NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.

This is a quote from Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay. I happen to agree strongly with him but I feel his way of putting it was best.

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.
What about the atheists that do not constantly think of God in terms of denial?

Also, why is the title "Atheists aren't atheists"? That has little to do with your post.

you idiot.

or are you taking the piss?

atheism is a belief, the belief there is no god.

a - no

theism - belief in god

They are only forced to deny his existence due to the massive amounts of people who proclaim his existence.

That makes no sense at all...

you idiot.

or are you taking the piss?

atheism is a belief, the belief there is no god.

a - no

theism - belief in godAtheism is lack of belief in God. Not belief in a lack of God.

They are only forced to deny his existence due to the massive amounts of people who proclaim his existence.

That can work both ways. Its wrong.

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.

Hi Dorfl ;)

oh i get it, you've just been brainwashed by the church into thinking that belief can only apply to that of god.

no, you can believe things that aren't god so i don't think the church can hijack words like that.

Atheism is lack of belief in God. Not belief in a lack of God.
I had thought that "weak atheism" was lack of a belief in God, and "strong atheism" was belief in a lack of God.

Am I right?

Atheism is lack of belief in God. Not belief in a lack of God.

no, that's more towards agnosticism

I had thought that "weak atheism" was lack of a belief in God, and "strong atheism" was belief in a lack of God.

Am I right?The way I heard it, "weak atheism" was just another term for agnosticism. But I could very well be wrong.

EDIT: According to dictionary.com, atheism is both a belief in a lack of God and lack of a belief in god. So, uh, good luck sorting this out everyone.

Hi Dorfl ;)

I do enjoy my Pratchett - he is remarkbaly profound in places

That can work both ways. Its wrong.

I know it goes both ways, but what I am saying is, if there weren't people who believed in a god, atheists would not be forced to deny his existence, they would simply never acknowledge a god in the first place

Dear lord. I hate these threads.

Listen up original poster: You are (amazingly enough) NOT ME. So how about you stop telling me what I believe, being, as you are, in no position to know what I believe.

Everyone else should shut the hell up too. This debate is ridiculous and just makes everyone who takes it seriously look bad.

there are no god(s)...only myths

oh i get it, you've just been brainwashed by the church into thinking that belief can only apply to that of god.

no, you can believe things that aren't god so i don't think the church can hijack words like that.

I view God objectively whereas atheists and religoius people do not. I believe God both exists and does not exists because he exists in the minds of people whereas he doesn't exist in the minds of others.

This is completely and utterly ridiculous...

Dear lord. I hate these threads.

Listen up original poster: You are (amazingly enough) NOT ME. So how about you stop telling me what I believe, being, as you are, in no position to know what I believe.

Everyone else should shut the hell up too. This debate is ridiculous and just makes everyone who takes it seriously look bad.Awwww... you're no fun. You mean we're allowed to debate the meaning of "marriage" or "freedom" but not the meaning of "atheism"?

I know it goes both ways, but what I am saying is, if there weren't people who believed in a god, atheists would not be forced to deny his existence, they would simply never acknowledge a god in the first place

Your saying the same thing again. It is equally true the other direction and therefore not a valid arguement. There are very few social enviroments where Christians are a majority, apart from the ones specificly designed for Christians. Every other enviroment, it seems Athiests are a majority so I dont think your arguement holds up.

Awwww... you're no fun. You mean we're allowed to debate the meaning of "marriage" or "freedom" but not the meaning of "atheism"?

Looks like somebody's putting words into somebody else's mouth.

Your saying the same thing again. It is equally true the other direction and therefore not a valid arguement. There are very few social enviroments where Christians are a majority, apart from the ones specificly designed for Christians. Every other enviroment, it seems Athiests are a majority so I dont think your arguement holds up.

So atheists are only determined by a lack of Christian beliefs? I am not really positive what you are getting at.

If there were no Christians, atheists would not deny the existence of God.

You cannot say that if there were no atheists, Christians would not proclaim the existence of God.

I love the New York Yankees and want to have Derek Jeter's babies.Now this is putting words into someone else's mouth. ;) I was just making a joke.

Your saying the same thing again. It is equally true the other direction and therefore not a valid arguement. There are very few social enviroments where Christians are a majority, apart from the ones specificly designed for Christians. Every other enviroment, it seems Athiests are a majority so I dont think your arguement holds up.
Then the christian peeps need to get out more. They're in a majority, certainly in just about every Western democracy. Good for the atheists, I say, if they really are that much more sociable.

I do enjoy my Pratchett - he is remarkbaly profound in places

To avoid the ad hominems already appearing you may wish to put a reference in your opening post though ;)
OTOH.. the thread seems to do just fine.

Now this is putting words into someone else's mouth. ;) I was just making a joke.

Ok, well then that's a different situation. Sometimes it's truly difficult to tell whether somebody's a jerk or if they're kidding.

I'm glad it was a joke, because the last thing a forum needs is another whacked, nazi-sympathizing jerk-off.

If there were no Christians, atheists would not deny the existence of God.

You cannot say that if there were no atheists, Christians would not proclaim the existence of God.

Thats what I am getting at. Your first statement is wrong. Athiesim is not a reaction to Christianity. It is a belief unto itself, a somewhat arrogent and self indulgent belief if you ask me. It centres on mans idea that he knows everything and can explain away everything to his own satisfaction.

As for your second statement, in Muslim nations the Mosque is not nearly as significent as in Non Muslim nations. The reason being that it is an isolated fragment of their culture in a majority that is not their culture. The same is true of Christianity (but to a lesser extent)

It centres on mans idea that he knows everything and can explain away everything to his own satisfaction.
I was about to say I hadn't heard anyone do that, but then I realized that yes I have, and very often too.

I view God objectively whereas atheists and religoius people do not. I believe God both exists and does not exists because he exists in the minds of people whereas he doesn't exist in the minds of others.

you've gone off on a tangent, atheism as a word deals with belief (or the lack thereof) in god rather than belief in general.

Thats what I am getting at. Your first statement is wrong. Athiesim is not a reaction to Christianity. It is a belief unto itself, a somewhat arrogent and self indulgent belief if you ask me. It centres on mans idea that he knows everything and can explain away everything to his own satisfaction.

As for your second statement, in Muslim nations the Mosque is not nearly as significent as in Non Muslim nations. The reason being that it is an isolated fragment of their culture in a majority that is not their culture. The same is true of Christianity (but to a lesser extent)

Then we both disagree with the original poster. Atheistic views are not dependent on the existence or belief in God, whatsoever.

So atheists are only determined by a lack of Christian beliefs? I am not really positive what you are getting at.

If there were no Christians, atheists would not deny the existence of God.

You cannot say that if there were no atheists, Christians would not proclaim the existence of God.

errrr....Christians are not the only religion to profess a belief in God

Then we both disagree with the original poster. Atheistic views are not dependent on the existence or belief in God, whatsoever.

It would seem so. I do not believe Athiesm is some kind of reaction to Christianity or any other religion. It is a belief that God does not exist and that everything ever at all can be explained to human standards.

It is a belief that God does not exist and that everything ever at all can be explained to human standards.
I don't think it holds necessarily that they all believe everything can be explained, but that seems to be the general belief held by most atheists.

It would seem so. I do not believe Athiesm is some kind of reaction to Christianity or any other religion. It is a belief that God does not exist and that everything ever at all can be explained to human standards.

In due course yes

Then we both disagree with the original poster. Atheistic views are not dependent on the existence or belief in God, whatsoever.
Even if one lives in a society where believing in god(s) is the norm and the moral system is based on this belief ?

Oh wee. The stupid as hell theists making the sane theists look bad -again-.

Guess what, if nobody had ever invented deities, the entire world with be atheist.

Every organis on the planet, and every pile of atoms, aside from theists, is atheist.

The SUN is atheist. It lacks a belief in a deity.

Are you honestly saying the SUN is religious?

Every organis on the planet, and every pile of atoms, aside from theists, is atheist.

Nonono - to stay in line with this topic you need to say this:

…'humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.'
'Tooth faries? Hogfathers? Little..'
'Ýes. As practice. You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.'
'So we can believe in the big ones?'
'Yes. Justice. Mercy. Duty. That sort of thing.'
'They're not the same at all!'
'You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet - ' Death waved a hand. 'And yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some… rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.'
'Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point?'
'My point exactly.'
(Hogfather, Terry Pratchett)

Atheism is lack of belief in God. Not belief in a lack of God.
No that's more agnosticism. Athiesm requires that you absolutely believe there is no god. Period.

Actually I think if humans didn't invent Gods for themselves then there wouldn't be atheism because they wouldn't need to be atheism. Therefore I would presume that atheism is a reaction to a God.

My thread has proved that atheists are just idiotic and strong willed as religious people. Both groups cannot accept arguments against their beliefs and both groups react in a manner of blind faith when you challenge them. It is remarkable that atheists and the godly have such similar reactions - probably because when it comes down to it they share similar personality traits. After all neither theory can be proved - you can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore both beliefs require a leap of faith with only circumstantial evidence to back them.

How wonderful it is to be objective about God and religion.

My thread has proved that atheists are just idiotic and strong willed as religious people. Both groups cannot accept arguments against their beliefs and both groups react in a manner of blind faith when you challenge them.
Hey, I'm not even an atheist.

And I'd still like to know what the title has to do with all this.

Oh wee. The stupid as hell theists making the sane theists look bad -again-.

Guess what, if nobody had ever invented deities, the entire world with be atheist.

Every organis on the planet, and every pile of atoms, aside from theists, is atheist.

The SUN is atheist. It lacks a belief in a deity.

Are you honestly saying the SUN is religious?

The sun is not a person, it cannot hold beliefs.

I think therefore I am

Maybe you might try thinking before posting any more ridiculous responses like this.

Hey, I'm not even an atheist.

And I'd still like to know what the title has to do with all this.

Atheists aren't really atheists because their disbelif is defined by religion which they claim not to believe in.

Again. Atheism is the default of all matter in the universe.

Would we have the WORD 'atheist' if theists hadn't come along? No.

But everyone would be it.

I'm also awinged. Does that mean I have wings -anyhow-?

Nor is atheism a theory anymore than "there is no giant spider having sex with a scorpion from mars on my keyboard" is a theory.

Atheism is a lack of positive position in relation to the belief in deities.

Consider theology to be a form of light. Say, pagans see white, Christians see fuscia, Muslims see purple, etc etc etc. Atheists see black.

Does that mean there's a black light shining?

No. Black is the ABSENCE OF LIGHT.

Not "Black light".

--

And no, weak atheism is not agnosticism anymore than really really really dark gray is black.

Get you head out of your ass already and read some definitions.

Again. Atheism is the default of all matter in the universe.

Would we have the WORD 'atheist' if theists hadn't come along? No.

But everyone would be it.

I'm also awinged. Does that mean I have wings -anyhow-?

Nor is atheism a theory anymore than "there is no giant spider having sex with a scorpion from mars on my keyboard" is a theory.

Atheism is a lack of positive position in relation to the belief in deities.

Consider theology to be a form of light. Say, pagans see white, Christians see fuscia, Muslims see purple, etc etc etc. Atheists see black.

Does that mean there's a black light shining?

No. Black is the ABSENCE OF LIGHT.

Not "Black light".

--

And no, weak atheism is not agnosticism anymore than really really really dark gray is black.

Get you head out of your ass already and read some definitions.

if you let yourself be bound by dictionary definitions, then you have proven yourself to be an unimaginative and frankly quite boring person. I try and search out the inner meaning behind the word.

The sun is not a person, it cannot hold beliefs.

I think therefore I am

Maybe you might try thinking before posting any more ridiculous responses like this.

That's rather the POINT, now isn't it?

The Sun has no belief in a deity, correct?

Neither do atheists.

Agnostics, on the other hand, aren't sure. The sun can't be agnostic. It's atheist. A weak atheist, mind you, because strong atheists DO have beliefs, albeit not religious (Do you even know what a religion -is-?).

The majority of the universe is atheist. Theists are a cosmic minority.

Atheists aren't really atheists because their disbelif is defined by religion which they claim not to believe in.
Wow. That is a circular argument if I ever heard one.
Okay, so you're saying if there was no religion, atheists would cease to not believe in God? That sounds a bit absurd.

if you let yourself be bound by dictionary definitions, then you have proven yourself to be an unimaginative and frankly quite boring person. I try and search out the inner meaning behind the word.

...

So, by British I can make the assumption you either mean "Baby Eating Nazi" or "Picture Made of Banana Peels", rather than 'of Britain'?

Wow. You've opened my eyes towards making up meanings to words so that communication doesn't work.

I shall now peanut butter under ladder, as you masochisted.

--

Youness aside, I have an etymology dictionary on hand. I know what the bloody words mean. You, however, clearly don't.

...

So, by British I can make the assumption you either mean "Baby Eating Nazi" or "Picture Made of Banana Peels", rather than 'of Britain'?

Wow. You've opened my eyes towards making up meanings to words so that communication doesn't work.

I shall now peanut butter under ladder, as you masochisted.

--

Youness aside, I have an etymology dictionary on hand. I know what the bloody words mean. You, however, clearly don't.

Dicitonary definitions are mere words themselves.

Troll is also a word.

I would just like to ask a question. Who cares? I mean, really. Does it actually matter at all?

"Dicitonary definitions are mere words themselves."

Hahahahaha aahahahhaah ahahahhhahhahahahha....haah..aah..hah..ha...

Way to go! ;)

That's rather the POINT, now isn't it?

The Sun has no belief in a deity, correct?

Neither do atheists.

Agnostics, on the other hand, aren't sure. The sun can't be agnostic. It's atheist. A weak atheist, mind you, because strong atheists DO have beliefs, albeit not religious (Do you even know what a religion -is-?).

The majority of the universe is atheist. Theists are a cosmic minority.

The sun is not atheist.

To be atheist you have to hold the belief that God does exist. The key word being BELIEF

The sun doesn't have beliefs because it is an object like a table and a chair. Therefore it cannot believe that there is no God.

You speak about atheism as if it is a fact whn in reality it is an opinion (i.e. a belief). If atheism were a fact then it could be said that the Sun is atheist but as it is an opinion, the sun cannot be atheist as it has to be a person in order to hold an opinion.

The sun is not atheist.

To be atheist you have to hold the belief that God does exist. The key word being BELIEF
This is where the misunderstanding happens. That is what the dictionary says about it, but many atheists say atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. If dictionary definitions are "mere words", than certainly the definition used by those who practice it is more accurate?

?????

To me, atheism is the active denial of god, believing truly that there is no god. I, on the other hand, am agnostic, meaning i don't know if theres a god or not and i don't believe that the existance or non-existance of god has any bearing on our existance as it is. If god is, then he is, if he isn't then he isn't it doesn't much matter to me, all i know is that i am alive now and i might as well make as much of my life as i can and not spend it preparing for something that i cannot be certain even exists.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear". --Thomas Jefferson

This is all rather amusing.
We really don't need to debate over whether the decision to not believe in God is religious as much as we need to debate whether the decision not to believe in God is correct.

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.


Dude, did you by any chance pinch that quote from a Discworld book?

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.
atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
:D
"What do you do for fun?"
"Well, I don't collect stamps. It's really quite interesting."

yup, and i guess then everybody who doesn't believe Santa Claus is real is actually a member of Santaism, and everybody who lacks belief in the Easter Bunny is a member of the Church Of Chocolate Bunny-ness.

The sun is not atheist.

The alternative is that the sun must believe in a god or multiple gods.

To be atheist you have to hold the belief that God does exist. The key word being BELIEF

I know this is a typo, but your argument started off badly and is degenerating into total idiocy.

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.

I believe I haven't been abducted by the saucer people, but I don't think about it constantly. Does that mean I actually have been abducted by the saucer people?

I believe I haven't been abducted by the saucer people, but I don't think about it constantly. Does that mean I actually have been abducted by the saucer people?
But a TRUE non-saucer abductee always thinks about it. Therefore, you aren't a true non-saucer abductee. Shoo, shoo, go away. You don't apply.

Can anyone say "No True Scotsman Fallacy"?
:p

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.
Yes, let's tear down our strawmen now.

Dear lord. I hate these threads.

Listen up original poster: You are (amazingly enough) NOT ME. So how about you stop telling me what I believe, being, as you are, in no position to know what I believe.

Everyone else should shut the hell up too. This debate is ridiculous and just makes everyone who takes it seriously look bad. word of advice... don't posts on these threads... it only keeps them alive while raising your blood pressure.


and High Blood pressure does nasty things to your fabulous looks.

I believe I haven't been abducted by the saucer people, but I don't think about it constantly. Does that mean I actually have been abducted by the saucer people?

No - but your implied comparison is not entirely valid. People claiming they were abducted never had a huge impact on society. This belief is not dominating; so claiming you're not abducted is considered normal. There is no need to be thinking of it constantly.

The belief in a god or multiple gods however has been pretty dominant in society for ages. Laws are often based on commandments, and not always on reason. In such a society an atheist can be considered abnormal, and technically he gets confronted with his 'denial' of what the society considers normal all the time.

However, this defence of the orginal position is a bit contrived ;)

The belief in a god or multiple gods however has been pretty dominant in society for ages. Laws are often based on commandments, and not always on reason. In such a society an atheist can be considered abnormal, and technically he gets confronted with his 'denial' of what the society considers normal all the time.

the belief in Santa Claus dominates many populations of American children at a certain age. a child in that age bracket who does not believe in Santa can be considered abnormal, and will often be confronted by both adults and other children about his "denial" of what is considered the normal belief.

the belief in Santa Claus dominates many populations of American children at a certain age. a child in that age bracket who does not believe in Santa can be considered abnormal, and will often be confronted by both adults and other children about his "denial" of what is considered the normal belief.

Oooh- nice example :) Thanks ;)

Atheists are atheists. To say otherwise makes as much sense as saying, "Dogs aren't dogs." You might want to check on the definition of the English verb "to be" and its conjugations.

Whether "atheism" is a lack of belief in "God" or a true belief that "there is no God" is a matter of grammar and semantics. It is typically used in both senses. To dissect the word would, I believe, define an atheist simply as the opposite of a "theist". So, define "theism" to look for real answers.

However, common usage always overrules official definitions over time, no matter how much linguists try to avoid it. Live with it.

Dude, did you by any chance pinch that quote from a Discworld book?

Yes I have already mentioned that.

If someone believes something to be true then for that person it is true.

God is but one example. There is the Father Christmas argument which has already been mentioned. For children, Father Christmas is real and there is no doubt in that fact. So by that measure, he does actually exist as a belief.

Then of course we might take the mass example of people believing the earth to be flat. They believed it and so for them the earth was flat.

Religious people believe in their assorted deities as if those deities were right before them, as visible and as tangible as the computer screen I am currently looking into. For them God does exist and so therefore he exists for all people: however for atheists God exists only as a belief which they choose not to share.

Atheists and the godly all act as if there is only one truth in the universe - their truth. They are right in a way but have fundamentally mistaken the identity of the singular truth. The only truth is the truth of perspective.

Four other things I should address before I never speak on this post again:

1) Yes this is a quote from a Terry Pratchett novel (Feet of Clay for those interested).

2) People have accused me of being a troll. I have not insulted anyway, just stated a rather flat statement about the fact that atheists do not define themselves by what they believe but by what they do not believe in. I am simply stating the obvious and fundamental irony within atheism. Most the people posting on this thread are those who open their own threads criticising religion and God. Tell me is that trolling? Just because I seek to critize atheism rather than religion. I accuse the posters in this thread of double standards and hypocrisy, the two traits they apparently loathe in religious people.

3) Much has been made by those who follow dicitionary definitions slavishly. There is another group who follow another book just as slavishly - they are called Christians and they follow the Bible. They are called Muslims and they follow the Qu'aran. Religious groups use their books of scripture as evidence in their argument. Atheists, it appears, follow the dictionary and use that book to back their arguments. The similarities between atheists and the godly are absolutely amazing and it has been worthwhile doing this thread just to prove that atheists rely just has heavily on blind faith and hypocrisy as religious people do. The replies posted here are remarkably similar to those posted by religious people in response to atheist threads - they are full of meaningless bile and irrelevant babbling. Just as those who critise religion are typecast as 'sinful', those who (dare) critise atheism are typecast as 'idiots'

4) I am not an atheist nor am I a religious person. I am agnostic - I dont believe there is any evidence to disprove or prove the existence of deities. So stuff that all of you who immediately jumped on this thread and started shouting about this being a thread of the Christian right and "insane theists

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.

*cough* Plagiarist *cough*

At least give Terry the credit.

EDIT: Whoops, you have, but not til much later. My bad. :)

3) Much has been made by those who follow dicitionary definitions slavishly. There is another group who follow another book just as slavishly - they are called Christians and they follow the Bible. They are called Muslims and they follow the Qu'aran. Religious groups use their books of scripture as evidence in their argument. Atheists, it appears, follow the dictionary and use that book to back their arguments.
Hee, I'm liking this.
You're equating the dictionary to the atheist's Bible?

How, then, would you propose we conclude what words mean?

*cough* Plagiarist *cough*

At least give Terry the credit.
isn't it sad when people can't even come up with their own bad arguments? :P

isn't it sad when people can't even come up with their own bad arguments? :P
Well i have to admit, if he was looking for a huge debate, he got it!

Thats what I am getting at. Your first statement is wrong. Athiesim is not a reaction to Christianity. It is a belief unto itself, a somewhat arrogent and self indulgent belief if you ask me. It centres on mans idea that he knows everything and can explain away everything to his own satisfaction.

As for your second statement, in Muslim nations the Mosque is not nearly as significent as in Non Muslim nations. The reason being that it is an isolated fragment of their culture in a majority that is not their culture. The same is true of Christianity (but to a lesser extent)

How incredibly rude of you, Neo...

So Atheism is "arrongant" and "self-indulgent"?

You have it wrong, my friend. The average Atheist DOESN'T believe that 'man' knows everything, or even that he COULD. It centres more on the idea that we DO NOT have all the answers.

The Atheist accepts that there can be questions that remain unanswered, without having some 'spiritual quick-fix'. Thus, the atheist has to, for example, face their decision of what happens after death, with the ambiguity that there is no evidence that anyone is there for us, or any construct to catch us.

Atheism isn't about 'explaining everything away'. It is about accepting how little we know, and accepting that there are many answers we DON'T have.


As to the NATURE of Atheism... whoever said earlier that there were 'weak' and 'strong' Atheists has nailed the current convention. The 'weak' Atheist doesn't believe in any gods or deitic beings - the 'strong' Atheist has arrived at the conclusion that there ARE NO GODS.

Even a 'christian' can appreciate the position of the atheist, if they look at an example. Why do christians not believe in Thor, or Shiva, or Osiris? There is plenty of 'evidence' for each of those - and yet 'christians' don't 'believe' in them.

Well, neither do Atheists.... they just DON'T BELIEVE in ONE MORE god than you.

*cough* Plagiarist *cough*

At least give Terry the credit.

EDIT: Whoops, you have, but not til much later. My bad. :)

I have actually given him credit within the first two pages when some called me Dorlf - the character whom I quoted. That is why I did not immediately edit my orginal post. I have now done so.

I happen to agree with Pratchett and thought it would be a good idea to see what response I got and also argue the ideas that he presents in a more full manner.

How incredibly rude of you, Neo...

So Atheism is "arrongant" and "self-indulgent"?

You have it wrong, my friend. The average Atheist DOESN'T believe that 'man' knows everything, or even that he COULD. It centres more on the idea that we DO NOT have all the answers.

The Atheist accepts that there can be questions that remain unanswered, without having some 'spiritual quick-fix'. Thus, the atheist has to, for example, face their decision of what happens after death, with the ambiguity that there is no evidence that anyone is there for us, or any construct to catch us.

Atheism isn't about 'explaining everything away'. It is about accepting how little we know, and accepting that there are many answers we DON'T have.


As to the NATURE of Atheism... whoever said earlier that there were 'weak' and 'strong' Atheists has nailed the current convention. The 'weak' Atheist doesn't believe in any gods or deitic beings - the 'strong' Atheist has arrived at the conclusion that there ARE NO GODS.

Even a 'christian' can appreciate the position of the atheist, if they look at an example. Why do christians not believe in Thor, or Shiva, or Osiris? There is plenty of 'evidence' for each of those - and yet 'christians' don't 'believe' in them.

Well, neither do Atheists.... they just DON'T BELIEVE in ONE MORE god than you.

Athiests will often set out to describe the entire world rationally and scientificly. This is arrogent because they are explaining it to their own certianty, ignoring the fact that there is only a limit to which science can go. Every person who claims they are an athiest I have ever met is arrogent beyond belief (and I have met a great deal). They contstantly push forward the notion that science somehow "replaced" religion during the rennansicene and that religion should be dead and burried along with trephining of skulls. I haven't ever met any of these so called "weak" athists but from your description (they do not know) they sound more like agnostics.

isn't it sad when people can't even come up with their own bad arguments? :P

Are you calling it bad because you truly believe it is bad? Or are you just saying it because you cant stand the idea of atheism being in anyway linked to religion?

Hee, I'm liking this.
You're equating the dictionary to the atheist's Bible?

How, then, would you propose we conclude what words mean?

The dictionary only came about in the late 1700s - how do you propose we knew the meaning of words prior to the invention of the dictionary by Dr. Johnson?

Also the meaning of words change as society changes: Take the word 'gay' for example.

And no I'm not comparing it to the Bible - it just seems that people on here follow dictionary meaning just as slavishly and blindly as religious people follow their holy scriptures.

Are you calling it bad because you truly believe it is bad? Or are you just saying it because you cant stand the idea of atheism being in anyway linked to religion?
atheism is "linked" to religion in the sense that it is the absence of religion. darkness is "linked" to light because it is the absence of light. i have no problem with that concept. to claim that the lack of belief in Gods is a religion is the same as claiming that not collecting stamps is a hobby. it is simply an invalid claim and a poor attempt at argument. it's been debunked several times on this thread alone.

that said, to make the positive assertion that THERE IS NO GOD is as unfounded and faith-based as the assertion that THERE IS A GOD. lacking belief in God(s) and believing in the non-existence of God(s) are two very different things.

also, just FYI, i am not an atheist. i'm guessing you assume that i am, and that is why you suggest i "cant stand the idea of atheism being in anyway linked to religion."

Well i have to admit, if he was looking for a huge debate, he got it!

Im waiting for all the Americans to come on. Then there will be fireworks.

:D
"What do you do for fun?"
"Well, I don't collect stamps. It's really quite interesting."

Ever tried collecting pins?

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.

This is a quote from Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay. I happen to agree strongly with him but I feel his way of putting it was best.

His way of putting it was nothing like yours. He said atheism was like a religion. Atheism as a term does not immediately imply complete lack of belief.

And no I'm not comparing it to the Bible - it just seems that people on here follow dictionary meaning just as slavishly and blindly as religious people follow their holy scriptures.
the dictionary defines the correct usages of words in a given language. you are free to associate other meanings to various groups of sounds, but if you do then you are not speaking that particular language any more.

the manner in which people "blindly follow" the dictionary is not in any way comparable to the way people follow religious texts; religious texts speculate about supernatural forces, beings, and states of existence, while the dictionary is simply a list of words with their associated meanings.

Actually I think if humans didn't invent Gods for themselves then there wouldn't be atheism because they wouldn't need to be atheism. Therefore I would presume that atheism is a reaction to a God.

My thread has proved that atheists are just idiotic and strong willed as religious people. Both groups cannot accept arguments against their beliefs and both groups react in a manner of blind faith when you challenge them. It is remarkable that atheists and the godly have such similar reactions - probably because when it comes down to it they share similar personality traits. After all neither theory can be proved - you can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore both beliefs require a leap of faith with only circumstantial evidence to back them.

How wonderful it is to be objective about God and religion.

i have proof there is no god. you beleive in time right? of course you do cause if you didn't you'd be crazy. time proves god can't exist.

His way of putting it was nothing like yours. He said atheism was like a religion. Atheism as a term does not immediately imply complete lack of belief.

What do you mean his way of putting it? The orginal post is an exact quote! I had his book open in front of me when I typed it in!

Athiests will often set out to describe the entire world rationally and scientificly. This is arrogent because they are explaining it to their own certianty, ignoring the fact that there is only a limit to which science can go. Every person who claims they are an athiest I have ever met is arrogent beyond belief (and I have met a great deal). They contstantly push forward the notion that science somehow "replaced" religion during the rennansicene and that religion should be dead and burried along with trephining of skulls. I haven't ever met any of these so called "weak" athists but from your description (they do not know) they sound more like agnostics.

Do you EVER actually read another person's posts, Neo?



I didn't say that 'weak' atheists "don't know" - I said they don't BELIEVE in any gods -which is a different prospect, entirely?

Do YOU believe in Tiamat? Do you believe in Isis? Do you believe in Horus?

Obviously, as a 'christian', you don't believe in any of those other gods... you don't see any reason to believe them to be more than stories, right?

Well, the 'weak' Atheist feels the same way... they don't see any reason to believe that ANY 'god' is more than just a story.


Regarding the "describing the world rationally and scientifically".... you say that like it is a BAD THING. I explain as much of the world as I can, in terms of logic and rationality. This leaves areas where I DON'T HAVE any answers.

My Atheistic view-point is that I am not going to let a fairytale fill in those gaps JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE. I accept that there will be unanswered questions, and I learn to live with it.


By the way, Neo. I have met a great number of 'christians' who push the concept that religion is the 'word of god, and 'perfect' and that I am 'going to hell' because I am an Atheist - so, let's not get started on Atheists being "arrogant beyond belief"...

By the way, Neo. I have met a great number of 'christians' who push the concept that religion is the 'word of god, and 'perfect' and that I am 'going to hell' because I am an Atheist - so, let's not get started on Atheists being "arrogant beyond belief"...

I think both of you are arrogant beyond belief for assuming that you have an answer to whether deities exist or not despite a lack of evidence proving either.

Does the sun believe in god? No - of course not. It can't even hold that belief. Therefore, by definition, it's atheist. Atheism comes in two general forms, 'strong' and 'weak,' strong meaning "belief in no God" and weak meaning "no belief in God." There's a difference, but both are classifiable as atheism.

Case closed, folks! ;)

Like that'll stop anyone from eating up another opportunity to trash atheists...

Now, New British Empire can compare the dictionary to the Bible all he likes, but because presumed atheists are using the dictionary and he disregards it does not mean "atheists, it seems, use the dictionary like Christians use the Bible" etc etc. That is simple ad hominem style generalizing. The English dictionary is valid because we are speaking in English. If we were discussing Christian Theology the Bible too would be valid.

Athiests will often set out to describe the entire world rationally and scientificly. This is arrogent because they are explaining it to their own certianty, ignoring the fact that there is only a limit to which science can go. Every person who claims they are an athiest I have ever met is arrogent beyond belief (and I have met a great deal). They contstantly push forward the notion that science somehow "replaced" religion during the rennansicene and that religion should be dead and burried along with trephining of skulls. I haven't ever met any of these so called "weak" athists but from your description (they do not know) they sound more like agnostics.

It is arrogant to try to describe the entire world rationally? I am sorry, but your post is arrogant. It is no fact that there is a limit to how far science can go, it is only your opinion. And yes, plenty of atheists do put forward the idea that religion should be burried. So what? When religion was in control it tried to bury atheism by killing atheists.

What do you mean his way of putting it? The orginal post is an exact quote! I had his book open in front of me when I typed it in!

Yes but you put it under a tilte saying 'atheists aren't atheists'.

I assume that the title 'atheists aren't atheists' was just an attention grabber and not meant seriously, because it doesn't take Einstein to find the flaw in that logic. Anyway...

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. As such a proposition is unproven and probaby unprovable (what the hell was the argument about time? Made little sense to me), you could say that it was as much a leap of faith as a belief in God itself, and that the two positions are therefore equivalent. However, there are plenty of things that we believe that aren't proven in strict logic. How do we know that rain comes from clouds? Only by observing, and making the most sensible guess. It is far more credible to believe that rain comes from clouds than that it appears randomly irrespective of cloud cover - the two positions are not equivalent.

In my view there is no credible evidence to support the existence of any God. I can't prove that God doesn't exist, and accept the vague possibility that he might, but if other people hadn't told me about it I doubt I would ever have considered the possibility seriously.

Some people would call that agnosticism. I don't really. I believe that there is no God in the same way that I believe that rain comes from clouds.

seems to me that one can'prove' either side

provided that person starts with tha applicable presumptions
but the truth is
the only mind that you can really change is your own

seems to me that one can'prove' either side

provided that person starts with tha applicable presumptions
but the truth is
the only mind that you can really change is your own

No, I've changed one or two people's minds.

I think both of you are arrogant beyond belief for assuming that you have an answer to whether deities exist or not despite a lack of evidence proving either.

You obviously succumb to the same inability as Neo.

Did you not read my post?

I said that I don't believe in any gods.

I see no evidence... therefore I don't believe.

How is that me giving an answer to "whether deities exist"? I simply stated, I see no reason to believe it.

I think you should stop and consider before you type... you have just tried to represent a position for me, that I, personally, wouldn't try to defend... and then you attack me as 'arrogant' for it... based on a belief that YOU attribute to me.

In my view there is no credible evidence to support the existence of any God. I can't prove that God doesn't exist, and accept the vague possibility that he might, but if other people hadn't told me about it I doubt I would ever have considered the possibility seriously.


Exactly.

We automatically default to a state of non-belief in something that we are unaware of.

Do you believe in "Exploding Bunny Dinosaurs"? Let's be realistic... until I strung those words together - nobody had (probably) ever even conceptualised an exploding bunny dinosaur... and so, by default, nobody 'believed' in exploding bunny dinosaurs.

The same applies for 'god'. As an infant, I had no knowledge of 'god', and thus, didn't 'believe' in 'god'. Then I was 'educated' in the bible, and so I 'became' a 'christian'. Now, as an adult, I see no proof to support (what is obviously, to me) blind faith... and thus, I am an Atheist.

I have returned to the 'default' position of simply NOT BELIEVING in the character they call 'god'.

Thats what I am getting at. Your first statement is wrong. Athiesim is not a reaction to Christianity. It is a belief unto itself, a somewhat arrogent and self indulgent belief if you ask me. It centres on mans idea that he knows everything and can explain away everything to his own satisfaction.

You have absolutely no idea what atheism is do you? Atheism is simply a belief that there are no higher deities. Atheism does not mean that man knows everything. I that were true then we wouldn't need science at all because we already know everything. But it's the Christian Scientists who throw science out the window.

Are you calling it bad because you truly believe it is bad? Or are you just saying it because you cant stand the idea of atheism being in anyway linked to religion?
I believe she's calling it bad because it's just that, a terrible argument.

The dictionary only came about in the late 1700s - how do you propose we knew the meaning of words prior to the invention of the dictionary by Dr. Johnson?
Well, by the meaning in use. I do believe that the dictionary was an attempt to collect all of these definitions.
Also the meaning of words change as society changes: Take the word 'gay' for example.
Okay, I will agree that dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all.

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position.

That is the definition in Webster's dictionary, a notoriously Christian-bias dictionary.

That's all I feel the urge to contribute to this pathetic and idiotic topic.

Saipea, the:
1. Rationalist
2. Atheist
3. Existentialist
4. Nihilist
5. Anhedonist
6. Epicurist-Hedonist
7. ?
8. ...
9. ......

Methinks my thought process reaches beyond anything your mind can fathom.

You have absolutely no idea what atheism is do you? Atheism is simply a belief that there are no higher deities. Atheism does not mean that man knows everything. I that were true then we wouldn't need science at all because we already know everything. But it's the Christian Scientists who throw science out the window.

I said "CAN" explain everything. Athiests just see it as a matter of time before science makes everyone God like in their knoweledge.

Atheism is the denial of God and therefore a religious position. A true atheist thinks of God constantly albeit in terms of denial. Therefore atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny God's existence.

This is a quote from Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay. I happen to agree strongly with him but I feel his way of putting it was best.
Athiesm is not the absence of a belief...it is the denial of the existence of God. I don't see the contradiction here. Sometimes authors who try to question everything get it wrong. Really wrong.

That is the definition in Webster's dictionary, a notoriously Christian-bias dictionary.

That's all I feel the urge to contribute to this pathetic and idiotic topic.

Saipea, the:
1. Rationalist
2. Atheist
3. Existentialist
4. Nihilist
5. Anhedonist
6. Epicurist-Hedonist
7. ?
8. ...
9. ......

Methinks my thought process reaches beyond anything your mind can fathom.

Perhaps it will interest you to know that I am not Christian? Perhaps it will interest you to know that the quote was not from the 'Chrisitan biased' Websters dictionary (although I m not sure how a dictionary can be biased)?

A typical knee jerk reaction, once again very similar to those posted by fundamentalist Christians in the NS forums. I wonder if there is such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist. Presumably there must be. If so, then this thread has got the biggest collection of them ever.

Athiesm is not the absence of a belief...it is the denial of the existence of God. I don't see the contradiction here. Sometimes authors who try to question everything get it wrong. Really wrong.

I dont think there is a contradiction: just an irony that atheists (who as this post has shown cannot stand any connection with religion) have a belief that is fundamentally formed by the general belief in God.

I said "CAN" explain everything. Athiests just see it as a matter of time before science makes everyone God like in their knoweledge.

Who told you that?

You saying that is like me saying "Christians all believe that winged monkeys control us all with space-rays".

I have already told you that I accept there are questions I will never see answered.

I have met MANY atheists who feel the same way I do - that we may try to explain reality, but we are NEVER going to have all the answers.

The difference is, Atheists DON'T have to come up with some mystical explanation for what they don't understand.

I dont think there is a contradiction: just an irony that atheists (who as this post has shown cannot stand any connection with religion) have a belief that is fundamentally formed by the general belief in God.
I suppose... :rolleyes:

I dont think there is a contradiction: just an irony that atheists (who as this post has shown cannot stand any connection with religion) have a belief that is fundamentally formed by the general belief in God.

No - what (some) Atheists don't like, is the fact that certain aspects of the 'christian' faith seem to feel the need to try to 'weaken' the Atheist side of the debate... by, in essence, resorting to the "Well, you can't fly, either" argument.

Thus - an Atheist may question why the 'christian' (or Muslim, etc.) may believe in their chosen god... the 'christian' response is "Well, why do you chose to believe in another 'god' - that 'god' being atheism"?


Religion cannot put forth a 'logical' response that would prove atheism 'wrong' - so SOME religious persons try to assert that Atheism is just A DIFFERENT form of religion... and thus has the SAME lack of logical basis.

Whereas, of course, the Atheist feels the same way that (for example) the Christian does, about Dagon... it's just that the Atheist sees no reason to believe in any gods, while the 'christian' choses not to believe in any OTHER gods.