Atheist Ron Paul supporters

[newyearsrevolution08]

My Best Friend Kelly put it best when he said "An atheist is someone who hasn't been close to death yet."

and a believer is someone who can't wait to die so they can see if they were right.

 

[ClayTrainor]

It isn't a matter of what it can mean.

This can mean a simple lack of something as in some of the examples you gave.

Explain to me, as short and concise as you possibly can... Why atheism can not mean a simple lack of belief in a god, if theism means belief in a god?

I am aware of how atheist apologists in recent years have tried to give the word a new meaning, and that's what you're using. Since people do use this meaning now, it is a definition of the word as well, also determined by usage. But if anyone wants to use that definition, they should at least own up to the fact that they're using a recent idiosyncratic definition, and not pretend that that's somehow the "real" definition of the word, and that all the standard authoritative sources are just wrong.

This reminds me of arguing with anarcho-socialists as to what "anarchy" really means. The structure is very simple.

An - Without
Archy - Ruler

but they always fall back to.. "well that's not how it's orginally used, and now you capitalist apologists want to hijack that word to fit your own definition"

 

[ClayTrainor]

Either way you define it, I am 100% Atheist to the claim that There is a "God" meaning something along the lines of, an "all powerful, all knowing, morality-defining entity that exists outside time and space"

I lack a belief in it, as well as assert it as untrue.

 

[Theocrat]

An Epistemological Question

Either way you define it, I am 100% Atheist to the claim that There is a "God" meaning something along the lines of, an "all powerful, all knowing, morality-defining entity that exists outside time and space"

I lack a belief in it, as well as assert it as untrue.

Do you only believe in things based on evidence?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Do you only believe in things based on evidence?

No. Do I need evidence to believe a square circle can't exist?

 

[inibo]

I believe they were myths, considered gods by some. I do not believe they were or are supreme beings.
That is my belief.
Perhaps if I believed they did not exist in any way at all that would also be a belief.

I believe there is a God. That is my belief.

If I believed there was no God,, that would also be a belief.

Get it?

Oh, I have been called many things. but Christian will do, as far as my beliefs go.

That was a very evasive answer. Do you believe that supernatural beings as described in the religions of Greece and Scandinavia do exist or eve have existed? It's a yes or no question. If the answer is no, what word should be used to distinguish you from those who do believe in those beings?

 

[KCIndy]

Maybe we can read Chuck Baldwin's recent article on how we can all work together. It's about Agnostics but it applies to everyone equally.

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3699

Todd, thanks for that link. I usually read Chuck Baldwin's columns when I come across them, but I missed this one. It's a great bit of writing, very much to the point and I would recommend everyone take a few minutes to read it.

I'll probably never have 100% agreement with the man, but one thing I've got to say for him: He gets it. Chuck Baldwin really, truly gets it when it comes to the Constitution and how both Republicans and Democrats commonly subvert it:

From the article:

But, because the vast majority of Americans do not themselves understand, appreciate, and value fidelity to the Constitution, they are content to let their politicians routinely ignore and trample constitutional government. Therefore, Christian Democrats cheer the unconstitutional, loathsome policies and decisions of “Christian” Jimmy Carter, and Christian Republicans cheer the unconstitutional, loathsome policies and decisions of “Christian” George W. Bush.

Why, oh why can't more people see this?

 

[inibo]

Don't you mean.... Only on the internet can you make a thread in a forum named for a CHRISTIAN man, Ron Paul, to insult his faith and that of many of his supporters.

Sorry, LE, the thread was not started as an insult to anyone. It simply asked who among us is atheist, though I suppose to some believers the fact that someone somewhere does not believe is insulting, per se.

 

[Theocrat]

How Do You Know?

No. Do I need evidence to believe a square circle can't exist?

Then I'd like to know how you, being without all power, all knowledge, and the arbiter of all morality, know with 100% certainty that there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, morality-defining Entity that exists outside time and space.

In other words, what would have to be true about yourself to make your claim that such a God does not exist to be true?

By the way, comparing God to a square circle is not comparing two like things. It is just another "apples and oranges" comparison, so your analogy doesn't work.

 

[inibo]

My Best Friend Kelly put it best when he said "An atheist is someone who hasn't been close to death yet."

That's a bit presumptuous. Has you friend spoken to every atheist and every person who has faced death and compared the overlap of the two sets?

 

[BUSHLIED]

My Best Friend Kelly put it best when he said "An atheist is someone who hasn't been close to death yet."

that's true since most believers are weak and emotional. They need a life threatening event to make them believe cause they are scared to die...I worked with a ton of substance abusers and addicts, they suddenly 'find god' cause their lives hit rock bottom...funny how it has to be this trauma that makes people find god...cause it gives them solace. Anyway the point is that simply because these types of people 'find god or religion' doesn't add any weight to the argument or facts to support the idea that god exists...

 

[pcosmar]

That was a very evasive answer. Do you believe that supernatural beings as described in the religions of Greece and Scandinavia do exist or eve have existed? It's a yes or no question. If the answer is no, what word should be used to distinguish you from those who do believe in those beings?

I believe they existed in some form, just not as supreme beings.
I believe that most myths have some basis in fact, even if the attributes of the myth are questionable.

There are three possibilities
Belief that there is a God---theist
belief that there is not a god--atheist
or, unsure what to believe--agnostic

The first to are both based on Faith.
Only Agnostic requires no Faith. and therefore no commitment.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Not in the quote of it you gave, unless you're still trying to say that "disbelief" merely means lack of belief, which is not what that very same dictionary says it means.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

I admit defeat here. It appears Merriam does support your definition over mine.

However, I still maintain that Qualifying an atheist/theist position with Agnosticisim/Gnosticism is the best way to get the full picture of what someone believes with regards to a "God". One is with regards to belief, the other knowledge.

Does this seem fair to you?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Then I'd like to know how you, being without all power, all knowledge, and the arbiter of all morality, know with 100% certainty that there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, morality-defining Entity that exists outside time and space.

If something has a physical existence (matter and/or energy), it implies that it is within space and time. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

If something doesn't have a physical existence, than it is nothing more than an Idea. I would agree that God exists as an idea.

By the way, comparing God to a square circle is not comparing two like things. It is just another "apples and oranges" comparison, so your analogy doesn't work.

The square circle example demonstrates that I don't need empirical evidence to support a logically contradictory claim. I do need some kind empirical evidence before I can be convinced of an Empirical Claim, but not a Logical one.

So I guess my question to you is fundamentally... Does god exist in any kind of physical way?

 

[TER]

So I guess my question to you is fundamentally... Does god exist in any kind of physical way?

Yes, in the Incarnation of the Word and Logos of God Jesus Christ, the uncreated joined with the created in order to save creation.

 

[TER]

To tie in nicely the current topics of debate, a good history and understanding of the Logos of God can be found here:

http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/logos.html

That someone just recently inquired about the Stoics, they will find how they prophecied the coming of Christ. In fact, there are many who now sleep in the Lord and await the Final Judgement who in their earthly life have been numbered amongst the Stoics. Many will find redemption that day and be numbered amongst the Saints.

And with the prophets and the greatest minds in human history. The Jews, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Oriental. Evidence of greater and deeper eternal truths about our existence and how the truth has been revealed. Outside of time, greater than human wisdom, more divine than human judgement.

This is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which God sends through His Incarnation into the world.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

In light of the discussions here, I suppose it is somewhat inappropriate to call myself an "atheist" anymore, in its true definition it appears to be a bit of a misnomer when applied to my beliefs.

I do think more atheists could recognize the role the Christian faith has played in the establishment of libertarianism.

That being said; I am not a believer in any religious ideology. From what I have read, and heard, no religion has presented suitable evidence that its doctrine is true. Though, I have not read the Bible, but by the same token, I have not read the Quran, nor any of the Vedas, nor the Bhagavad Gita. Nor any of the other sacred texts of any other of the world's religions. I will likely read some of them eventually, but I doubt I will receive an answer from a book.

I simply feel that in my position, confronted with multiple ideologies with no real mean of appraising the veracity of any, and with no evidence having been presented, the logical position is non belief.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

so you are agnostic?

In light of the discussions here, I suppose it is somewhat inappropriate to call myself an "atheist" anymore, in its true definition it appears to be a bit of a misnomer when applied to my beliefs.

I do think more atheists could recognize the integral role the Christian faith has played in the establishment of libertarianism.

That being said; I am not a believer in any religious ideology. From what I have read, and heard, no religion has presented suitable evidence that its doctrine is true. Though, I have not read the Bible, but by the same token, I have not read the Quran, nor any of the Vedas, nor the Bhagavad Gita. Nor any of the other sacred texts of any other of the world's religions. I will likely read some of them eventually, but I doubt I will receive an answer from a book.

I simply feel that in my position, confronted with multiple ideologies with no real mean of appraising the veracity of any, and with no evidence having been presented, the logical position is non belief.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

so you are agnostic?

Yes, but that is little bit different. I hold the existence of any God or God(s) is ultimately unknowable, but I also do not believe in any God(s).

 

[AceNZ]

For the agnostics out there (including those who don't believe in God, while still admitting that it's possible God might exist):

Why do you allow arbitrary claims as ideas that are proper to consider, discuss, or evaluate? Why not simply dismiss the arbitrary out of hand? "I don't know" is a cop-out. The arbitrary is not on a par with the rational and things that are supported by real evidence.

Why do you demand proof a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive? You ask for others to prove that God does not exist.

Why do you allow the possibility for things for which there is not a single bit of evidence? In the real world, in order for something to be possible, there must be at least some evidence.

I should say that I called myself an agnostic for a long time. However, in reality I was just being a coward. I felt afraid to admit my atheism to my friends and family; I was afraid of retribution, argument and disharmony. In retrospect, it was a mistake. Intellectual dishonesty was much more damaging in the long run.