Are you a religious atheist?

[Faithkills]

I hate polls but this one has a purpose, and it's only for atheists.

As an atheist do you believe there is no god, never was a god, never will be a god, see no reason to ever reexamine the issue, and would reject immediately any evidence or logical argument which may come along later as patently wrong by definition?

 

[Yahweh]

As an atheist do you believe there is no god, never was a god, never will be a god, see no reason to ever reexamine the issue, and would reject immediately any evidence or logical argument which may come along later as patently wrong by definition?

The underlined parts are what apply to me.

 

[Corey]

I think that's a loaded question. Given the general weak/strong atheism view...I suppose I'm a "weak" atheist. I don't simply believe there is no god with no reason or explanation and would disregard any legitimate proof (read: not a piece of circular logic) if presented to me. I don't believe in a god because I've never seen, heard, read or experienced anything that lead me to believe there was one or any outside of my own or others' wishful thinking or emotional need to believe in one. On a more personal note, I've never felt there was any personal connect to a greater consciousness. Though I explored the idea when I was younger, I was never convinced and an attempted belief in a god never gave me any benefit outside of escapism.


So no, I am not a religious atheist, I am a skeptical human who's experienced no proof for the existence of a god. A lack of belief in god is far from the most important or defining characteristic of my personality or belief structure, it's simply a lack of belief in a concept someone else made up.


(edited for clarity)

 

[Dancing David]

No, I am an atheist who is religous.

I know in my most secret soul that the world is just this magnificent collection of atoms.

But there are other parts of me that respond to spiritual beliefs and enjoy them. But when i am religous I am a pagan, not an atheist.

If I was confronted with rational evidence for god, I would doubt and then examine. If the examination made sense then I guess I would be a believer.

But confronted with the usual logical arguments for god, weeell, I would respond as I usualy do.

 

[fishbob]

How could you ask a question like this? Not that it hurts my feelings or anything. It has too many pieces that require separate responses. And because you asked the question in this way, it appears that you don't care about the answers, but are trying to set some kind of logic trap.

Breaking the question into pieces:

1) As an atheist do you believe there is no god? Yes.

2) never was a god? No evidence that there was, so Yes again.

3) never will be a god? Can't predict the future, so Don't know.

4) see no reason to ever reexamine the issue? Not at this time, can't predict the future.

5) would reject immediately any evidence or logical argument which may come along later as patently wrong by definition? Rejection of evidence by definition would be stupid. Logical arguments without evidence are a waste of time.

Did I slip up? Did I fall into your trap? Am I just being unreasonably suspicious?

 

[Bikewer]

It's an essential principal of science that the paradigm must change in the light of superior evidence.

This gets to the point of what evidence for the existence of God would be compelling.

Large-scale violations of what we percieve as the laws of physics might qualify as a miracle, (ie- making the moon dissapear) or might simply be the application of higher technology than we can imagine at present.
As in Clarke's idea that sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic...

As far as I can see, the only unambiguous proof of the supernatural would be the transcendence of death.

 

[Igopogo]

I'm an atheist by most definitions of God.

I still think God exists but is mis-labeled as 'nature'.

 

[Tricky]

You really should have had more categories. That's a whole bunch of questions, and for many, they don't all have the same answer.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I hate polls but this one has a purpose, and it's only for atheists.

As an atheist do you believe there is no god, never was a god, never will be a god, see no reason to ever reexamine the issue, and would reject immediately any evidence or logical argument which may come along later as patently wrong by definition?

I vote no. I have no use for that hypothesis.

If there is no God, there never was and never will be. God is not God who pops in and out of existence.

Certainly I will examine the issue if presented with some reasonable evidence.

Meanwhile, no chosen people, nobody died for my sins, Muhammad and Joseph Smith were charlatans, and Hinduism is just plain silly.

 

[Yahzi]

would reject immediately any evidence or logical argument which may come along later as patently wrong by definition?

Do me a favor. Lift your hand and smack yourself on the back of the head.

There, that's better.

A question this stupid doesn't really deserve an answer, but here it is anyway: my conclusion that God does not exist is based on reason and evidence. Consequently, if new reason or evidence lead to a different conclusion, I would endorse that new conclusion.

What part of this do you not understand?

Do you think that atheists have faith that faith is wrong?

 

[Bikewer]

Faith- an usupported belief in the unlikely.

Bertrand Russell, as I recall.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I think that eventually there will be a god. But until that happens, I am an atheist.

 

[jj]

Your question suborns, and arises out of suborned logic.