Greetings!

I'm a militant atheist, by which I mean that I argue and debate frequently concerning the alleged merits of both theism and atheism, and I would like to begin my contributions to this forum by addressing the following post by Linda Williams:

"Life without God is a wasted life and short of God's full potential for you."

While I imagine this was said out of frustration given the previous comments, I would still like to request a more elaborate response as to why exactly I'm wasting my life, and in what way is "God's potential" actualized by believers, in a way that is distinguishable from the actions and deeds of atheists.

Thanks, and I'm hoping for civil and productive debate.

@ Alberto,
Hello and welcome. Most of the debates are civil, some are productive.

hi, welcome.

i'm also quite new here, but i'm on the "other side" (being a theist myself). do you waste your life as an atheist? hm, hard to say, depends what you actually do with your life i mean you can live your life caring for others, doing "good". you also can live your life only for yourself and forget about the rest of the world. and true, theists face the same thing. there are in my opinions theists who waste their life too. speaking for myself i can't imagine a life without God, and my belief is my inspiration for (at least trying) to do good. atheism can be for others the same inspiration (not for me though)

i'm also looking forward to civil and productive debates.... (some actually bring up good points (from both sides) others don't (also from both sides)

returning the question, as an atheist, do you think believing persons are wasting their lifes (with their beliefs) and if yes... why?

regards

BV

Hi Alberto and welcome to the group!

As for civility, I don't think you will find another group, anywhere, that is run as well as this one. We get a little frustrated sometimes, but not to the extent of going beyond the good that is in us. What I mean by that, as you get to know the person you are debating with, you will usually get what you expect. If he or she speaks like an ass, you can bet they are an ass. I have learned ( for the most part) to avoid them.

Now, I'll try to make some sense out of my remark. Before I knew God's spirit as I do now, I only new what I knew, standing alone, having to understand life through my own eyes. So many times, I had to keep picking myself up, after falling. I've seen many others who were living their lives the same way. We were not Atheist, we just didn't know or understand how God's spirit works and all the benefits that we receive, when our eyes are opened.

Perhaps, saying a wasted life is a little strong. After all, if you don't know what you don't have, you aren't missing it. But, I do know what I was lacking earlier in my life. I do know what could have been, had I stopped having to be in control and put my faith to work and trusted God to lead me. Until He opened my eyes to the spiritual world, I had no idea what I was missing. I took chances that were costly, made decisions that were destroying me.

In Ephesians 6, the word tells us about the armour of God. This is not just words in a book. This is instruction, telling us how to survive in a world with so much evil. If the Jews had believed, Hitler wouldn't have been able to do what he did. Over the past 2000 + years, men and women have been battling a war within themselves, not knowing how much easier it would be, just to allow God to fight our battles for us.

You sound like a man who has made good with his life, but without God, it's only temporary.

I suppose I'll be touching several points in a row. We'll see if anything merits a specific thread.
pokojztoba wrote:
So, as far as you're concerned, belief in "God" (I always use quotation marks) is not a measure of wastefulness or fulfilment regarding one's life? That being the case I would agree.
pokojztoba wrote:
Realistically speaking, how often does "God" cross your mind in a typical day?
pokojztoba wrote:
I would say it's how you rationalize your instinct to do good. Do you think that's possible? That doing "good", i.e. behaving in a socially productive way, is hardwired into humans, like it is in, for example, food-sharing bonobos?
pokojztoba wrote:
Following from the previous comment, an atheist doesn't call it "inspiration" but would rather attribute naturalistic explanations to their inclinations, be them "good" or "evil" as per the social standard.
pokojztoba wrote:
It would be easy to be politically correct here, but you surelly understand that from the atheist perspective, devoting time to what from their point of view is akin to any other fantasy or mythological creature is most definitely a waste of time. But then again, for me, most mass-spectator sports are a terrible waste of time and resources. So "waste of time" is a relative notion, that by itself doesn't make anyone better than anyone else. Lying on a beach, getting a tan, isn't the most productive way to spend time, but I like it.

cLinda Williams wrote:
I often request an explanation to the methodology involved in "eye opening". There's usually a bit of circular reasoning involved. How would you go about telling someone like me, as skeptical and pragmatic as they come, to "open his eyes"?
Linda Williams wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
Linda Williams wrote:
Sorry to hear. But I give you all the merit of overcoming hardship, regardless of how you rationalize it. That's something atheists tend to overlook pointing out.
Linda Williams wrote:
What do you mean, "temporary"? Lasts as long as I live, you mean?

well, in my opinion, believing doesn't make you a "better" person, just because you believe in God. Neither does Atheism in itself. All depends on what you actually do with it in your life. that is also what i meant with "inspiration". i suppose that for Atheists, realizing that our life is all we have, can make them doing good things

As mentionned 'waste of time' is for everyone different. i agree on that, for me lying on the beach is a waste of time, but i imagine reading books is for others...

couple of times, i do not keep statistics, sometimes more sometimes less, it is not that he crosses my mind without a break. and yes, the question whether he really exists comes up sometimes.

hmm. interesting question. it is the very old question where does 'morality comes from'. it seems that evolution has a bit effect on it (i suppose you were hinting at evolution), but on the other hand some things of morality make no sense in evolutionary perspective and in general the general standards seem to be everywhere the same and also throughout time. so evolution is definately not explaining everything.... is doing good hardwired into humans, partly, doing bad seems also very hardwired into humans....

i can understand that from an atheist perspective praying,.. is a waste of time, but actually my question was whether you think if it is a wasted life... i do not need political correctness (although when we want to discuss we need to keep civilized and try to argument with reasonable arguments, but i suppose you understood it that way)
on the other hand, i often hear that belief in God is a fantasy, but to me (and i believe many other believing people) Atheism is also a fantasy (a different kind, but still a fantasy)

Alberto, hello and welcome,

This looks like a very promising thread and I'm sure both sides will have a lot to say on this topic. I see there are already some answers from the theists and, being a theist myself, I generally agree with what they have said so far. But before I go any further, I would just like to raise a few questions which, I think, could throw some extra light on the matter:

First of all, how do you define "a wasted life"? Is "wasted" an absolute or a relative term? Is a life wasted only when one perceives it as wasted or can it be wasted even though one might be convinced of the contrary? What are the criteria for determining whether a life is wasted or not? Are there any objective standards or is it a matter of subjective perception? What do you think?

Also, in terms of human potential, when would you say a person can be described as fully-realized? In other words, what does it mean for a person to achieve their full potential? What is the highest limit of the human potential in general, or do you even believe there is such a limit which we can use as a reference point when assessing particular cases?

Last but not least, in what way and to what extent does being an atheist determine or influence your answers to the previous questions? Do you think you would have come up with different answers if you had been a theist?

pokojztoba wrote:
But if we break down "good" and "evil" to an alignment with "God's" will and preference, doesn't that inherently make a believer a better person? How can you not be better if you're more aligned to what "God" desires? Know what I mean?
pokojztoba wrote:
I suppose my point is that if you go through a typical day without giving "God" all that much thought (at least compared with monks and nuns) then you do have a pretty good picture of what it is to live without "God".
pokojztoba wrote:
To me the problem is that I think people don't try to figure out what morality is, before they try to figure out where it comes from.
pokojztoba wrote:
That there might be "general standards" doesn't mean they don't make evolutionary sense. That can just as easily be an argument for evolution, and paralelisms can be drawn with the animal kingdom. But what "things" of morality don't make sense to you, from an evolutionary perspective?
pokojztoba wrote:
That we lack understanding of evolutionary mechanisms isn't Evolution's fault, or an argument for something else.
pokojztoba wrote:
For me, "doing bad" is always a social perspective, or a personal take or feeling on social perspective and how others will perceive our behavior. If doing "good" is getting along with others to reap social benefits, the "doing bad" mechanism seems to kick in when others don't particularly care or help in time of need, thus being a mechanism to aid survival. Is that "evil" or inherently bad? Depends on whether or not we believe in "God". I'm a moral relativist myself... and sometimes I wonder if that doesn't make me more empathic to others.
pokojztoba wrote:
Since I do not acknowledge "purpose" to our existence, "wasted" or "fulfilled" are meaningless notions to me, where our life is concerned.
pokojztoba wrote:
How do you define "fantasy"?

Fiona Harris wrote:
Like I mentioned previously, since I don't acknowledge "purpose" to our lives, it makes no sense to refer to life in terms of "wasted" or "fulfilled".
Fiona Harris wrote:
To me, "fully-realized" is just as abstract as "perfection". It's naturally unattainable. And that's a good thing.
Fiona Harris wrote:
At least, I would probably acknowledge many questions as valid, which I don't as an atheist.

@Alberto,

Thanks for your answers, they make me understand your position better. At least you take atheism for what it is and acknowledge its full implications, unlike some other atheists who try to promote their own watered down version of it.

I think you've already answered the last question for me, so I will try to write my answers to the other two:

As a theist, I believe our lives have a purpose and a meaning determined by God. As people with free will, we can choose to collaborate with Him in fulfilling that purpose or to refuse to collaborate and go our own way. We can walk either towards or away from the fulfillment of our destiny. "To sin" literally means "to miss the mark". I believe that when we sin by going our own way and ignoring God's will, our lives become misaligned with the whole of reality like a puzzle piece placed upside down. On the other hand, when we start our spiritual journey and surrender to the influence of the Holy Spirit, we are drawn towards God, and the closest we get to Him, the more real our lives become, the more they fall in tune with reality as a whole. That's when people start witnessing miracles and they feel that, in a mysterious way, everything starts to fall into place. We turn the puzzle piece in the correct position and it immediaty clicks in. So to me as a theist, a wasted life is a life that misses the point, fails to find its right place in the big puzzle, therefore fails to fulfill the purpose it's been designed for.

I believe a human being has an upper limit which cannot be transcended but towards which all human beings tend, some getting closer to it than others. This full realization is what the mystics have called "union with God" and St. Teresa of Avila has illustrated so beautifully in her analogy with an "interior castle". We are like a castle with several rooms and the room right at the center is the one God has made as a dwelling place for Himself. If we choose to spend our entire life in an exterior room, we won't even know other rooms exist, not to mention the room at the center. That's what materialists do. They are conditioned by their beliefs not to seek any further and by doing so, they set unnecessary limits to the human being. Of course, they are completely unaware of this and their lack of awareness enforces their beliefs. They are like a blind man who stubbornly refuses to believe blindness is not the default and, as a result, rejects any treatment that could restore his vision.

I join the other theists in saying that once you have known God, it's very hard to imagine a fulfilled life without God. Once you have "tasted" His sweetness, anything this world can offer seems bitter in comparison. But as long as you think the bitter is the default, nobody can convince you of the contrary.

So yes, in that respect (and only in that respect) materialistic atheism leads to wasted lives and unfulfilled potential. But those who know no different know no better. It takes someone who has seen both sides to be able to compare.

Alberto,

You said, I often request an explanation to the methodology involved in "eye opening". There's usually a bit of circular reasoning involved. How would you go about telling someone like me, as skeptical and pragmatic as they come, to "open his eyes"?

Open your eyes
Turn on the light
See the light
receive a revelation
I was blind, now I see

Taken from my bible dictionary, " The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" suggest that when " the glory of that light" dispelled the darkness from Paul's own mind that he was in before Christ appeared to him on the Damascus Road. Paul speaks of the minds of unbelievers being darkened to keep them from seeing " the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God". But I think you knew this already.

You said, What do you mean, "temporary"? Lasts as long as I live, you mean?
Last until your mortal body dies. Its all that you have, which is your own choosing.

i think i know what you mean, but i think the point is that believing in God does not necessarily makes you better. i mean, islamic terrorists believe in God, but they do much evil. so the mere fact that you "believe" does not necessarily imply that you do what God desires. in a way an atheist can perfectly do what God desires, although he does not realise he is doing it, or just because he knows it is the good thing to do. i think that we somehow agree on this point.
To me the problem is that I think people don't try to figure out what morality is, before they try to figure out where it comes from.[/quote]

yes interesting. what is morality. it is strange to me that every one has that "conscience", the fact that there are things we just ought to do. that there are bad things and good things.... how would you define morality?

i wrote it a bit confusing maybe. the general standards do not necessarily contradict to evolution, but it is a funny thing that there are general standards. in a way you would more expect very many differences competing with eachother rather than standards that appear always and universally. second point is that some moral standards make (in my opinion) no sense in evolutionary perspective and can thus not be explained by it. fe: leaving you seat for old person you don't know, why care for the handicapped persons, i mean i think you can find others where the person doing good is not profiting (in evolutionary sense) but it still is regarded as doing 'good'

may i turn that one around? that we lack understanding God's works isn't his fault, or an argument that he does not exist....
it is just that evolution is not the explanation for everything (as some atheists want us to believe) evolution is a theory (theory = consistent set of beliefs for wihich there is evidence) and it explains a lot, but not everything. it works very well in biology, but not so well in philosophy or ethics.

good question. i believe empathy is very important, also in whatever discussion, not only in ethics, but also in debates like this. unfortunately it seems to be missing in modern day society too much.
it is true that morality (doing good/bad) has social consequences, but the question is whether that is the only rule to apply. is it only the consequences that decide whether something is good or bad? fe utilitarianism is in this way interesting, but it has its problems, good is what is good for the largest number of people, in general i believe people think this is a good way of thinking. the coventry-dilemma is an example of this in 1940 the british broke the german code. by this they learned that the city of coventry will be bombed.... what do you do: evacuate and risk the germans knowing you broke the codes so they change and you loose a warwinning advantage? or you keep the advantage to save more lives on the long term and let them bomb the city....
moral relativism is sometimes handy, no one will tell me what is good i decide for myself, but when you take it in its complete form... how do u organise society in that way then? if someone for example thinks it is ok to kill someone, why not? off course you can discuss on what the moral standards should be and on what they are based, but they are necessary...

i looked at wikipedia for a definition and this is what i found: "A fantasy is a situation imagined by an individual that expresses certain desires or aims on the part of its creator. Fantasies sometimes involve situations that are highly unlikely; or they may be quite realistic. Fantasies can also be sexual in nature. Another, more basic meaning of fantasy is something which is not 'real,' as in perceived explicitly by any of the senses, but exists as an imagined situation of object to subject."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_(psychology)

in this definition, of course atheists will tell that believing in God is a fantasy. on the other hand, from a theist perspective: believeing that god is not a reality is a fantasy as well...

Fiona Harris wrote:
I always found that "purpose and meaning determined by God" are simply untennable restrictions of "free-will". But that's my interpretation of "free-will", that just like "love", only exists without strings attached. And like it or not, expectation over what our supposed creator desired of us is a mighty string. "I unconditionally love you just the same, and give you absolute free-will, but expect you to do x and y?" Does this really make sense on a godly scale?
Fiona Harris wrote:
For instance, where do you stop thinking of "purpose", and start thinking of "genetic bum rap"? We can easily start pilling up examples of genetic disasters, that make a one-time "destiny" or "God's purpose" a tough pill to swallow. I think theists are very quick to assign "God's" purpose to this and that, pretending to know "God's" mind, or at least assuming in makes sense in "God's" mind, and then assign "God's" will too quickly to lives that are entirely devoid of any possible fulfillment in human standards. You know, sort of having the cake and eating it too.

Also, if one doesn't believe in reincarnation, what's the point of assigning overwhelming hardship to one individual, and a cakewalk to another?
Fiona Harris wrote:
Perhaps yet another limitation of free-will?
Fiona Harris wrote:
Hardly a valid analogy. The language of science, if understood by the blind man, would convince him to go for it. Because of its objectivity, it's conveyable. Refer to Linda's response as to how I can "open my eyes". Is it surprising I was left exactly the same? If a believer can't convey, and "God" doesn't seem to bother, is it even remotely my fault?
Fiona Harris wrote:
First time I read that association. I know from personal experience most adjectives associated with atheism are superfluous.
Fiona Harris wrote:
Come now... I'm pretty sure a former-theist is automatically someone who never actually knew "God". Am I right?

Linda Williams wrote:
These are "post-revelation" instructions. I believe it makes a lot of sense to you, but I'm obviously asking for "pre-revelation" instructions. For people that don't speak "allegory" or fail to acknowledge what lies beneath it, if anything.
Linda Williams wrote:
I know there's supposed to be a "light", but the actual "eye opening" doesn't seem to depend on people. That being the case, "God" is always to blame for people failing to acknowledge the proper "path".
Linda Williams wrote:
I fail to recognize a choice, and as of yet, believers have failed to help in that recognition. Of course, I'm not particularly looking to be convinced, as my life is just peachy the way it is (tough economy notwithstanding) hence the circular reasoning. It always seems only a believer can see the light, which allegedly makes a believer out of you.

pokojztoba wrote:
Plenty of Christian, atheist, etc, terrorists to go around. In my opinion, economic and/or political terrorism kills significantly more people. Just less blood and guts involved. Sorry if that was too graphic, but I really don't think suicide bombers epitomize evil, even by Christian standards. Makes the news, though...
pokojztoba wrote:
If we assume the belief is genuine, what exactly fails? I would think genuine belief is the key to genuine communion. If "God" fails to influence a genuine believer to behave as expected, what's to be expected of a non-believer?
pokojztoba wrote:
It seems like an unfair advantage for a single lifetime. Meaning I could only hope evolution, the genetic inclinations of my parents, and the environment I develop in, produced me as close as possible to "God's" preferences. Whereas a believer supposedly gets a hand in walking the path. That being the case, how does "free-will" stack up for both?
pokojztoba wrote:
Relatively. "Morality" is a behavioral consensus of any given community. "Moral values" are those behavioral inclinations that produce a positive social net effect, as per that community's standards. Of course, none of this is valid when a god steps in, and its preferences define "good" and "evil", and are the sole standard by which behavior is compared. That's why discussions of morality between atheists and theists without proper definitions don't go anywhere. Derailment is predictable a mile away.
pokojztoba wrote:
"General standards" are the standards that have worked best during the course of evolution. Makes perfect sense to me.
pokojztoba wrote:
Know why bonobos share food? Because they can. That's right, sharing means you can afford to, and that raises social status. Status is good, keeps other monkeys off your back. Helping others is awarded with a feeling of superiority, whether people acknowledge it or not. This presumed knowledge makes no difference to me. I'm generally as polite as people can get, regardless of how I think it comes about.
pokojztoba wrote:
As Science explains phenomena that don't require "God", there exists less indication of "God's works", and more of... just stuff happening. "God" can always be assumed to work a step ahead of Science, but the likelihood gets increasingly thinner. I suppose whether or not that's an argument depends on the criteria.
pokojztoba wrote:
The thing is, it either explains everything pending the proper accumulation and interpretation of data, or it's simply not reliable. Evolution of ethics doesn't seem problematic to me. Philosophy... seems like intellectual art to me. I don't get most of it. But like art, tendencies evolve, and there's generally a traceable source for the movements.
pokojztoba wrote:
Perceived as good. They're always perceptions that might or might not translate reality. Human sacrifice was perceived good in the past. Torture... still is, sometimes.
pokojztoba wrote:
But I never said morality was always a simple matter. In fact, I chalk up the complexity of human morality to evolution. Like a living thing, basic components or organs work generally well on "paper". It's the little things that complicate and screw us up.
pokojztoba wrote:
Not really, it's not a matter of personal decision. It's a matter of how it feels, and how it feels is ultimately everybody else's fault for making one feel that way.
pokojztoba wrote:
That's simple. Most people don't think it's ok. Animals don't kill each other around just because. This feeling is enough for a community to protect itself against unjustified or unlawful killing, calling it "murder".
pokojztoba wrote:
I'm one of those atheists that will adamantly stand by their "label" as meaning no more than "lack of belief". Regardless, it seems to me that a fantasy requires an actual perception "by any of the senses", as per that definition. No-perception isn't a perception.

wow our posts arwe bcoming chapters.... something like a tree structure thing would be handy.... i'm not going to respond to all of what you said, not beacause i have nothing to say anymore, not because i'm right or because you're right, but it would take me too much time, i gladly look forward to discussing aspects of it on other occasions.

two points just:

the first point of the discussion, for me there are two aspects to one's worldview. there is what you believe and what you do (with that). so if someone believes and he does not do anything good with it... it is worthless and he is not a better person. that is what i mean. another example, if someone is an atheist he might think he is smarter than a theist just because he does not believe in God. It can be the case, but is not necessarily so. same thing with the believing person.

second point,

it seems to me that atheism is more than just a lack of belief. you believe that 'god does not exist' is true, i believe it is untrue. you believe either way. it is impossible to believe nothing. you can say i do not believe there is a God, but the consequence is that you believe that the material world is all there is. it is the same as with choices. if you have to choose, it seems that not choosing is just not choosing, but that is in fact also a choice....

pokojztoba wrote:
Yeah, it's easy to stray from the OP. I don't usually care much, but the mods might...
pokojztoba wrote:
Absolutely. The last word doesn't win anything, unlike what some people seem to think. I expect readers to judge the sum of our arguments.
pokojztoba wrote:
In "God's eyes", you mean?
pokojztoba wrote:
But do you think believing gives an edge to the believer, in living up to "God's" ideal? That's the crux of the matter for me, here.
pokojztoba wrote:
Nope. By definition, a god transcends existence. If existence itself is "God's" creation, the creator logically stands above it. Since, to me, existence is measurable, and only makes sense in scientific terms (even conceptual existence, described as neural patterns, etc...), then "God" does not, and cannot, exist per se, or rather the notions are incompatible. So both expressions, "God exists" and "God doesn't exist", are meaningless to me.

As an atheist, all that can be said about me, is that I don't believe in gods, which isn't the same as saying "I believe gods don't exist". I know the distinction is subtle to most, and yet so important to me.
pokojztoba wrote:
True. Hence the word "disbelief".
pokojztoba wrote:
I also believe there's more to the material world than Humanity will ever grasp. It only fascinates you because you think it was created? I'm dumbfounded every day.
pokojztoba wrote:
"If you have to choose" presupposes a choice is already acknowledged.

You said, It always seems only a believer can see the light, which allegedly makes a believer out of you.

Well, don't that tell you something? I'll tell you a little secret, I had to have faith first. With the faith, came the blessings, which made a believer out of me.

Having my eyes opened, came after the blessings. I began to see through a new area of my being. My mind was able to comprehend things that I had never understood before. I could feel other people in a way I had never felt people before. There was an awareness that became my new self. I was able to relate to people in a whole new way. Words came out of my mouth that were foreign to me. People heard what came out of my mouth in a way that transformed what I was saying into a blessing for them. Oh ya! God is good!

Here is a good exercise for you: imagine I am an alien coming from a planet where we have bitter food, sour food and salty food, but no sweet food. So I haven't eaten anything sweet in my life but I know perfectly well what bitter, sour and salty tastes like. Can you explain to me what sweet tastes like?

Linda Williams wrote:
Seriously? You're actually telling me you had "faith" before you were a "believer"? So, according to you, either a person already has "faith" to begin with, or nothing comes after, belief, blessings... whatever. If having "faith" is already the first step, it most definitely is not a person's responsibility that he/she is a nonbeliever. It seems to be entirely "God's" fault.

Fiona Harris wrote:
Taste is a perception, and inherently subjective. Quite honestly, I would expect you to be aware of this fact as well, and I wouldn't tell you to "open your mouth, put the food in your mouth, taste the sweet..." presuming this makes sense. As the alien I would find it patronizing and quite annoying.

hm. this seems to be a bit incoherent logically
you say:
a1 gods exists (lets assume he does, this is not a fact, certainly not to you)
a2 God transcends existence
a3 Existence is God's creation
b existence is measurable
c existence only makes sense in scientific terms
conclusion: God does not exist per se
conclusion 2: the expression is meaningless

this all seems strange to me. "god does not exist per se", of course, that was the assumption in the first place, you never posed it as a fact.
the assumption which with i do not agree is c, that existence makes only sense within science. i think existence is... existence. Science describes it, but does not create a sense to existence itself. the question is of course where existence comes from. our existence is in time and space so it is defined by these. God off course transcends this, as he created it... but if god does not exist, where does our existence comes from? i would not say that the expression 'god exists' or 'god does not exist' is meaningless, it is very meaningfull. it either one or the other. nothing in between, and depending on that a lot follows from it.

as before either god exist or he doesn't, so logically if you don't believe in God, you believe he does not exist, or do you mean that he exists but that you choose to ignore his existence...

i'm sorry if i don't express myself always that well. English is not my mothertongue (dutch is), also i'm quite chaotic in my "writings".... my apologies.
what you say is true, if you have to chose, a choice is acknowledged. but even if you don't have to choose, when you do no choose it is also a choice, fe, there are lots of insurance packages. but not taking one of them is not just 'not choosing' it is a choice as well, you choose not to take one of them. atheism is not 'i just don't choose between the forms of theism' it is 'i choose not one of them'. it is a belief, and not a lack of belief.

off course, but it seems that opening your mouth is the only way to get to know the taste. you can put in yourself, or someone else, but as long as youhave your mouth closed, don't expect to get to know the taste

i believe that to become a believer you need to be open, really open to the possiblity of God existence. as long as you categorally shut out the possibility, then of course you will never become a believer....

pokojztoba wrote:
Well heck, if this position right off the bat isn't attributable to me, none of what follows is logically valid where I'm concerned. I can't assume this one is true and say the rest isn't.
pokojztoba wrote:
I'm Portuguese. The forums and debates really helped brush up my English. I can't even express most of this stuff in Portuguese. Honestly, it's like playing piano.
pokojztoba wrote:
"If you don't have to choose" doesn't say whether a choice is acknowledged or not. It might not be... I don't have to choose, because I don't acknowledge a choice is available. Belief in god(s) generates choice (but not to be an atheist, only to choose between concepts of "God"), whereas disbelief does not. The problem is with the assumption that belief is a choice. What we say we believe in is one thing, what we believe in is another.
pokojztoba wrote:
I already believe in insurance, and the concept of insurance can be described in terms that relate to everyone, and it also has a material facet. Like I said, I don't acknowledge "God" as a common "thing" that everyone has an equal perception of.
pokojztoba wrote:
Atheism comes from a-theos. Etymologically it just means "no-god". Since even theists don't presume to know "God" (well, some do...) "theos" is a reference to belief in "God", or gods. I choose (in that instance) not to compound further meaning to the expression, in a way that is divisive. What I understand from the word, is what every atheist out there relates to as well. "No-belief".