Do atheists exist?

Question

There are 3 basic beliefs regarding our existance...

1) Believer - believes in a creator
2) Agnostic - believes there may be a creator, but isn't convinced
3) Atheist - states to know without a doubt that a creator does not exist

The first two are natural and logical positions, but to be an atheist (to absolutely KNOW that God doesn't exist) you would have to be omniscient and have perfect knowledge of the universe. Can anyone here make that claim?

The fact is, atheists do not KNOW that God doesn't exist. Atheists don't WANT God to exist because to acknowledge Him they would have to face their sin, so they willfully deny His existance.

The difference between believers "KNOWING" God exists and atheists "KNOWING" God doesn't exist is in direct experience. Are atheists willing to admit that since they are not all-knowing and omniscient, it is *possible* that a believer may have had a proving experience that the atheist has not? While not "proof" to the atheist, it is very much proof to the one who has experienced it.

Answer 1

being an atheist has nothing to do with "having to face sin"a true atheist doesn't buy into all that fairy tale mumbo jumbo,they believe in NOTHING god like or satan like,and they certainly dont believe there is such things as sin.

Answer 2

Actually, Atheists believe that God doesn't exist. Just as You believe He does exist, and Agnostics are looking for evidence of their "belief". NO one can make that claim.
When someone actually knows then everyone will stop argueing.

If God did exist then I would not be scared at all. I have lead and continue to lead a good life. I've seen many faithful be more evil, more sinful, and more hipocritical than me. Sure no one is perfect.
I don't willfully deny His existance, I believe He doens't exist and therefore have no fear about punishment after death. Aknowledging fear of afterlife is not Atheism. I agree with your statement about the first two. But your statement about the last is biased because you are not thinking the way an Atheist does. We can not fear or deny something that to us does not exist. Think about that.

The answer can be answered by reversing the question back to you. "Direct" experience? God appeared before you and you could touch Him and see Him and Smell Him? This is an example of an Atheist's scrutiny.
To answer your final question; off course. I know that born agains relate a story, often called a "witness" and that is an experience that convinces you that God exists. I can understand that point of view even if I don't accept it as proof for myself. I'll ellaborate...
Primitive religions in history may have believed that when a volcano erupted that God was angry with the people's behavior. This was a "proving" experience to them. Now, most people accept it as a natural event. We just argue that God did or did not create nature. So your arguement is moot. Atheists and believers will not agree.

One more thing, people who admit that it is "possible" for you to have had an experience that proves God exists are Agnostic. Atheists will not accept it as proof of existence.

Answer 3

First of all, your definition of an atheist is wrong. Atheists are those who believe that there is no god. They don't generally claim to KNOW that, although there are a few atheists (as well as theists!) who make such claims. Those individuals don't characterize or define the entire group.

So yes, atheists do exists.

Secondly, you ask "Are atheists willing to admit that since they are not all-knowing and omniscient, it is *possible* that a believer may have had a proving experience that the atheist has not?"

I choose to answer that question with another one: "Are theists willing to admit that it is possible that there are non-divine explanations for their religious 'experiences' or that they may simply be delusional?"

You see, when a theist claims to have had such an experience us atheists see different explanations for what happened and when people claim to have talked to god we wonder if they aren't simply delusional.

Technically either party could be wrong and surely at least one of them is. That's why it all comes down to what people BELIEVE.

None of us can know whether there is a god. We can only believe that there is or isn't one.

Answer 4

Your logic seems to have some errors. A believer in God is the far end of the spectrum to one that believe that there is no God. To different sides of the same coin, true opposites. It could be said that it is irrational to believe in a thing of which there is no proof. It is totally logical for one to believe in God, yes it would be nice to live forever after you die. At the same time it is logical to be an Atheist if you do not fear non-existence after death. Rational thought and logic part ways in this area. Rational thought process would dictate that we should not believe in a thing that can not be proven, and saying that you know something does not exist with out being able to prove that it does not exist is also irrational. Your right it is natural for a person to want to live for ever and have a all powerful being watching out for them because people are emotional creatures and fear the world around them, but it is not rational based off of any evidence we have on the subject. People are all different with different ways of perceiving the world, it is totally logical that you would have people with two totally opposite ideas on the the subject. These two ideas being rational is another story altogether.

Answer 5

I consider myself more Agnostic than anything else, because I simply do not know whether or not God exists. I'm not convinced either way. But, why can't we just respect the fact that people have different beliefs? Your whole question is based off of your own opinion. No one is going to change their beliefs based off anything you say. The only reason you believe God exists is because of your faith. You have faith that God exists for whatever reason. Thats fine. But, not everyone feels the way that you do. And thats okay too. It has nothing to do with whether or not they want God to exist. And, if they don't believe in God, I'm sure they're not worried about sin.

Answer 6

1. agnostic isn't a middle ground, it's more of a reason.

you can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist, although AAs are more common.

Further, one does not require omnipresence to recognize contradicting notions of reality and "God(s)".

If this were to show "God(s)" to be real, everything else anyone ever suggested was real would have to be considered real too. Which is obviously logically flawed.

The fact is, you need to study more before making such claims. I don't "willfully" deny God anymore then i do Santa Claus, the Easter bunny or the IPU.

nice try though.

edit: isn't acknowledging a lack of knowledge a justifiable reason not to believe anyway?

Answer 7

Okay, I am somewhere between agnosticism and atheism, and I have to say I WISH god existed. It would be easier to go through life if I knew I had a net below, to cover my back. So, you cannot say we don't want them to exist. We just can't accept from our interpretation of reality that there is such thing as a god.

BTW, stating without a doubt that there is no god makes as much sense to me as stating without a doubt that there is one. I don't see what's the difference for you.

EDIT: Are believers willing to accept that possibly what you have experienced may be accounted for in ways that are not supernatural? Are you willing to accept that -since, as you say, we don't know everything- we don't know either why everything happens, and maybe what looks like miracles to our unexperienced eye, may be actually explained very differently?

You see, it IS the same.

Answer 8

It is just as bad as being totally convinced there was a creator. Most atheists are a touch agnostic. I might lose it by the time I finish reading "the god delusion" though. It does a good job of splitting up theism and atheism into 7 levels. #4 being the true agnostic.

I think Deists deserve their own category, BTW.

Answer 9

Wrong - an atheist is someone who does not believe in a God of theism, or theocracy, or in a personal god. Einstein, for example, was an atheist but believed in the God of Spinoza, or, the earth God as far as science can prove it. We do not believe in a god who sits in judgment of his creations. But we're very open to an earth-type spirit that controls and binds the universe together.

Answer 10

The only logical one is the agnostic. A believer and an atheist are sitting in two different spots of the belief spectrum with the same stubborness and lack of proof. To say that one knows for sure that there is a god and what that higher power wants is just as arrogant as saying I know for a fact there is no god. From where I stand, you both have the same amount of proof and logic backing up your stances...NONE.

Answer 11

You are mistaken. A Beleiver KNOWS God exists. Therefore, your same argument applies to them - and how can they KNOW without being omnisicent like you claim. So then, with your argument, looks like only Agnosticism is correct.

Logic is a great thing - if you know how to use it correctly. Had you had your definitions correct, you would not have made this less than stellar argument. It should have looked like this:

Beleiver: KNOWS WITHOUT A DOUBT that God Exists.
Agnostic: isnt really sure if there is a god or not. Sees virtues on both atheism and religion.
Atheist: beleives that logically, God cannot exist.

See how far apart those are?