Can former atheists explain what atheism is?

[Jan Ardena]

Let's have a look at your question, Jan. Here is what it would look like if it weren't loaded and was honest...

" what would you regard as evidence enough, to understand there is a God?"

See how easy that was, Jan? Now, is this the question you were going to ask or would you prefer to stick with the original?

An atheist asks for evidence of God, and if they are not satisfied with the evidence, they maintain their claim, there is no evidence for God.

An atheist, therefore, should have an idea of what would be regarded as evidence enough for them to accept that God exists, because an atheist knows, or thinks he knows, what is not evidence of God.

The atheist does not think, or accept the idea that he is blinkered by his atheism. That his atheism prevents him from accepting God.

So the atheist must think that he can know that God exists, and remain an atheist.
I don’t think you can, which is why ask the question.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If I was running away, I wouldn't have asked you to reword your question so that it was honest, all you're doing is demonstrating you have no intention of being honest. Reword the question so its not loaded, Jan. Or, is a dishonest "monologue" all you can provide? I'll take your silence as a, Yes.

What is actually wrong with the question?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

So now you change a toppling mountain to a floating mountain peak?

Nope. But nice try!

Give me a fact, or something to work with.

Pointless. You just said that nothing would change your mind - so I won't bother.

That's the difference between you and I. I can accept new discoveries and change my worldview based on those new discoveries. You cannot, as you said above.

Why would you think it was a fact of God, in the first place?

See above for an example. You'd eliminate the more likely explanations via experiments, and if the most likely of the remaining explanations is that God did it, then you go with that.

 

[billvon]

An atheist asks for evidence of God, and if they are not satisfied with the evidence, they maintain their claim, there is no evidence for God.

Of course. That's part of the scientific method. A scientist would use exactly the same method to prove or disprove a new theory. For a concrete example of this, look at the Cannae drive.

An atheist, therefore, should have an idea of what would be regarded as evidence enough for them to accept that God exists, because an atheist knows, or thinks he knows, what is not evidence of God.

See above. Toppling a few mountains might do it as a result of prayer. Parting the Atlantic Ocean to let God's Chosen People to get to the US from wherever they are escaping from. Levitating worthy people into heaven. That sort of thing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

See above for an example. You'd eliminate the more likely explanations via experiments, and if the most likely of the remaining explanations is that God did it, then you go with that.

So why would you even bring God into this scenario?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

So why would you even bring God into this scenario?

Because if God was the most likely explanation, you'd go with that.

You might want to read before replying.

 

[Jan Ardena]

See above. Toppling a few mountains might do it as a result of prayer. Parting the Atlantic Ocean to let God's Chosen People to get to the US from wherever they are escaping from. Levitating worthy people into heaven. That sort of thing.

You do realise that not everyone would agree that was evidence for God’s existence. So why would you?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because if God was the most likely explanation, you'd go with that.

You might want to read before replying.

How would you decide that God was the most likely explanation?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Of course. That's part of the scientific method. A scientist would use exactly the same method to prove or disprove a new theory. For a concrete example of this, look at the Cannae drive.

See above. Toppling a few mountains might do it as a result of prayer. Parting the Atlantic Ocean to let God's Chosen People to get to the US from wherever they are escaping from. Levitating worthy people into heaven. That sort of thing.

Isn't it remarkable that anything which would prove the handiwork of a God would have to break natural laws and constants.

To my knowledge, in the entire history of mankind, there has never been a single event which did not answer to natural law.

For instance: A burning bush is not evidence of a divine event.
Spontaneous combustion happens regularly and in perfect accordance with natural causes.

A "talking" burning bush is not evidence of a divine event.

The burning bush is an object described by the Book of Exodus[3:1–4:17] as being located on Mount Horeb. According to the narrative, the bush was on fire, but was not consumed by the flames, hence the name.[1] In the biblical narrative, the burning bush is the location at which Moses was appointed by Yahweh (God) to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_bush

, Did Moses eat some 'shrooms?

Did they ever make it to Canaan? Oops,....God appointed Moses to lead his people into Canaan, but then refused Moses entry into the Promised Land? Wow!!!

Did God sell Moses a "bill of goods"? It took forty years of Moses' life to lead his people on this real estate sham...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, you asked what atheism is and then in the op you asked why is someone an atheist. I think the what is easy - it is not believing in God. The why is more difficult.

Not quite.
I’m asking what atheism is, from the POV of a former atheist who now accepts and believes in God.

I have thought a lot about it over the last 20 years or so. In general as far as the personal God guiding, protecting or listening to you that seems totally out of the question based on the arbitrary tragedies that occur daily.

I can see how you could draw that conclusion.
God is pure spirit, and God’s connection with us is purely spiritual.
The spirit is not affected by the harshness of material life, we only think it is, because we identify as the material, not as the spiritual.
Jesus was a representative of God who came to show us the difference between these worlds. Just to give an example that God doesn’t forsake us. We forsake ourselves because we are rapidly falling away from the truth, or the light, and embracing the lie, or darkness, by believing in a temporary manifestation as the sum total of existence. Where we reduce the spiritual, to mere emotions. And everything is just chemical reactions occurring in our brain.

The random nature of these bad things that happen to good people (or good things that happen to bad people) lead me to believe there is no guiding force to the world.

There is a guiding force. It is the force of nature. Nature has a character, and it is played out with precision. We are part nature. We use nature. The simple act of typing this message is an action that required me to utilise the forces of nature. Every single action, no matter how minute, requires the assistance of nature.
To every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, a thermodynamic law.
It doesn’t matter who the person is. They could be the cutest baby ever, or a really good person, nature will act precisely upon them.

The seemingly random nature of tragedies is addressed by the theist with sayings such as 'it is all part of God's plan" or "we cannot understand what God does". I simply do not have faith that seemingly random tragedies are anything other than random tragedies.

You mean a Christian may say that. But a theist would have no reason to say that

As far as a 'hands off' God, I simply do not see any evidence that one exists.

I think you meant a “ hands on God”.
Did you?

That being said, I understand.
There is a way to pray to God, because it is not just a case of asking for something. We need to learn how to address God. For that we need the assistance of people who themselves are already God conscious. A good example is the Lords Prayer. Jesus taught this to his deciples.

I guess I believe that we live in an unfeeling universe. The universe does not care about us. The universe is not bad nor is it good, it just is.

Agreed!

There is no savior coming rescue us from ourselves. There is no God that is going to protect us from ourselves. It is all up to us, we are on our own.

We have been fed this idea of God coming and taking all the Christians up to heaven, leaving the sinners on the earth, and so on.

But this has nothing to do with God. Unfortunately a lot of damage has been done, but it’s not too late to fix these false notions of God. Understand God through scripture is a good way to begin the process.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

You do realise that not everyone would agree that was evidence for God’s existence. So why would you?

Because you asked what I would accept. Not what everyone would accept. Don't you remember your own questions?

How would you decide that God was the most likely explanation?

1) It was something in line with what God has done in the past and was asked to do.
2) It was not possible otherwise (i.e. via natural laws.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because you asked what I would accept. Not what everyone would accept. Don't you remember your own questions?

No I didn’t.
Why lie?
You were the one banging on about scientific method.
So why would you accept it as God?

1) It was something in line with what God has done in the past and was asked to do.
2) It was not possible otherwise (i.e. via natural laws.)

1) God has built worlds and human beings in the past. Why would this event make you accept that God builds world and human beings?

2)Do you know everything there is to know about natural law?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

No I didn’t.
Why lie?

See, here's the thing about the Internet - it saves stuff. So I can just go back and repost your own words.

"As an atheist, what would you regard as evidence enough, to make an atheist, for whom there is no s no God, understand there is a God, while your in their atheist state?"
followed by
"Do you think you could curtail anger for a minute and answer the question?"

So I will ask you the same question - why are you always such a lying hypocrite? Do you forget that the Internet saves stuff? Or do you figure if you lie enough people will simply stop checking?

You were the one banging on about scientific method.
So why would you accept it as God?

Because everything is subject to the scientific method. Even God.

1) God has built worlds and human beings in the past. Why would this event make you accept that God builds world and human beings?

Because there is no proof that God built any of that stuff - just words in a book that isn't even self-consistent. It would be like claiming that hyperspace is scientific reality because you saw it in Star Wars - and your eyes don't lie!

2)Do you know everything there is to know about natural law?

Nope. I am learning more all the time.

 

[Jan Ardena]

See, here's the thing about the Internet - it saves stuff. So I can just go back and repost your own words.

You lying knows no bounds.

I said “ As an atheist”, not what you personally think. All atheists do not believe in God. All of them, at least any I have ever spoken, listened to, or read from. So if one atheist accepts that the evidrnce is sound, based on the scientific method, then all should. But they won’t. So why would you accept what you regard as evidence to be God, even though it would not be universally accepted?

Because everything is subject to the scientific method. Even God.

Therefore all atheist should accept, Right?
Do you think all would accept if you accepted?

Because there is no proof that God built any of that stuff - just words in a book that isn't even self-consistent. It would be like claiming that hyperspace is scientific reality because you saw it in Star Wars - and your eyes don't lie!

According to you and the atheist community, there is no proof of God, period. So what exactly has God done in the past to make you confident that your proposed evidence would be an act of God?

Nope. I am learning more all the time.

Then how could you know what is and what is possible within nature, to know that it is God, and not some force of nature unbeknown to you?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

You lying knows no bounds.

I will let others read through your posts and determine who was lying. I am not worried.

Therefore all atheist should accept, Right?

Nope. I can't determine what other people will accept, even though you think you can.

Do you think all would accept if you accepted?

No. I can't determine what other people will accept. I know this is hard for you to conceptualize, but other people have other ideas and beliefs, no matter how much you want them all to fit into the same category.

According to you and the atheist community, there is no proof of God, period. So what exactly has God done in the past to make you confident that your proposed evidence would be an act of God?

Again, I'd have to see the proof. If it was parting the Atlantic to bring Godly people to the US, and a religious leader asked it to be done, and we could verify that it was a supernatural power doing it - then that would be pretty good proof. (God did something very much like this in the past. I'll let you look it up.)

Then how could you know what is and what is possible within nature, to know that it is God, and not some force of nature unbeknown to you?

Because we have a fairly good grasp on what the natural world can do. Not a perfect one, of course. But if someone opened up the Atlantic ocean, and scientists could wander around the sea floor, measure the wall of water and see no natural forces keeping it there - then that would be very strong evidence.

That's because, unlike you, I can grow and learn new things.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope. I can't determine what other people will accept, even though you think you can.

So lack of evidence is not the reason people are atheists. It’s good to hear that from an atheist.

No. I can't determine what other people will accept.

What about other atheists?

Especially the one conditioned to sing the “ There’s no evidence” song.
Why wouldn’t they accept the evidence as it would have gone through the scientific method?

Again, I'd have to see the proof. If it was parting the Atlantic to bring Godly people to the US, and a religious leader asked it to be done, and we could verify that it was a supernatural power doing it - then that would be pretty good proof. (God did something very much like this in the past. I'll let you look it up.)

How would you verify that it was a supernatural power?

Because we have a fairly good grasp on what the natural world can do.

How do you know we do?
Is it possible that we don’t even kn

Not a perfect one, of course.

Then the grasp may not be worth a hill of beans.

But if someone opened up the Atlantic ocean, and scientists could wander around the sea floor, measure the wall of water and see no natural forces keeping it there - then that would be very strong evidence.

So if they find that the waters of the Red Sea did part, you would consider that evidence of God?

That's because, unlike you, I can grow and learn new things.

Unlike me, you’re rude, you tell lies, and you have no intention of ever accepting God.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

I’m asking what atheism is, from the POV of a former atheist who now accepts and believes in God.

Bullshit question.
The answer would obviously vary according to the nature of their particular atheistic viewpoint - which would mean nothing about "atheism" in general.
If we are talking about the overt Abrahamic converts, we would also have to allow for the frequent dishonesty of their claims.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The answer would obviously vary according to the nature of their particular atheistic viewpoint - which would mean nothing about "atheism" in general.

That’s your opinion, but there’s no way you can know, because you are a card carrying atheist.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If we are talking about the overt Abrahamic converts, we would also have to allow for the frequent dishonesty of their claims.

Is cynicism a part of atheism?
Or are you just a loan miserable, angry individual?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

So lack of evidence is not the reason people are atheists. It’s good to hear that from an atheist . . . .Then the grasp may not be worth a hill of beans. . . .Unlike me, you’re rude, you tell lies, and you have no intention of ever accepting God.

You have to understand that when you try to insult me, I take it as a compliment. It's like Trump calling me a fool. It means I'm doing something right.