To the atheists who wrote their comments, thank you for your statements. I am ready for responding these comments on a recorded video or live stream. Stay tuned.
By just reading the title I can say this: why someone would ask if atheism explains reality? It's like asking if breakfast is a proper way of locomotion: there's a category error there. Atheism isn't meant to explain reality, atheism is just this, look at it: A: "God exists" B: "I don't believe that" Atheism! It's the answer to a single question. Atheism isn't the right tool to investigate reality, we have science to do that and science isn't the same as atheism. If what you intended to say is "what best explains reality, SCIENCE or christianity", well, there isn't any challenge there: science all the way, since christianity isn't intended to be a tool to investigate reality. It would be like asking if my bike has all the nutritional values I need.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Well, I am an agnostic - but I do throw my hat in the ring, for... neither? You never know. Still, atheism has never pretended to explain absolutely everything. Still, modern cosmology and neuroscience has not yet debunked material views, either. Or of things being measurable in that paradigm. Myself, I find reality can only be explained so much... if it relies on YHWH having to make Himself massively... even violently... unhappy? Despite prescience - or awareness of just how dangerously suicidally proud angels can get. Or have theologians tie themselves in knots defining what 'rebelling against' means with a God who chose - fully of their own accord - to be invisible, and separated from humanity. In a way that, reasonably speaking, neither Adam or Eve demanded, compelled or made completely necessary. And all whilst Satan - who was supposedly one of YHWH's masterpieces, of design - was still able to retain some access back into heaven (if we count the Job story as fully literal, at least) as well as in retaining several powers. In a manner that may make 'spiritually dead', also, a somewhat dubious definition, for him? Post exile. Finally (for now) free will tends to be... inconsistently defined, at least in Pauline theology. As is Glass Darklies, Princes/Gods of this World who blind people... or in Romans 8:30.
To the atheists who wrote their comments, thank you for your statements. I am ready for responding these comments on a recorded video or live stream. Stay tuned.
By just reading the title I can say this: why someone would ask if atheism explains reality? It's like asking if breakfast is a proper way of locomotion: there's a category error there. Atheism isn't meant to explain reality, atheism is just this, look at it:
A: "God exists"
B: "I don't believe that"
Atheism! It's the answer to a single question.
Atheism isn't the right tool to investigate reality, we have science to do that and science isn't the same as atheism. If what you intended to say is "what best explains reality, SCIENCE or christianity", well, there isn't any challenge there: science all the way, since christianity isn't intended to be a tool to investigate reality. It would be like asking if my bike has all the nutritional values I need.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Well, I am an agnostic - but I do throw my hat in the ring, for... neither? You never know.
Still, atheism has never pretended to explain absolutely everything. Still, modern cosmology and neuroscience has not yet debunked material views, either. Or of things being measurable in that paradigm.
Myself, I find reality can only be explained so much... if it relies on YHWH having to make Himself massively... even violently... unhappy? Despite prescience - or awareness of just how dangerously suicidally proud angels can get.
Or have theologians tie themselves in knots defining what 'rebelling against' means with a God who chose - fully of their own accord - to be invisible, and separated from humanity. In a way that, reasonably speaking, neither Adam or Eve demanded, compelled or made completely necessary. And all whilst Satan - who was supposedly one of YHWH's masterpieces, of design - was still able to retain some access back into heaven (if we count the Job story as fully literal, at least) as well as in retaining several powers.
In a manner that may make 'spiritually dead', also, a somewhat dubious definition, for him? Post exile.
Finally (for now) free will tends to be... inconsistently defined, at least in Pauline theology. As is Glass Darklies, Princes/Gods of this World who blind people... or in Romans 8:30.
"Well, I am an agnostic"
Oh really? So, in which god do you believe?