What do you think about atheism?

Post Reply New Topic

With all due respect, I wish to disagree with your post.

Firstly, I believe atheism is simply just a lack of religious affiliation or belief, and that there is no concept of negative or positive, but a neutral view of a world which arose out of spontaneous building blocks of logic which founded the universe in a sequence of logical truths which can be analyzed by looking at the patterns that we find in the universe and in ourselves.

I also disagree that creationists are more thorough, I believe that they are equal on both sides. Creationist and atheist ideology lies on a spectrum, and it is impossible to address this argument properly without looking at one sect of creationist thought, likewise for atheists.

Atheism, claiming that there is an absence of a God or divine being that has created the universe, does not claim that there is a lack of anything else. It is (from my personal perspective) again, a universe that arose from random chance coupled with building blocks of logic. There may be a way that the universe was "created" suddenly, but not by a figure that resembles humans.

And to the last part, I don't really think about superstitions throughout my day. I think about what I can do to better myself, my family, people I love and know, and other small things. When confronted with a specific criticism that I feel I can respond to for the betterment of myself or another, I do so to hopefully add a new idea to their repertoire of ideology so that perhaps they can do the same for me, and everyone benefits.

Also, I'd like to add one of the more visual reasons for why I am in disagreement of the existence of a God. The human form has been specifically adopted for survival in a natural environment, and we can see this through our body parts. We've been designed with mouths to consume matter to continue our survival, we've been designed with eyes to perceive our environment from a distance so we can maintain our survival, and we've been designed with brains and comprehension to understand our environment from both an artistic perspective (to help us socially and emotionally) and a logical one, to add to our memory that which threatens us and which secures our safety. God, I believe, (assuming they have these traits as they are often portrayed) would have nothing to survive. God has hands and legs and eyes, but what are they running from, seeing, or wielding. There is no threat to God, so why would God share the characteristic features that are visible in humans? I would understand if there is a possible consciousness that can conceptualize something so great as to generate the universe which we exist, but I have a hard time believing that it would be in the shape of a person, and would be able to communicate with humanity, considering how many other intelligent organisms that exist out there which lack a connection with this supposed God.

Atheism doesn't claim anything.

Some atheists make positive assertions regarding the existence of deities, but most atheists I know (and know of) are agnostic.

...God only knows !

Why can't God take on any form he likes?



What do you consider intelligent? And why does intelligence make God want to have a connection with something? Lets be honest, how can someone in his beautifully created mind try to think for someone he doesn't even know. With all due respect ofcourse.

Then they are agnotics not atheists. Atheists oppose the existince of a God. If your friends don't exclude the existence of deities they aren't atheists but agnostics.

Common misconception. Atheism is a position relating to belief, agnosticism is a position relating to knowledge - or claims thereof. Gnostics claim evidence in support of their beliefs - or lack thereof - agnostics do not.

The agnostic atheist position is therefore: I don't believe in a god, but I'm willing to consider evidence if provided.
The gnostic atheist position is: I believe there are no gods, and here is why:

Belief or absence of belief is a simple binary switch. You can be atheist or you can be a theist, there is no quantum state of belief.

I'll believe in atheism when there's proof of their theories.
I think that's how it works.

Uncomfortable and sad. Agnostics don't affect me the same way.

It would need to become an ideology rather than an isolated state of being for that to make sense.

As I already suggested, there are those who have sought to make it one, but joining the church of Scientism isn't mandatory for unbelievers.

There is no such thing as an “absolute proof”; not even the Mathematical proof is absolute as it only concerns the quantum and not the quale, which is just as important if not more so. "Proofing" something is just the most logical explanation we can come up for a certain matter. The problem with the things we see as logical are situational not definitive. This all means you will propably never be an atheist .

I agree!! IMO, this echoes MY sentiment that there are very few "facts"----and, my-oh-my, how some have balked, when I've said that. Some people just really seem to NEED life wrapped-up in a pretty little package, tied-up with a bow----and, IMO, that's just not how life, IS.

Theories in science do not level up. If they have evidence they are considered theories, if they do find evidence to the contrary they are amended or thrown aside. Theories do not become laws.

WTF are you takling about? But that logic you couldnt be either an atheist, or a believer in God. You could only be an agnostic.

Most Atheists consider themselves an agnostic atheist. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

You can be agnostic atheist, and agnostic theist, or an agnostic agnostic.

Agreed, that's what I was saying.