How does the fact that atheists, agnostics, and deists disagree invalidate their arguements? Those ideologies are about individual belief, not group-thought like religions. If I don't believe in Christianity or any other religion that is all that matters.

Any prophecy can be twisted after the fact to show any meaning. Show me were the Bible talks about the United States in clear terms and I might believe you. In fact, show me a single concise non-vague prophecy about the end times, and I might believe you. As far as the Bible goes, its prophecies are just as accurate as Nostradamus.

And further more, like I have said in past, even if Revalations started, I would not recant my beliefs. My belief against Christianity is based on the belief that Hell is wrong. No one should deserve to be punished forever for temporal sins and all that should be expected of a person is to be a good and moral person, which, by the way, you don't have to believe in the Bible to be.

[Malte]

First of all I know many atheists, yet they seem to have different definitions of what an atheist actually is. So far I've come up with the following ideas of non-religions (correct me if I'm wrong).

Agnostic - Believes there's no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheist - Believes there's no God.

Deist - Believes the existence of a supreme being but not any man-made scriptures. The supreme being usually represents what we currently don't know.

Secular Humanist - Doesn't believe in God but believes one is morally bound to serve the interests of humanity as a whole. Believes in human rights, equality etc. Does not believe in devotion to a specific nation or group.


The only one of these that is incorrect is that of Deism, but Questerr has corrected that for you. Although I must expound to your definition of Atheism. It is called "Atheism" because it believes in exactly what Theists do not believe, as in a God, and also because it is opposed to that which Theists, their opposite, believe. Anti-Theists and Atheists are, in my eyes and as far as my observations point, synonymous. Atheists do not only not believe in Gods but they oppose the idea of a God. Agnostics are either neutrals or do not believe in a God but do not oppose the idea.

[Tsky]

"My belief against Christianity is based on the belief that Hell is wrong. No one should deserve to be punished forever for temporal sins and all that should be expected of a person is to be a good and moral person, which, by the way, you don't have to believe in the Bible to be." Questerrr

So you don't believe in the Bible for the same reason you told me I shouldn't discredit all atheists, Agnostics, etc. and that is on the basis of their beliefs. Not all Christians believe hell is a burning place and yet you discredit the entire Bible based on one and might I add one FALSE belief.

As for Bible prophecy, Nostradamus was at no time specific, i.e. dates, places, names, etc. whereas the Bible is very specific on many of its prophecies. Questerrr, if you haven't actually studied the Bible and Bible prophecy why do you insist on comparing its prophecies to those of Nostradamus? Any honest and sincere student of the Bible would realize that the comparing Nostradamus (one person during one period of time) to the writers of the Bible (several men over a 1600 year time span) is like comparing the intellect of Albert Einstein to that of Mini Me. There is no comparison.

As a matter of fact, give me an example of a 'vague' bible prophecy and I'll give you an example of a specific one. How about that?

I have said time and time again that hypocrite, lying religions does not in any way make the Bible or God Almighty invalid. The hellfire teaching and the Trinity are as pagan as the obelisk symbol. Could it be that religion is not really using the Bible as a guide but are making up their teachings as they go along? Well we know for sure that is the case because Christ said a true Christian would NEVER kill their brother or sister in war and yet you can’t beat so-called Christians to the local Army reserves office to sign up. Hypocrisy amongst religions does not equal God doesn’t care and the Bible is false. Consider each on their own merit and then draw your conclusions.

[moses2792796]

Perhaps hell is the inability to accept the nothingness of death, people who come to terms with it will be granted heaven...

I also think the idea of eternal perdition is silly, I can't imagine what one could do to deserve it.

[Tsky]

Good question Moses.

Since the Bible (from which people supposedly come to the conclusion that there is a burning hell) says Jesus came not to save righteous people but sinners it seems unlikely that Jesus came here for sinners but those same sinners’ punishment is to burn forever.

Adam, who put us all in this sinful position to begin with didn’t suffer in burning torment he simply “went back to the dust of the ground.” If anyone deserved to burn in hell wouldn’t it have been Adam and Eve? The Bible also says Job prayed to go to hell, Jesus went to hell and that hell will be emptied. Could it be that hell is the grave or the state of being dead? The concept of hell wasn’t firmly established until centuries after the apostles died off. The King James Bible from which most people come to the conclusion of a burning hell renders Hades as ‘hell’ almost all the time in the Greek scriptures but renders Sheol, it’s counterpart in Hebrew, as grave, pit and hell. That is a big reason for the confusion.

[piratemonkey]

Here's my position, and the position of many scientists that I know:

We can't say there is definitely not a "god," no more than we can say there definitely, absolutely isn't a giant, invisible, intangible elephant floating over Los Angeles.

The likelyhood that any given religion's definition of "god" is correct is about the same as the likelihood that giant, invisible, intangible elephant is floating over Los Angeles.

So while I'd say that I'm technically an agnostic, I'm functionally an atheist, because the odds of human religions being correct is astronomically low. So low, it isn't even worth my time considering each individual religions on their merits... none of 'em have any evidence to back up their claims anyway.

It's just Occam's Razor at work.

[David Hume]

First of all I know many atheists, yet they seem to have different definitions of what an atheist actually is. So far I've come up with the following ideas of non-religions (correct me if I'm wrong).

Agnostic - Believes there's no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheist - Believes there's no God.

Deist - Believes the existence of a supreme being but not any man-made scriptures. The supreme being usually represents what we currently don't know.

Secular Humanist - Doesn't believe in God but believes one is morally bound to serve the interests of humanity as a whole. Believes in human rights, equality etc. Does not believe in devotion to a specific nation or group.


I'm a deist and I've got to say that your definition is way off.

Deists believe that a creator formed the universe and all of the laws and principles that make it work, but no longer interacts. The natural laws of the universe govern it now and the creator simply watches on.

It's the "God as a Watchmaker" concept.


I'm a Deist as well. You're spot on with the definition. Thanks for clarifying the given definition.[hr]
The inability of atheists to agree on what they believe in and the fact that there are organized atheist and Deist groups means atheists and Deists cannot use the fact that religions disagree about what they believe in and the organization of religious groups as reasons to deny that God exists or deny that he is concerned about earth's affairs.

What if the Bible predicted the ascension of world powers (down to today) and indicated that God would intervene in earth's affairs during the time of the last world power? Would that make any of you change your minds about God not existing or just being the 'Watchmaker'?


And Xtians all have consensus in their beliefs?[hr]
Athiest!=Agnostic!=Deist

As for the agnostics, there are some who believe in some form of spiritualism but don't propose an answer to the question of a god.


Someone who doesn't know his defintions very well.
[hr]

First of all I know many atheists, yet they seem to have different definitions of what an atheist actually is. So far I've come up with the following ideas of non-religions (correct me if I'm wrong).

Agnostic - Believes there's no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheist - Believes there's no God.

Deist - Believes the existence of a supreme being but not any man-made scriptures. The supreme being usually represents what we currently don't know.

Secular Humanist - Doesn't believe in God but believes one is morally bound to serve the interests of humanity as a whole. Believes in human rights, equality etc. Does not believe in devotion to a specific nation or group.


The only one of these that is incorrect is that of Deism, but Questerr has corrected that for you. Although I must expound to your definition of Atheism. It is called "Atheism" because it believes in exactly what Theists do not believe, as in a God, and also because it is opposed to that which Theists, their opposite, believe. Anti-Theists and Atheists are, in my eyes and as far as my observations point, synonymous. Atheists do not only not believe in Gods but they oppose the idea of a God. Agnostics are either neutrals or do not believe in a God but do not oppose the idea.


Atheists do not oppose the idea of a god or gods. Would one appear and allow manual & ocular demonstration, there would be no opposition whatsover.

[moses2792796]

^^not according to davoT, though he's not around to say it. I'd love to see that though, God comes down to Earth and a whole bunch of atheists either instantly vanish in puffs of logic or run out screaming "GO AWAY, YOU'RE NOT MEANT TO BE HERE!".

[Danoz]

None of those listed above really have any validity. Atheism is the only one that can, but it is very rare in modern times, and intellectually valid atheism really only differs from religion in word choice.


How can agnosticism be invalid? It is more of a non-opinion than an opinion. An agnostic says that s/he doesn't know, nor have the means to know, at least at that particular time. This obviously doesn't mean that your intuition tells you one thing or another. Personally I feel that god is less likely to exist than likely, but then who knows. Oh wait, you do...

Unless you can prove to me unequivocally and satisfactorily that any other view is 100% correct beyond any question, I see it as the MOST valid and scientific viewpoint. I'm perfectly willing to accept any such evidence. What I'm not prepared to do is accept some half-baked wishy-washy logic as sound evidence in order to simplify my life, which is what I think the majority of hard line atheists and creationists do. I'd rather be confused than wrong.

[moses2792796]

Agnosticism is invalid, here is why.

It makes the assumption that what is not known empirically cannot be known.

Atheism makes the same assumption with one slight difference,

It makes the assumption that what is not known empirically does not exist.

In this context atheism is the more retarded, but the real failing of agnosticism is that it is more like a transition than an actual belief. If one accepts agnosticism as final then they have basically concluded that no truth can be known, otherwise known as fatalism. It's really an intellectual suicide because it takes empirical knowledge as being the only knowledge, but then when one realises that empirical knowledge is in fact invalid without a higher truth (because the senses are not 100% reliable, they are subjective) they realise that they cannot know anything at all beyond the existence of their own thought process. This essentailly confines the entire universe to the agnostics own mind, and it is rather a lonely one.

So to go beyond this requires some faith, at least the faith that reality extends beyond the individual (of which there can be no definitive proof), this in turn leads to the conclusion that reality itself is not simply what it appears to be, people may find God in many different forms, but essentially it is the same for everyone. By realising that what our senses perceive is not objective or absolute (ever tried LSD?) we see that there is an absolute underlying reality, a process, a life force, a design, an intelligence, a God? Many people reject the term God as an unjustified belief, but I see it more as a way of viewing that which I know to be real.

[Danoz]

Agnosticism is invalid, here is why.

It makes the assumption that what is not known empirically cannot be known.

Atheism makes the same assumption with one slight difference,

It makes the assumption that what is not known empirically does not exist.

In this context atheism is the more retarded, but the real failing of agnosticism is that it is more like a transition than an actual belief. If one accepts agnosticism as final then they have basically concluded that no truth can be known, otherwise known as fatalism. It's really an intellectual suicide because it takes empirical knowledge as being the only knowledge, but then when one realises that empirical knowledge is in fact invalid without a higher truth (because the senses are not 100% reliable, they are subjective) they realise that they cannot know anything at all beyond the existence of their own thought process. This essentailly confines the entire universe to the agnostics own mind, and it is rather a lonely one.

So to go beyond this requires some faith, at least the faith that reality extends beyond the individual (of which there can be no definitive proof), this in turn leads to the conclusion that reality itself is not simply what it appears to be, people may find God in many different forms, but essentially it is the same for everyone. By realising that what our senses perceive is not objective or absolute (ever tried LSD?) we see that there is an absolute underlying reality, a process, a life force, a design, an intelligence, a God? Many people reject the term God as an unjustified belief, but I see it more as a way of viewing that which I know to be real.


Good post, but I need to correct you on just one thing. Agnostics don't necessarily believe that the truth CANNOT be known (i.e. hard agnosticism), but rather that they do not know for sure as yet. I'm definitely a soft agnostic meaning that I'm yet to decide rather than a fence sitter.

[moses2792796]

As I said it my post, that is not a problem, as long as it is only a transitory state.

[Troubadour]

What if the Bible predicted the ascension of world powers (down to today) and indicated that God would intervene in earth's affairs during the time of the last world power?


A prediction is a specific claim made before an event, not random gibberish retroactively interpreted as a reference to something. If the Bible said "1,969 years from the birth of our Lord, two Americans will set foot on the Moon," then I would be puzzled. But if the best you can do is some encoded reference to "the eagle runs fleetly with strong arms," then my response is....::lmao:

[/i]

[moses2792796]

The secret messages in the Bible theory is rubbish, unless you are talking about the esoteric knowledge hidden beneath its form.