"What are the temporal and eternal..."

Originally posted by lemon lime
Most atheists believe life exists in other parts of the universe, so it seems odd that an atheist believing in a supernatural realm would not also make the same presumption of life existing within that realm as well.

Well, apart from the fact that I am not sure that it's true that most atheists believe in the existence of life elsewhere in this universe...

Just because you might believe that god/s don't exist, doesn't mean you cannot believe in other supernatural entities.

Just being supernatural doesn't make a being a god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well, apart from the fact that I am not sure that it's true that most atheists believe in the existence of life elsewhere in this universe...

Just because you might believe that god/s don't exist, doesn't mean you cannot believe in other supernatural entities.

Just being supernatural doesn't make a being a god.

I did a quick google search and discovered there is something called 'atheist spirituality', which denies the existence of a deity and also denies the existence of the supernatural. What 'atheist spirituality' means is beyond me, because the definition doesn't appear to differ from how most atheists define atheism.

The point I wanted to make didn't come across very well because it was mostly suggestive... it has to do with any acknowledgement of an atheist on the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, or a supernatural realm. Acknowledgement of the supernatural appears to open the door to dismantling a belief in no supernatural being such as a god or god, capable of creating a realm such as the one we are a part of. In my opinion, for an atheist to safely assume no such being exists he would necessarily need to deny the presence of a realm in which he could exist. That was my point... sorry I didn't explain it better, but I usually assume something like this would be self evident and not needing an explanation.


I just happened to run across this link when searching for various articles about what atheists believe. I don't know if it's relevant or not, but I don't anticipate hearing GB complain about it.

http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/

Originally posted by lemon lime
Acknowledgement of the supernatural appears to open the door to dismantling a belief in no supernatural being such as a god or god, capable of creating a realm such as the one we are a part of. In my opinion, for an atheist to safely assume no such being exists he would necessarily need to deny the presence of a realm in which he could exist.

You are wrong on so many counts.
1. Atheists do not necessarily believe that no supernatural being such as a god or god exists. They simply do not hold a positive belief that such an entity exists.
2. Even someone holding a belief that such an entity does not exist would not necessarily have their belief weakened by the existence of a realm in which such an entity could exist.
3. There is actually no need whatsoever for a supernatural realm in order for a creator god to exist.

That was my point... sorry I didn't explain it better, but I usually assume something like this would be self evident and not needing an explanation.
A really dangerous assumption given that you are conversing with people who clearly think very differently from you, and given your dislike of being misunderstood.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are wrong on so many counts.
1. Atheists do not necessarily believe that no supernatural being such as a god or god exists. They simply do not hold a positive belief that such an entity exists.
2. Even someone holding a belief that such an entity does not exist would not necessarily have their belief weakened by the existence of a realm in which suc ...[text shortened]... ople who clearly think very differently from you, and given your dislike of being misunderstood.

1. That sounds like a description of the agnostic position rather than atheist position... or a weak attempt at making atheism appear reasonable.

2. My point was that acknowledging anything other than what naturalistic science is able to confirm weakens the position of those who claim no deity exists. Such an acknowledgement can weaken the atheists argument, but even so it wouldn't necessarily weaken his belief.

3. I was simply pointing out how any acknowledgement of the supernatural can open the door to any or all other aspects of the supernatural... including the existence of a creator god.

Even reincarnation would have to rely on some form of supernatural force for transferring a soul from one body to another. Science cannot explain this, so if an 'atheist' believes in an afterlife in the form of re-incarnation he is necessarily believing in a supernatural force.

Originally posted by lemon lime
1. That sounds like a description of the agnostic position rather than atheist position... or a weak attempt at making atheism appear reasonable.

2. My point was that acknowledging [b]anything other than what naturalistic science is able to confirm weakens the position of those who claim no deity exists. Such an acknowledgement can weaken th ...[text shortened]... an afterlife in the form of re-incarnation he is necessarily believing in a supernatural force.[/b]

You evidently have a faulty definition for atheist and agnostic, or you fail to understand that definition.

Originally posted by lemon lime
1. That sounds like a description of the agnostic position rather than atheist position... or a weak attempt at making atheism appear reasonable.

Agnostic is the position that we cannot know about the existence of a deity. You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. Being an agnostic is not a weaker form of atheism, or middle ground between theism and atheism, it is a separate category entirely.

Originally posted by lemon lime
1. That sounds like a description of the agnostic position rather than atheist position... or a weak attempt at making atheism appear reasonable.

Clearly your earlier statement:

So I make it a point to carefully read what they say,...

is untrue. What we mean by the term 'atheist' has been repeated so many times on this forum that I find it hard to believe that you still don't know what we mean.

Even reincarnation would have to rely on some form of supernatural force for transferring a soul from one body to another. Science cannot explain this, ....
I am curious as to why you think science cannot explain it. Are you of the opinion that the 'supernatural' of any kind exists where 'supernatural' is defined as 'science cannot explain it' or 'unscientific'?
I personally find such claims to be inherently incoherent.

Your biggest mistake in this thread is to think we (the atheists in this thread) are representative of atheists world wide. We are not talking about the atheists in this thread, who do not, as far as I know believe in an afterlife, and are generally well educated and quite scientific in our thinking. We are talking about all atheists, which might include some totally uneducated grandmother in China who worships her ancestors but does not believe in the existence of a deity. She may not even know what the word 'science' (or its Chinese equivalent) is. To say that her lack of belief in a deity is undermined by her ancestor worship because it undermines her scientific outlook on life is simply ridiculous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly your earlier statement:

So I make it a point to carefully read what they say,...

is untrue. What we mean by the term 'atheist' has been repeated so many times on this forum that I find it hard to believe that you still don't know what we mean.

[b]Even reincarnation would have to rely on some form of supernatural force for trans ...[text shortened]... her ancestor worship because it undermines her scientific outlook on life is simply ridiculous.

Your biggest mistake in this thread is to think we (the atheists in this thread) are representative of atheists world wide.

I don't know why you would assume I think the atheists in this thread are representative of atheists worldwide, especially in light of the fact that I've repeatedly said (in this thread) "not all atheists think exactly alike just as not all Christians think exactly alike".

We are not talking about the atheists in this thread, who do not, as far as I know believe in an afterlife, and are generally well educated and quite scientific in our thinking. We are talking about all atheists,

I was responding to comments made (in this thread) about atheists who do believe in an afterlife. I wasn't aware of atheists who believe in an afterlife until I read those comments... posted here in this thread. What's the point of saying you are generally well educated and quite scientific in your thinking if you see these comments and then presume it only means "We are talking about all atheists."?

If a specific example of what some atheists believe is brought up by atheists here (at this thread) who do not fit in with that example (do not believe in an afterlife) then how am I wrong for commenting on that specific example? I didn't bring up the topic of atheists who believe in an afterlife, a couple of your fellow atheists (here at this thread) brought that to my attention...

Originally posted by googlefudge
You evidently have a faulty definition for atheist and agnostic, or you fail to understand that definition.

evidently 😕

It would help if someone could give a clear and coherent definition of both, as well as a clear and coherent explanation of how both differ. There must be some way to clearly differentiate between the two, without having to include examples of subtle differences within each of those meanings.

The fact that each is represented by a different word (atheist and agnostic) is a big clue to the average reader that they do not mean the same thing...

Originally posted by lemon lime
I was responding to comments made (in this thread) about atheists who do believe in an afterlife. I wasn't aware of atheists who believe in an afterlife until I read those comments... posted here in this thread. What's the point of saying you are generally well educated and quite scientific in your thinking if you see these comments and then presume it on ...[text shortened]... fterlife, a couple of your fellow atheists (here at this thread) brought that to my attention...

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired as you have clearly misunderstood me.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It would help if someone could give a clear and coherent definition of both, as well as a clear and coherent explanation of how both differ.

Both have been clearly defined in this thread. C Hess gives the definition of agnostic just a few posts up:
Agnostic is the position that we cannot know about the existence of a deity.

And as has been said by multiple people:
An atheist is someone who does not positively believe in the existence of a deity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired as you have clearly misunderstood me.

Originally posted by lemon lime

"It would help if someone could give a clear and coherent definition of both [atheism and agnosticism], as well as a clear and coherent explanation of how both differ. There must be some way to clearly differentiate between the two, without having to include examples of subtle differences within each of those meanings."

"The fact that each is represented by a different word (atheist and agnostic) is a big clue to the average reader that they do not mean the same thing..."


Simply put, this means it would be helpful if you could give brief clear cogent precise coherent definitions... it would demonstrate how your not-a-religion is not shrouded in mystery. It would also help if you could give clear cogent precise coherent explanations of what you mean.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired as you have clearly misunderstood me.

Originally posted by lemon lime

Your biggest mistake in this thread is to think we (the atheists in this thread) are representative of atheists world wide.

I don't know why you would assume I think the atheists in this thread are representative of atheists worldwide, especially in light of the fact that I've repeatedly said (in this thread) "not all atheists think exactly alike just as not all Christians think exactly alike".

We are not talking about the atheists in this thread, who do not, as far as I know believe in an afterlife, and are generally well educated and quite scientific in our thinking. We are talking about all atheists,

I was responding to comments made (in this thread) about atheists who do believe in an afterlife. I wasn't aware of atheists who believe in an afterlife until I read those comments... posted here in this thread. What's the point of saying you are generally well educated and quite scientific in your thinking if you see these comments and then presume it only means "We are talking about all atheists."?

If a specific example of what some atheists believe is brought up by atheists here (at this thread) who do not fit in with that example (do not believe in an afterlife) then how am I wrong for commenting on that specific example? I didn't bring up the topic of atheists who believe in an afterlife, a couple of your fellow atheists (here at this thread) brought that to my attention...

Originally posted by C Hess
Agnostic is the position that we cannot know about the existence of a deity. You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. Being an agnostic is not a weaker form of atheism, or middle ground between theism and atheism, it is a separate category entirely.

I've yet to see an agnostic demonstrate "a positive belief that such an entity exists."


Originally posted by twhitehead

1. Atheists do not necessarily believe that no supernatural being such as a god or god exists. They simply do not hold a positive belief that such an entity exists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well, apart from the fact that I am not sure that it's true that most atheists believe in the existence of life elsewhere in this universe...

Just because you might believe that god/s don't exist, doesn't mean you cannot believe in other supernatural entities.

Just being supernatural doesn't make a being a god.

Isn't accepting the possibility of something supernatural, irrational?