Confessions of an Atheist

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


My post was not directed at you, if it shows that way my apologies.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Could you help me to understand this belief better? How did you come to this conclusion and can you give anything in the way of evidence to explain why you believe it?

Just curious is all. If you feel uncomfortable talking about it or just simply choose not to talk about it that is cool too.

reply to post by Phlegmi


Ah, ok. I ass-u-me-d based on the linear placement of your comment. It is I that apologise. But you must admit that was a bit of an assumption about whomever you were speaking.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


It's quite simple, the power of belief shows a great deal in life *placebo effect /medical/, observer effect /quantum physics/, etc etc etc* and I think it translates over stronger in the afterlife. Seeing as to how if an afterlife exists it would be a realm of purely mental as opposed to physical dynamics.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Ok that is cool. I was not trying to attack you just wanting to see if you knew something that I did not.

My search is to try and find evidence that sways me.

Nothing more nothing less.

Just the Facts Man.

I am not here to Pee in your Wheaties. I am not going to try and disprove what you believe or attack the evidence that you presented to try and make you like bad.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Oh, I removed that silly line. Being too paranoid I was. But, do you get what I am saying?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I do see what you are saying. I want to ask you why you think an afterlife would be purely Mental and not Physical? (Not trying to argue just curious)

And also if you mean mental like a thought in a Mind or something else.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Because phsyical existance ends in death. It's a simple must with how conditions are and how nature works. That leaves our consciousness, what I argue is our true selves, to use a Star Wars quote: "Luminous beings are we. Not this crude flesh." or to use a dialogue from a favorite movie of mine *What Dreams May Come*:

Albert: So what is the "me"?
Chris: My brain I suppose.
Albert : Your brain? Your brain is a body part. Like your fingernail or your heart. Why is that the part that's you?
Chris: Because I have sort of a voice in my head, the part of me that thinks, that feels, that is aware that I exist at all.
Albert : So if you're aware you exist, then you do. That's why you're still here.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Ah, so you believe there is an afterlife?

Yep, although that word is not quite accurate to what I believe, but it's good enough.

And please dispense with the double speak.

My bad. While it sounds very much that I am contradicting myself, further explanation would help you understand what I mean.I have considered manyt hings and will consider many more things, but when I construct my belief things unneccessary are discarded. If new information comes in that supports things previously "dismissed", I will reconsider without bias.

Originally posted by OldThinker


Sir, your words of who you think God is are not in any way Biblical.

I know my friend, this is done purposely. I have eliminated the need for God on a more fundamental level. Anthropomorphicizing or whatever doesn't help his case. I define God by what it can do, not by what/who/where it is.

reply to post by Mr. Toodles

AGNOSTIC.The (I don't know ideal).A means no as in asexual means no sex.Ahd Gnosis is Greek for Knowledge.So AGNOSTIC is No Knowledge Correct

reply to post by Gigatronix


I fail to see how further explaination would clarify anything. I see you dancing semanticly saying one thing then reversing on it when called on it. I am sorry but it seems like you are being excessively dishonest in that you will say one thing then say the opposite and claim there was no reversal and all the while call it more complex than you are saying. But anyway, what you view as unnecessary may not be what I view as unnecessary. Case in point the attributes you claim as the defining points of a "God" need not be defining points as mine and Turkeyburger's argument shows. Yet you claim they are, then you claim they aren't then you claim they are. Thus my comment.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Ok you're going to have to help me out here. I'm really not following you. Please show me the quotes and explain what I'm doing here. I assure you I have no interest in being misleading.

I'm confident it's a misunderstanding.

reply to post by Gigatronix


You define "god(s)" as a all-knowing, all powerful being(s).
Yet when I call you on the fact that those attributes are not central to the idea of a "deity" you say this wonderfully evasive and self congratulatory stuff with strong allusions to "Occam's Razor" without in fact invoking it.

That's the beauty of it really. I dismissed the idea after having reduced the concept so many ways. Adding any other kind of information is pointless for me, because I eliminated the need at a fundamental level.

And on and on it went. Claiming illusionary depth and complexity while actually revealing neither....
But anyrate, I wish to drop this as I do agree with your over all message in the OP.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

A little something to think about:

Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.

[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word "atheism," however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of "atheist" in English is "someone who asserts there is no such being as God," I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix "a" to be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels "positive atheist" for the former and "negative atheist" for the latter.

[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]
If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]

reply to post by Gigatronix


Of course, intellectual dishonesty bending definitions in such a way to set them apart from their opponents. Rather like they do not have "faith" and only spiritual matters can be "religious". It's all a silly game meant to throw an illusion of some kind of "rightousness".

If you believe something is possible. It's a belief. If you believe something is impossible. It is not somehow magically not a belief also, no matter how you try to dance around it.

But perhaps it is a bit much for me to expect honesty from people who subvert science in attempt to claim that science leans in the direction of their beliefs as to the answers of what is possible with an unfalsifiable *read most likely unfalsifiable* question that thusly NOT SCIENTIFIC.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


You define "god(s)" as a all-knowing, all powerful being(s).
Yet when I call you on the fact that those attributes are not central to the idea of a "deity" you say this wonderfully evasive and self congratulatory stuff with strong allusions to "Occam's Razor" without in fact invoking it.

All I have been meaning to say all along is, I define God my own way, and using that definition I have determined that god does not exist. Whether or not my definition is in line with any other definition is irrelevant. yes I am not going into great detail about what I believe personally and how I arrived there, I figured if anyone wanted to know mroe they'd ask. If i sound self congratulating it is not my intent. And occams razor never crossed my mind.

And on and on it went. Claiming illusionary depth and complexity while actually revealing neither....

I have yet to claim anything, aside what I personally believe. I do not believe I am 100% correct, nor do I believe anyone should should believe as I do. I have an opinion and an argument, and I rarely dispense either unless it appropriate.

reply to post by Gigatronix


You speak against initial reply then. I remind you:

That's the beauty of it really. I dismissed the idea after having reduced the concept so many ways. Adding any other kind of information is pointless for me, because I eliminated the need at a fundamental level.

Where as you claim that you have reduced the concept to a fundamental level and summarily dismissed it, all the while not reducing it to a fundamental level in your statements *the one about "God(s)" needing to be omnipotent and omniscentient*.

Either way, like I said, I mostly agree with your OP so can we please agree to drop this?


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Ah bending of definitions, perhaps we are getting closer to whats troubling you here.

Why bend definitions when you can simply find a definition that fits your bias?

I could easily find a definition for Atheist and God and religion that fits this agenda you must think I have.There really is none.

Perhaps you think I'm forcing things into my worldview to support some bias against god? Am I trying to avoid the realization that my belief system is flimsy and built on flawed logic? That my theory of everything is simply wish fulfillment and in line with self serving religions that provide a spiritual get out of hell free card?

Let's cut to the chase Watcher, what are you trying to catch me at? What does all this supposed flip-flopping definition bending illusionary shell game do for me?

reply to post by Harbinger777


Then what would knowledge of no knowledge be, in other words a state of absolute uncertainty?

Satori, i think is what they call it