To Those Who Claim A Religion: What Does Atheism Mean/Stand For?

[Don Corleone]

Atheism is the denial of theism (or of the supernatural for that matter).

We all know where this thread will end up. It's just another typical atheism vs. theism debate that neither changes nor progresses because both theists and atheists refuse to find common ground. Atheists are sometimes arrogant and theists are sometimes ignorant and vice-versa.

Theists refuse to believe that our universe is the result of a random expansion that sent matter expanding into all directions without any guidance whatsoever. They refuse to believe that humankind is isolated in a purely materialistic world and they refuse to believe that we are without a Creator.

Atheists on the other hand refuse to believe in age old beliefs of men who claimed they felt a divine experience and refuse to believe that our universe is the result of a omnipotent and ominscient Creator with a divine plan. They also refuse to believe in a universe that was created just for humans.

Does that do anything to help?

[THe TRiNiTY]

Good point but when i talk about atheists being arrogant, i'm talking by experience. I mean most of the atheists i know try so hard to humiliate believers, and then tell you you're ignorant if you believe in God.

Who made the watch if there is no watchmaker? There is no existence without essence first. So basically if atheist people see themselves as exegets ones with a rationalist and determinist( one cause creates one consequence and nothing can change that) approach there is no way essence isn't the origin of existence in any case. So basically, atheists believe in God without knowing it.

If God created the earth, God would be SOMETHING. He'd need a creator, too. Which would slightly take away from the argument that He is the end all, be all.

An answer shouldn't demand more questions.

[Vladimir303]

Good point but when i talk about atheists being arrogant, i'm talking by experience. I mean most of the atheists i know try so hard to humiliate believers, and then tell you you're ignorant if you believe in God.

Who made the watch if there is no watchmaker? There is no existence without essence first. So basically if atheist people see themselves as exegets ones with a rationalist and determinist( one cause creates one consequence and nothing can change that) approach there is no way essence isn't the origin of existence in any case. So basically, atheists believe in God without knowing it.

I'm the type of believer that can concede that there is some unknown force out there, a creating force where everything originated from that we can't possibly know about.

However I in no way will concede that this force deep into space is what we humans call a god. That it's all around us and we can pray to it. So even if it exsists, heaven/hell and afterlife is just our imagination and we're making more out of it then it actually is to feel good about ourselves.

That's because in nature we're narcassistic. Most would either love to be immortal here on earth but because it isn't happening they talk themselves into believing that there is more to it after death. I know i'm like that but i'm willing to face death unstead of clinging to faith based on religious stories my mind doesn't possibly allow me to buy into.


So in reality an atheist like me isn't arguing against a creator/origin, i'm arguing against mythical gods. So even though Darwin's theory isn't 100% or factual and originated from a man, it' still more reality based fairy tales who are also made up by men.

[Don Corleone]

An answer shouldn't demand more questions.

Except in philosophy, of course.

However, it's amusing when considering the fact that atheists claim positing God as an answer raises more questions. What's ironic is that atheists presumably posit that the universe came into existence without any sign of that responsible for producing it which begs just as much (if not, more) questions. Because ultimately to an atheist, the answer: "God" still begs more questions whereas to the theists, it answers many questions. The only difference is whether or not one will accept the answer or not.

[TheJoker]

Except in philosophy, of course.

However, it's amusing when considering the fact that atheists claim positing God as an answer raises more questions. What's ironic is that atheists presumably posit that the universe came into existence without any sign of that responsible for producing it which begs just as much (if not, more) questions. Because ultimately to an atheist, the answer: "God" still begs more questions whereas to the theists, it answers many questions. The only difference is whether or not one will accept the answer or not.

The only problem I have with that is the theist bases their answers on absolutely no evidence. When you posit "God" is the answer, you need to base that off of something. You could posit anything in the place of "God" at this point and be equally as correct as the theist in terms of what the evidence tells us. My position (one that will never change) is that I don't know. Science isn't in the business of answering "why", it's always "how"... Though recent developments in physics might actually point to signs of the the ultimate free lunch for the universe. The idea is purely speculative at this time, but is based on what we already know about the universe. I'm interested to see the developments of the hypothesis. Now, this could be interpreted as purely a random occurrence or the intervention of a divine being. The debate will continue ad infinitum.

[THe TRiNiTY]

Except in philosophy, of course.

However, it's amusing when considering the fact that atheists claim positing God as an answer raises more questions. What's ironic is that atheists presumably posit that the universe came into existence without any sign of that responsible for producing it which begs just as much (if not, more) questions. Because ultimately to an atheist, the answer: "God" still begs more questions whereas to the theists, it answers many questions. The only difference is whether or not one will accept the answer or not.

While that may be true about some Atheists, it's not a blanketed assumption. Not all Atheists think alike. I happen to claim that I don't know what will happen when we die. I simply say that NO evidence points to God being more likely than anything else. Whereas, by definition, believers (within the same religion, especially) essentially believe the same thing.

If I were here touting the Big Bang theory, you'd have an argument. But, I don't know. It's simply a theory. I put more faith in it then I do God, mainly because it seems more likely to prove and give evidence. But, I wouldn't argue for The Big Bang theory, unless I thought someone was saying something untrue about it.

In that sense however, I've spoken up for religion when someone lied about it.

[Don Corleone]

The only problem I have with that is the theist bases their answers on absolutely no evidence. When you posit "God" is the answer, you need to base that off of something. You could posit anything in the place of "God" at this point and be equally as correct as the theist in terms of what the evidence tells us.

Of course there is evidence. There is support for the existence of God but it comes down to whether one accepts it or not. There's the Cosmological
Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Ontological Argument. Now before you tell me how flawed they are, just consider that they are indeed support nonetheless. And evidence is simply: "a collection of information that attempts to support an underlying claim". Whether you accept them as truth or not, they're still meant to support the existence of God.

As a Christian, other support comes from both prophecies that have been fulfilled and from the ability to use reason to come to that conclusion. Ultimately, the atheist's position is "They're sure there's no God, but at the same time they don't know how our universe came into existence". The theists is "We're sure there's a God and He answers the question of what produced our universe".

If I were here touting the Big Bang theory, you'd have an argument. But, I don't know. It's simply a theory. I put more faith in it then I do God, mainly because it seems more likely to prove and give evidence. But, I wouldn't argue for The Big Bang theory, unless I thought someone was saying something untrue about it.

That's the biggest misconception of the atheist. It's that theists don't accept the Big Bang. That's simply false. Theists who have studied some aspect of science accept the Big Bang model as well. The misconception by the atheist is that theists replace the Big Bang with God when in fact that's not the case at all. Theists may very well accept the Big Bang model as the model that best describes the initial expansion of our universe some 13.7 billion years ago. The only difference is that theists believe it was the work of a Creator rather than by sheer accident of any kind.

[squealpiggy]

You think or you know? If you're unsure I think you should consult a dictionary. I'm glad that you finally realize this

I know that your comprehension skills are insufficient to successfully follow a conversation, so here I have recreated it for your viewing pleasure:

Me: An accepted definition of the word "atheism" is "a disbelief in the supernatural and/or deities"
An absolute screaming moron: You think that scepticism and atheism are the same thing!
Me: I don't think that scepticism and atheism is the same thing
Aforementioned bed-wetting teenager: You THINK! You don't KNOW! POWN POWN POWN!

Do you see how stupid you are now? Of course not. Because you're stupid.

Atheism is a proof that human beings don't feel there is something superior to them, they're arrogant and can't accept the fact that there is an almighty God superior and that they should obey him.

Atheism makes no value judgments about human beings and their relative universal worth. In fact a large factor in me deciding fully that I was atheist was acknowledging how insignificant we are to the rest of the universe, how we don't matter at all to anyone or anything apart from each other. And that we should value those relationships and the life we have because it's all we have.

Whereas most religions put human beings (who follow said religion) as the second most important creatures in the entire universe (after their god) and consider that the universe has been constructed purely for their own amusement.

Now which one of those scenarios is arrogant?

Those atheists are, for most of them, extremists and openly disrespect other's beliefs.

Well that is a grave sin, to disrespect other peoples' beliefs.

atheism is a childish and ignorant position.

Oh dear, you didn't just disrespect my beliefs did you? You arrogant hypocrite.

most of the atheists i know try so hard to humiliate believers

I thought that humility was supposed to be a quality that believers valued.

basically, atheists believe in God without knowing it.

That's a bit like telling a lesbian she hasn't met the right man yet. "atheists believe in god without knowing it". I take it you don't proof-read your posts.

Atheists are sometimes arrogant and theists are sometimes ignorant and vice-versa.

This is indeed true. Just as there are religious believers who consider themselves particularly favoured by their chosen deity, so there are ignorant and stupid atheists whose motivation appears to be upsetting the religious. And I will counter anyone who trots out that ridiculous canard that religion is a crutch for the weak minded. That clearly is not the case, and most of the people in my life hold some level of religious belief. It just happens I do not.

That's the biggest misconception of the atheist. It's that theists don't accept the Big Bang. That's simply false. Theists who have studied some aspect of science accept the Big Bang model as well.

Get a grip on yourself, son. "The atheist"? Are you going out of your way to seem pompous?

And most religious believers in the west accept big bang theory and evolution etc. You know why? Because most religious people are actually sane and most are actually educated. It's the ill-educated and the barking mad who I oppose.

[ILLuminato]

I know that your comprehension skills are insufficient to successfully follow a conversation, so here I have recreated it for your viewing pleasure:

Me: An accepted definition of the word "atheism" is "a disbelief in the supernatural and/or deities"
An absolute screaming moron: You think that scepticism and atheism are the same thing!
Me: I don't think that scepticism and atheism is the same thing
Aforementioned bed-wetting teenager: You THINK! You don't KNOW! POWN POWN POWN!

Do you see how stupid you are now? Of course not. Because you're stupid.



Atheism makes no value judgments about human beings and their relative universal worth.

First off, I know atheists don't believe all humans have universally worth.

Now let's look at your opinion of atheism and skepticism!!!

No, atheism is a lack of belief in a god, it goes hand in hand with scepticism because atheists demand evidence for a god before they will go round kissing his ass. Atheism is a form of scepticism.

Please do stop with this "read a book" nonsense. You're a 19 year old whelp of a boy, I've said before try and get yourself a little life experience and then you can engage with me as an equal. As of now if "read a dictionary" is the best you have you're in a sorry state.

Atheists tend to be sceptics. I have tried to explain this concept to you but it's obviously difficult for you to get over your prejudice against them. A sceptic doesn't look at, for example, a flying saucer picture and say "Well this could be a flying saucer or it could be a button on a string... the chance of it being either is 50-50". A sceptic will look at the picture and say "well it's more likely to be a button on a string because we know for sure that buttons and string exist while we have only sketchy evidence at best for flying saucers". Same with the existence of dieties. The sceptical point of view of god is not "well there could be bu there might not be". Rather it is "the existence of an invisible super-being who listens to prayers and judges the dead is an extraordinary claim, what is the evidence". And of course there is no evidence for such a being that could not be better ascribed to known and established phenomenon. So atheism is a sceptical position.

[squealpiggy]

First off, I know atheists don't believe all humans have universally worth.

That doesn't make sense, but what I think you're trying to say is "atheists don't believe that humans are of equal worth". This is probably a true statement, however it has nothing to do with the comment I made which is that atheism makes no judgment of the relative value of human beings when judged universally. That is to say that atheism does not lead one to believe that human beings are the most important creatures around. Atheism does not assign objective relative values to different species. Subjectively atheists may put human beings as above other considerations but this is because as human beings we have a vested interest in our own species.

Now let's look at your opinion of atheism and skepticism!!!

Yes. Atheism is a form of scepticism. It is scepticism about the supernatural in general and about deities in particular. Just as apples are a form of fruit, atheism is a form of scepticism. Just as fruit is not a form of apple, so scepticism is not a form of atheism. My 16 month old daughter could understand the concepts I am spelling out for you here, and she can't tell apart a monkey and an orangutan.