Help! What Am I Meant To Say?

[GypsyMoon]

I was recently asked by the only Christian who knows that I am an atheist if I beleived absolute truth exists.

 

But, in asking me this question, they also made the comment that the definition of an atheist is "one who knows that there is no god", and that "at the same time (often in the same breath) denying that absolute truth exists".

 

Now, I have only recently deconverted, and am still in the process, but, can anyone tell me if

1. That is the correct definition of an atheist,
   
2. If there is any way of telling whether or not absolute truth exists.
   

To help you know where I am coming from, and why there is no simple answer to the questions she has asked me, then you can visit the site she used to "prove" that god exists: Proof that God exists

 

Thanks a lot!!

 

I find everyone here so encouraging!

 

Joanna

[GypsyMoon]

One more thing:

 

I really thought that website was suck.. because if you say what you really beleive, then you dont get anywhere.

 

Anyways.. take a look and let me know what you think.

[Dhampir]

"one who knows that there is no god"

Obviously that's untrue. If atheists KNEW there was no god, that would mean it was true and that atheism would be the ONLY logical position to take.

 

For my money, the only worthwhile definition of atheist is: One who lacks belief in a god or gods.

 

As to that stupid website, I've been there, and that questionnaire is nothing but a long ad designed to pull you in. You're right about the questions repeating themselves if you don't give the one they want you to give. Tell your friend that it is less than worthless, and that hopefully, it took more than that to make her a believer.

 

As for Absolute Truth, that is an ongoing discussion here from time to time. I would say that though there may be absolute truth, it is constantly obscured by human perspective. I do however believe that the Laws of Logic are axiomatic, and therefore immutable. Perhaps absolute truth can be discovered or expounded upon by discovering the fullness of logic, and testing everything by that.

[hereticzero]

Instead of defending a definition of an atheist, why not ask the fundy to define atheist for you so that you are on the same footing. Then pick their definition apart. They are using their two-dimensional thinking because they base their reasoning on unproven and fraudulent claims supported only by their babble. Don't react to their questions, make them answer themselves by redirecting their questions back to them to define. That way they have to keep defending their position and it becomes your argument instead of theirs. Don't let the fundys control you and how you answer.

[hereticzero]

PS: That website really sucks bad. That woman with the website, is a troll trying to pump up visits to her website.

[Alucard]

atheist is defined by

S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist

 

in you example the person blows the deffinition of atheism WAY out of purportion.

 

even if we look at the term atheism.

S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=...mp;o3=&h=00

you see only a response to the believe system, nothing more, nothing less.

 

with your above example the person asking the question is making the mistake of first.

 

1 insinuating that his god his absolute truth, when its not

 

2 clearly does not understand what an absolute truth is

 

3 falsly asserts that atheists do not believe in absolute truths.

 

to answer the question you would first need to answer all three assertions.

 

for one you can assert that his god cannot be an absolute truth because not everyone in the world believes in him, or you can simply use the infinite number of other gods to counter this assertion.

 

explain what an absolute truth is, then you can state that the earth orbits the sun, death is inherent of all life, the grass is green (all of these examples are absolute truths) these things have occured since the begining of time.

 

ill leave the third to you.

[Ouroboros]

I was recently asked by the only Christian who knows that I am an atheist if I beleived absolute truth exists.

 

But, in asking me this question, they also made the comment that the definition of an atheist is "one who knows that there is no god", and that "at the same time (often in the same breath) denying that absolute truth exists".

 

Now, I have only recently deconverted, and am still in the process, but, can anyone tell me if

[*]That is the correct definition of an atheist,

There are several different definitions of the word atheist used today (and in the old days):

At one time Christians were accused of being atheists because they denied the existence of the Roman gods, in that sense it just mean something like "heretic" or denier of the majority religion.

Today an atheist is either a person that with a positive conviction believe that God does not exist, or you have the atheist that just don't know or just don't believe if there is God (kind of more towards the agnostic side). You can call it strong and weak atheism. In other words it's a matter of active or passive attitude. Either it is "I know there is no God", or "I don't know if there is a God", and "I believe there is no God", and "I don't believe there is a God". Active/Passive. Strong/Weak. All of them different views of atheism.

 

So atheism does not for everyone mean an absolute denial of God, but only a denial of a particular god or gods or denial of God as a knowable entity.

 

[*]If there is any way of telling whether or not absolute truth exists.

I'm an atheist, and I don't deny the existence of an absolute truth. But I do however deny that it is possible for me to know if I know the absolute truth or not. Absolutes can, and most likely, exist, but that doesn't mean that I know when and how I've found it. Already the Greeks knew about this problem. We view the world from a subjective viewpoint, but that doesn't mean that an objective world doesn't exist. It's just that we, as subjects, bound into the framework, can not objectively see it from the outside. We're just shards in a mosaic picture, and we just hope that we will bring some color to the picture. The picture does exist, but I'm not the picture alone, but we all are, and the world and the universe as a whole, together, is that picture. The mosaic picture exists, but I can't see it, and can only see if from my perspective. Does that make sense? (I could give you another example called "what is New York?" )

[Kenny]

I don't consider myself to be an atheist even though I do not believe in the Christian god or any other gods that have been brought to my knowledge. With that said, I don't feel that I'm even remotely qualified to define "atheist". By simply being a member of this fine forum and with each thread I read and participate in, it's impossible to categorize or label any of you. Call yourself what you will and that's good to go with me. I'll run with what's working for me. Human beings are what we are.

 

In regards to your second question, I believe there is absolute truth and with that statement, I'd like to add that in each category (as defined by the website you linked to) I believe there is wiggle room. For instance, we are well acquainted with the Law of Gravity. It is a known fact and factor to us. At one time, it was not. By becoming aware of the theory of gravity - not that it didn't exist before - it became a law we could wrap our minds around. That is to say that with each category of absolute truth, there is a universal "fudge factor" for us to learn and/or discover this truth. I believe, by this process and as a species, we are quite able to determine the existence of absolute truth. I disagree, however, with the statement on the website that, if absolute truth does exist, it must come from and can only come from the Christian god.

[R. S. Martin]

Grease Monkey, I think you have a right not to reply to such inane grillings. Her one and only aim is to trap you with words. She has no intention whatsoever to learn a single thing. Nothing you or I can ever say will shut her up. Nothing short of turning the argument on her like people suggested. And then it will only buy you time. She will then go to her Christian mentors and come back with better stuff next time. It's a never-ending mind-game.

 

If the relationship is worth saving and can stand it, you could say something like: I confided my deepest personal feelings because I thought you were my friend. I don't appreciate being grilled as though I committed a crime. If we cannot be friends for the sake of friendship then I will find other friends.

 

I think the last sentence, or some kind of condition, is important. That will help both of you know what and where the boundaries are, and when they are crossed or respected. However, I don't know you or your friend or the situation. All the best as you seek to resolve this problem.

 

PS I think the others gave good answers re what to say if you want to respond directly to the questions.

[GraphicsGuy]

Thinking about absolute truth...and I've considered it often...what the hell is it?

 

absolute: free from imperfection; complete; perfect:

 

Xians will say that the Bible is their "absolute truth"...but it's not absolute...and it's hardly truth.

 

It is not absolute because it is imperfect. It is not complete (it doesn't contain mathematics, science, world history, references for every culture...it's easier to list what is in the Bible than what is not in it). I would say it's not absolute truth if it doesn't contain ALL truth. There is truth outside the Bible so it is not absolute at all.

 

Sideline: if God is absolute truth wouldn't that mean that God contains everything and everything contains God...???

[godlessgrrl]

One thing I'd like to add is, if you don't know how to answer a question, it's perfectly fine to respond with something like, "I don't know, I'm still thinking about that."

 

"I don't know" is no shameful answer at all, in fact it's honest and very humble. It's admitting that you don't know everything.

 

A fundy may not like it as an answer, but then, it's been my experience that "I don't know" isn't generally in the fundy vocabulary.

[Hammurabi]

Grease monkey, you can point out to your friend that if it were actually possible to prove god existed, than there would be no need for faith or belief, there would be only knowledge. If there is no faith or belief, then according to her own book of fairy tales:

 

The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith. Galatians 3:11-12

 

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecclesiastes 1:18

 

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

 

This "proof" would damn us all to hell.

 

 

Now we can all probably see that what I just did was not a "proof" of anything, but that's just my point. By defining the terms "faith" and "belief" in a specific way to support my arguement, I can then take bible verses that use those words and use them as I see fit as long as I don't care what the original authors of those scriptures actually meant.

 

This is what that website does; it uses words like "truth" and "law" and "absolute" and such which all mean specific things to us (though not nessicarily the same exact things) and it puts them in a slightly different, slightly awkward context in order to force us to conceed their point. Does it really make sense to talk about the truth of math? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Does it even make sense to talk about absolute truth? True things are true and false things are false, but how does an absolutely true thing differ from a regular true thing? By forcing you to use the term "abvolutely true" they are trying to corner you into making some sort of cosmic statement about the nature of the universe. 2+2=4 not because it is a natural law of the cosmos, but because we have defined our system of mathematics that way. If we used base 3 mathematics, than 2+2=11 and that would be equally true. Also, on absolute morality, morality changes as we become more aware of ourselves and our environment. Things that were completely commonplace 2000 years ago would be seen as absolutely immoral today. For example, I personally think, and I'm sure your friend would agree, that impregnating a 14 year old girl would constitute sexual abuse and molestation, but god didn't seem to have any reservations about it back when he knocked up Mary. It was completely commonplace for girls that young to get married and have kids as soon as they were fertile. You should ask your friend; "If there is absolute morality, was god in the wrong back then, or should it still be ok to impregnate children in the modern world?"

[ShackledNoMore]

Proof that God exists

I'm going to Disney World!

[SWIM]

There are different levels of atheism too. One is hardcore, not only does not believe in god or any religion, but is not open to dialog about it either. Basically that is a fundy atheist. A moderate atheist, requires PROOF for ANY belief, however they are open to speculation and theory, as long as they are kept in perspective. In other words, a theory is a *theory* until proven a fact, and a speculation remains a speculation until proven a theory. Our theories and speculations are open to change and revision as new facts are found. One could also call us "realists".

[Ouroboros]

Proof that God exists

 

The problem I got with the proof was at step 3. "The laws of science exist." I want to answer "Yes and no", but that's not an option. The laws of science are models that best approximate reality, but they're not the absolute and total truth. Sometimes they're wrong. And to some degree they all are, since they just describe the things we do know about the world, but they don't describe or explain those things we yet do not know about the world So the "proof" of God's existence fails right here. The website doesn't account for the shadiness of "truth" when the questions are stated this way.

 

I answered "yes" on that question, and continued doing so. Saying that morals exists as absolutes etc... and then I get this comment: "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything." Huh? Non sequitur! Basically they ask "1+1=2, yes or no?", "white is a color?", "whales are a mammal?", "you like pie?" ... "ah, that proves it God made it so." That's STUPID! The questions and the proposed answers don't lead to this step. It's based on the assumption that God exists, and hence any answer you give would be the same result. They asked if logic is universal, but obviously it isn't universal enough for them to USE!

 

Then of course it goes to the question if I believe, and of course I answer no, and then they give a sermon. None of the things asked really led to the proof. Such a ridiculous waste of bandwidth.

[Kenny]

Fantastic post, Hammurabi! That made a great deal of sense. I enjoyed your perspective.

 

And gwenmead brings up a point that's very important to me these days. Since I'm not all high and mighty anymore, it's practically refreshing to say, "Heck, I don't know."

[Ouroboros]

Here's another mind twister, the website asked about if Logic and Law of Science were absolute truths, well then, that means the Evolution and the age of our planet are as science says, since it's established as scientific laws and they used logic to come to the conclusions. If it is absolute, then it is absolute! So they have to convert to Evolutionism.

Grease Monkey, here's how you should respond. Ask them to take the "God proof" test too. Then ask them if they believe in Evolution and Big Bang. If they don't, then tell them they don't believe logic and science is absolute, which was a requirement for the poof, which means they don't believe in the proof of God.

 

Here is how it works:

 

Evolution was deduced by logic: observations led to the most logical conclusion, animals and humans evolved. ERV in the DNA is a perfect example of logical deduction for Evolution.

 

Evolution is proven by math: there's something called a genetic algorithm. It is based totally on the idea of evolution, and it's used in oil pipes control system, large bandwidth internet routers and much more. It works. It's proven by math.

 

Evolution has been found to support in theory and practice in the field of medicine, research, and much, much more: so it is a scientific fact that it is more than just wishful thinking.

 

Now, the proof of God requires Evolution to be an absolute truth. Every Christian should henceforward admit that the Bible is wrong, and that humans evolved, or admit that your proof is invalid.

[GypsyMoon]

Here's another mind twister, the website asked about if Logic and Law of Science were absolute truths, well then, that means the Evolution and the age of our planet are as science says, since it's established as scientific laws and they used logic to come to the conclusions. If it is absolute, then it is absolute! So they have to convert to Evolutionism.

Grease Monkey, here's how you should respond. Ask them to take the "God proof" test too. Then ask them if they believe in Evolution and Big Bang. If they don't, then tell them they don't believe logic and science is absolute, which was a requirement for the poof, which means they don't believe in the proof of God.

 

Here is how it works:

 

Evolution was deduced by logic: observations led to the most logical conclusion, animals and humans evolved. ERV in the DNA is a perfect example of logical deduction for Evolution.

 

Evolution is proven by math: there's something called a genetic algorithm. It is based totally on the idea of evolution, and it's used in oil pipes control system, large bandwidth internet routers and much more. It works. It's proven by math.

 

Evolution has been found to support in theory and practice in the field of medicine, research, and much, much more: so it is a scientific fact that it is more than just wishful thinking.

 

Now, the proof of God requires Evolution to be an absolute truth. Every Christian should henceforward admit that the Bible is wrong, and that humans evolved, or admit that your proof is invalid.

 

Thanks a million!

 

I wish I'd thought of that. Ill try it, and let you know what she says... which will probably be, "evolution is not an absolute truth, because no one can prove it"

 

But, I will try it, and see what her answer is!

[R. S. Martin]

If she says no one can prove it you can say, "But I just did." Or you can say, "You can't prove God created the world either." If she says the Bible proves it you can demand that she prove the Bible is true. You don't have to accept anything short of solid scientific evidence for the Bible's veracity. And the solid scientific evidence doesn't exist. Nor does the evidence exist for God's existence.

 

I talked on a fundy site this week. I demanded evidence for God's existence. One or two people tried to present evidence. But the one policeman on the forum, the one person who surely had the education and training to know what constitutes solid irrefutable evidence in a court of law, didn't even show up. Or if he did show up all he did was grill me on my beliefs. I conclude that is the trick of their trade--grill their victim (you, me) till they trip you up in your words.

 

They love nothing better than when they can get us in a spot where we don't have an instant answer. Then they "are amused," or "find it humorous." That's the polite way of expressing the fundy sneer. That's when they win. So they think.

 

Dignified indifference is stronger. We don't need them. Cutting them off--when and if we arrive at the decision that this is necessary--is going to hurt more than anything we've ever experienced in life. But the relief of freedom to be who we really are is worth it. That has been my experience. I can still hardly get it into my head that I don't have to drag this ball and chain of anger and fear and anxiety and gloom around with me. I don't need my family and their church (which used to be my church). I have found a surrogate family, a new community of people who are now my people and who care about me and who will go out of their way to be sure I am safe, people who will say hello if they meet me in the grocery store or offer a seat to me on the bus when it's crowded. People who care about people first, and religion somewhere lower down the line.

[Ouroboros]

I wish I'd thought of that. Ill try it, and let you know what she says... which will probably be, "evolution is not an absolute truth, because no one can prove it"

Well if they do, you have them by the cojones. Their little "test" didn't ask "Is the Christian approved absolute sciences the absolute laws ...", they just asked if scientific laws were absolute. Now is it, or is it not? They're the ones making absolute and dogmatic claims where everything is either super black, or super white, and nothing in between, and that's what their proof is based upon. So if Evolution is a science, and it is not absolute, then they have to claim there are scientific laws that are not absolute, and their proof is poop.

 

Now granted that Evolution isn't really a "scientific law" per se, but it used logical deduction, induction (do Christian's believe induction is absolute logic?) and math (is it absolute if it proves Evolution?), so the whole argument starts falling apart when they deny one area and the next and so on. Reality and truth got a lot of gray zones. Not everything is categorically differentiated, but has to be looked at on individual cases and carefully dissected. For instance, is it always wrong to lie? What about if your lie will save someone's death? What is the greater cause?

 

So if they come back with any counter argument, it will most likely be something that contradict their own proof.

[GypsyMoon]

I emailed her just the other day... she said she would get back to me, so I'll let you know what she says.

[Ouroboros]

GM,

 

Of some reason I can't send messages to you, so we have to find some other way were I can send the answers you asked for.