Post

What Is An Atheist

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

Godfree110158 Godfree110158 51-55, M 56 Responses Jul 27, 2008

Your Response

Cancel

Max, have you sent Stephen Hawking an apology for your unethical attempts to tack someone else's words onto his and make it appear as though they're his?

@Fast<br />
<br />
The sir doth protest too much, methinks. Have you sent Hawking and Kraus equally scathing letters for their disingenuous and disrespectful redefining of "nothing"?

Round and around we go. Where did they redefine the word? You\'re trying to apply an absolute abstract concept (the lack of anything) to a real-world concept (the space between observed or classically expected matter). You are illustrating only your own failure to comprehend a fundamental consequence of quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. Your continued notion that physicists are \"attacking\" language is bizarre and sad.

How very droll. Have you never read \"A Universe from Nothing\" or \"The Grand Design\"?

@Fast

i. So the only reason you're not a racist bigot is because everyone else isn't?

Well, at least you're honest ...

And, as an aside, thank you for demonstrating why your brand of Atheism is pure evil.


ii. Strawman. Bible prophecies are proven factual by evidence of their accurate fulfilment, not by fallacious argumentum assertio: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl


iii. Happily! You see, mankind doesn't treat acts like **********, the gunning down of innocent children, racial bigotry, sadism, genocide, gang rape and serial murder as just socially unacceptable behavior, like, say, picking your nose at the dinner table. Rather, these cause shock and horror and are treated as a moral abominations - acts of evil.

On the flip side, love, equality and self-sacrifice are not just treated as socially advantageous acts, like, say, bringing a girl flowers on a first date, but, instead are treated as things that are truly good.

Now, irrational beasts don't have **objective** morals. When a lion savagely kills another it doesn't think it's committing murder. When a peregrine falcon or a bald eagle snatches prey away from another it doesn't feel it's stealing. When primates violently force themselves onto females and their young they’re not tried and convicted of rape or ped0philia. Obviously, then, we certainly didn't “inherit” our **objective** moral sense from them.

**Objective** morals do not come from science either because science, by it's very nature, is morally nihilistic. Where, then, do we get our **universal objective morals** from?

Consider the following:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Evil exists.
(3) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
(5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

That is to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

I. Do you believe that racism was not common and considered moral even just 100 years ago? Do you believe that everything we consider moral today will remain moral in 100 years? You believe racism is evil because your religion apparently teaches you this today. And you believe your religion only teaches absolute, objective truth, and so racism must be absolute, objective evil. This is about your beliefs in your religion, not racism. Don\'t put words into my mouth.

II. We\'ve already discussed your prophecy argument for the divinity of the Bible at length. The link you provided is the same one you copy-paste in every other discussion about this. Round and around we go. The \"success\" of the prophecies can be reduced to two flawed arguments: 1. The only evidence that they were written before the events they foretell and not after is written along with them in the Bible. Thus, we can accept that they are true only if we accept the Bible can\'t be false. This is circular. 2. For the prophecies that were clearly written before the events advanced as fulfillment, the prophecies are either sufficiently vague as to easily have been fulfilled by accident (in the science of statistics we call this the P-value and the null hypothesis), or the fulfillment requires ignoring large portions of the prophecy or stretching the definition of the words.

You are using the prophecies in the Bible to argue that the Bible is divine through the use of debate tactics, where the goal is to convince, not to identify and advance truth through critical thinking and discussion. The goal of science is not to convince, and those of a rational scientific mind will be resistant to and skeptical of \"wall of text\" arguments that simply aim to convince. If you want to have a productive conversation with people like this, you need to address the issues and questions with a rational, coherent simple dialog, not the circularity, verbosity and repetition you\'ve shown to this point.

III. What you are describing are differences between *social* species and *isolationist* species, not between \"animal morals\" and \"human morals\".

Further, humans, as a social species, do indeed kill other humans in many situations that don\'t cause us to think of it as murder. Think about personal defense, wars and executions. How is that objective and absolute? We treat them differently on the basis that some types of killing \"feel\" OK and others do not. We can rationalize those feelings, but there is no escaping that they *start* as feelings.

If you\'d like to compare human behavior to the behavior of animals, perhaps start with known social species like chimpanzees. You may find our studies of their social behavior illuminating.

Let me put this another way: Consider an alternate world or universe in which God did not instill these objective absolute morals into His creations. Let us pretend in this fantasy-land that intelligent beings evolved, and that it turned out that social groups of these beings gave them a survival advantage over individuals that preferred to live alone. And so, whenever a mutation arose that seemed to strengthen the social group, that group was more likely to survive, and that mutation stayed around and over enough generations spread itself to every member of the group. What common feelings do you think this population would share, instinctively, about sharing, fairness, and killing? How can you differentiate these evolved, instinctive feelings, from an objective, absolute moral gift from a Creator?

This is the question that you need to answer. If there is no difference, then this entire conversation is pointless.

I. Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Racism has always been immoral because our Creator declared it so:

”Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and YOU know that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him.“ -1 Peter 3:15

“God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” -Acts 10:34,35

II.I- False. Isaiah 13:19,20, among others, could never have been recorded after the fact; it’s impossible. Your entire argument, therefore, is exposed as an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

II.II- Argumentum assertio. Try again.

III. Sure, altruism, to just mention one (and it’s a pretty big one): http://bit.ly/17xtRE3

"Greene’s diagnosis is, at its foundation, Darwinian: the impulses and inclinations that shape moral discourse are, by and large, legacies of natural selection, rooted in our genes. Specifically, many of them are with us today because they helped our ancestors realize the benefits of cooperation. As a result, people are pretty good at getting along with one another, and at supporting the basic ethical rules that keep societies humming.

Anyone who doubts that basic moral impulses are innate will have Paul Bloom’s book to contend with. He synthesizes research—much of it done by him and his wife, Karen Wynn—demonstrating that an array of morally relevant inclinations show up in infants and toddlers. His list of natural moral endowments includes “some capacity to distinguish between kind and cruel actions,” as well as “empathy and compassion—suffering at the pain of those around us and the wish to make this pain go away.” Bloom’s work has also documented “a rudimentary sense of justice—a desire to see good actions rewarded and bad actions punished.”"

~excerpt from www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/why-we-fightand-can-we-stop/309525/

As you’ve correctly surmised, the overwhelming majority of people are born with a conscience that reacts when they do something wrong.

The issue, however, is that, like any precision instrument, our conscience needs to be properly calibrated otherwise, like a compass disoriented by a magnet, it will leave us stranded. A clear example of this can be seen with child soldiers. These are more violent and vicious than their older counterparts.

“More than 300,000 children—some as young as 7—are fighting as soldiers in 41 countries around the world,” said an Associated Press dispatch. Most are between the ages of 15 and 18. “Besides being used as front-line fighters, children are used to detect land mines and also as spies, porters and sex slaves, according to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.” Drugs are often administered to make children fearless. Those who refuse drugs are killed, said a 14-year-old rebel soldier in Sierra Leone. Regarding his fighting in 1999 when he was 15, a North African youth reported: “They put all the 15- and 16-year-olds in the front line while the army retreated. I was with 40 other kids. I was fighting for 24 hours. When I saw that only three of my friends were alive, I ran back.” The Coalition’s report stated that governments recruit children because of “their very qualities as children—they can be cheap, expendable and easier to condition into fearless killing and unthinking obedience.”

And so we arrive at the crux of our discussion. As we’ve seen whether or not a person has a conscience isn’t really the issue. It’s whether or not a person has a reliable conscience and whether or not he/she obeys it.

This dilemma calls to mind an old Cherokee legend. It goes something like this:

“An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."”

With that in mind, consider what another equally wise and ancient passage tells us.

“This is what Jehovah has said [] “I, Jehovah, am your God [Creator], the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments. Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.” - Isaiah 48:17,18 (Brackets mine.)

As any loving parent would, our Creator, Jehovah God, is keenly interested in our well-being and, to that end, instructs us on how to maintain and properly use the conscience he created us with.

To close, here’s a remarkable demonstration of this instruction at work as recorded in a leading international journal:

“In Liberia, Alex served as an altar boy in the Catholic Church. But at the age of 13, he joined a warring faction and became a notorious child soldier. To make himself brave in battle, he turned to witchcraft. Alex saw many of his companions killed, but he survived. In 1997 he met Jehovah’s Witnesses and found that they did not look down on him. Rather, they helped him to learn what the Bible says about violence. Alex left the army. As his faith began to grow, he followed the Bible command: “Let him turn away from what is bad and do what is good; let him seek peace and pursue it.”—1 Peter 3:11.

Meanwhile, a former child soldier named Samson came through the town where Alex now lived. He had been a choirboy but in 1993 became a soldier and got involved in drug abuse, spiritism, and immorality. In 1997 he was demobilized. Samson was heading for Monrovia to join a special security force when a friend persuaded him to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and as a result, he developed a Bible-based faith. This gave him the courage to abandon his warlike ways. Both Alex and Samson now live peaceful and moral lives. Could anything but Bible-based faith make changes in lives that had been so brutalized?” - http://bit.ly/18WopZ0

Is it apparent to you now why we all need to read and apply what the Bible teaches? :)

SOME of what the bible teaches, I can agree to that sort of statement, otherwise, I would've killed dozens of college friends back in the day so that I wouldn't have "suffered a witch to live"

And you would have been wrong had you done so. After all, do Pakistan's laws apply in Japan or Canada?

In that case, where do the bible's laws apply, other than the Dark Ages?

These are the universal Laws God has given us:

‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment."

"The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets." -Matthew 22:37-40

btw, where do you get off spouting such things as "without god we'd be raping infants ad infinitum because we want to and no social morality without god" and turn it into "oh well people take kids and make them soldiers because young minds and stuff"?

Where do I say any of that?

7 More Responses

Hey maxmiliilion think u have jumped the gun a bit there son, gone off one, I was saying scientific explanations for fossils etc which puts the so called 'evolutionary theory' in black and white there for all to see do you not agree mate?

That\'s fine but you also claimed \"there Is a scientific reason behind everything\", hence my queries.

To me there Is a scientific reason behind everything. The things that cannot be described, science has YET to find an answer for as it is still advancing

Happy Sunday Miggsy!

I find your statement to be very curious. For instance:

What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence clearly establishes that Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492 or that Yuri Gagarin was the very first man to ever journey to space?

What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there proving it’s wrong to rape a little girl to death?

What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there which proves you should treat others with dignity, respect and beneficence?

You talk of raping little girls a LOT maxx...and I mean, it seems like every other week I check old EP stories, and I see you mention it at least twice, why the fixation on raping little girls?

What demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there that we should lead our lives according to the moral and social values of bronze-age tribes?

Hi Max, your argument presupposes morals are absolute and objective. I know these words mean the opposite to you as they do for me, but because something "feels" wrong does not mean there is a rational purpose, goal or judgment behind that feeling. You believe there is, because you already believe in a God, and you've been taught that God provides these things. If you are attempting to advance this as an argument *proving* God, you need to prove, among other things, why this *can't* be a simple instinctive feeling, and why, if the source of this is a supernatural being, why it can't be any *other* supernatural being than the one your religion teaches you. And please remember that your argument can't be circular: you can't use the divinity of the Bible or a belief in God to make points supporting God's existence.

@Fast

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Evil exists.
(3) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
(5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

In other words, as Dostoevsky once mused, \"If there is no God, everything is permitted.\"

\"(2) Evil exists.\" [citation needed]

Things exist that most people *feel* are evil. \"Good and evil\" are both expressions of moral values. You can\'t prove the existence of objective morality by saying \"objective morals exist.\" Just because everyone shares a common feeling does not mean there is a rational, objective purpose behind those feelings. You still need to prove that this can\'t be instinct.

I reject your proof that your god is the only god because it relies upon the divinity of the Bible, which makes your argument circular. We\'ve talked about this already.

@Fast

I. If the Neo-Nazis were to attain world domination and exterminated everyone who thought racism was wrong, would that suddenly make racism and bigotry moral?

II. Strawman. Try again.

I. Almost certainly. When do you believe racism began to be considered immoral? You would probably respond that your religion teaches, today, that its interpretation is the Original Interpretation, and therefore universal, objective, absolute truth, and all these many thousands of years of racism were just because people didn\'t know how to properly read the Bible until you guys rediscovered it. Am I close?

II. Round and around we go. Jehovah is the only God because the Bible says so. The Bible is divine (and its say-so is truth) because it contains prophecies that came true. The stories are prophecies because the Bible says they were written before the events, and not after. We believe the Bible when it says this because... it\'s divine! Also, a religious historian believes it. That makes it fact, right?

Also, you\'re still lacking proof that it can\'t be simple instinct and culture shaping morality. If you\'re going to argue that it must come from God, you have to demonstrate that it can not have come from the obvious alternative.

@Fast

As far as why only the God of the Bible, Jehovah, is the only Creator, this is easily arrived at since only the Bible possesses the distinctive characteristics of a work of preternatural origin: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl

7 More Responses

Hitler was a Christian. There's bad in every bunch, and pointing that out doesn't make you right.

If Hitler was a Christian then the Pope is an atheist.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”
(Adolph Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941)

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
(Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936)

Thank you,newjaninev2!

I love you Janine.

i'm just waiting for Max's denials that catholics are real christians, or that Hitler's catholicism was real christianity, or that christians in general are real christians...

Right. Hitler was Catholic but not a Christian. If he was a Christian then Billy Graham's an Atheist.

So Max, according to Max, is authoritative on who is, or is not, a christian... which is a really handy way of weaseling away from inconvenient or uncomfortable realities... just redefine reality

These "publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort." - Titus 1:16

1. a quote from some book
2. an assumption that you can identify 'they'

Max defines Christian as a Jehovah's Witness. He does not use the normal definition of the word. You'll need to work around this when trying to communicate with him; he will not work around it when trying to communicate with you, despite knowing that everyone else defines the word differently.

@Fast

Correction: The Bible defines Christians as sedulous witnesses of Jehovah God.

Rationalize your definition of the word however you like. The bottom line is that you are deriving a definition of the term from an interpretation of the Bible that few others who routinely use the word share. As much as you\'d perhaps like to \"take back\" the definition and deprive other self-labeled Christians of the right to use the word, the fact is that you are using the word not to communicate (we require a common language to effectively communicate), but, instead, to manufacture confusion and then capitalize on that confusion so as to begin a separate conversation about the meaning of Christianity where you can proselytize for Jehovah\'s Witnesses. This is disrespectful and disingenuous.

Actually, fastolfe, i'm not really inclined to make allowances for Max's foibles. Neither he nor his cult have licence to redefine the English lexicon.

10 More Responses

"If atheism solved all human woe, then the Soviet Union would have been an empire of joy and dancing bunnies, instead of the land of corpses." - John C Wright

I don't think any atheist ever claimed that atheism solved all human woe. The only thing an atheist claims is that he or she doesn't believe in any god.

What of the part where it said " the Soviet Union would have been an empire of joy and dancing bunnies, instead of the land of corpses"? If atheists truly love their fellowman, as is claimed in the above story, why have they perpetrated horrific acts against humanity?

There are all sorts of atheists, just as there are all sorts of theists.
Some atheists love their fellowman and some don't. Stalin didn't.
I repeat, the only thing all atheists have in common is that they dont believe in the existence of any gods.
The writer of the original story is confused; he describes a humanist, not an atheist.

Would you say your belief in the inexistence of God is based on fact or presumption?

So you turn my position into a belief - my "belief in the inexistence of god". That's pretty weird. I think I know why - because that way I have to justify my belief (in god's inexistence) by supplying proof. However it is not my job to prove anything. I simply don't believe. I don't believe in any god or supreme being because nothing and no one has shown me anything which might convince me of a god's existence. And I do hope you will not try to convince me with quotes from the bible.

I'd only like to point out that your committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

What you claim is just as absurd as if, prior to 1939, you pompously proclaimed, "There's no such thing as Francium. There's simply no evidence for it's existence."

For you see, in rational thought, things are proven false based on positive evidence of their falsehood not on argumentum ex silentio fallacies.

This brief postmortem of your not-so-well thought out rationale glaringly lays bare why your atheistic philosophy is just plain lazy and sophistic.


“Unbelief is as much of a choice as belief is. What makes it in many ways more appealing is that whereas to believe in something requires some measure of understanding and effort, not to believe doesn't require much of anything at all.”
― Frederick Buechner

I've seen some of your debates with other non-believers, and I know you will always have the last word, mainly because the non-believers get tired. So this will be my last reply. If you consider it is due to laziness, that's ok by me. I really have nothing to add. I don't believe in god, and I don't have to prove anything to support my non-belief. I am not trying to convert anyone to non-belief. If anyone is interested in converting me to belief in god, they will have to supply the proof.

Happy to! Quick question, though, do you accept all evidence or just scientific evidence?

5 More Responses

No, an atheist is someone who rejects the belief of God. Nothing more.

1. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
2. You claim God absolutely does not exist.
3. You have limited and incomplete knowledge.

4. It's possible God exists outside your knowledge.
5. Therefore you can 'believe' God does not exist, but cannot prove it.
6. Therefore your claim can be summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.

“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.” ― Ravi Zacharias

Max, your copy-paste fails on (2)
All after that becomes irrelevant.
Try reading what Walnut wrote before answering

I want to prove there Is no god

What you describe as an atheist to me is a better description of an all around good person. I am very much the same except I have very strong spiritual beliefs and I don't like any religion. In the end though I think that it doesn't matter if we believe or not as long a we do our best to be good people and help each other out as you describe. secondly thoughi don't think any of us have all the right answers as to who or what or even if God is.

I can't figure out why people want to believe in a person that don't exist. It's like believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause. Why don't they give money to those people too. They only know what people have preached to them since they are young. What if there is no such person and look at all the money has been spent on no one.
I would rather it be spent on people today that are down on their luck or living in the streets.
At least then we could see the money at working and helping the needy.
Instead we continue giving money away for someone to preach more worthless words to us so they can feel good about themselves.
Just think we could even pay down the US deficit with all that money going no where.

1. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
2. You claim God absolutely does not exist.
3. You have limited and incomplete knowledge.

4. It\'s possible God exists outside your knowledge.
5. Therefore you can \'believe\' God does not exist, but cannot prove it.
6. Therefore your claim can be summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.

“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.” ― Ravi Zacharias

An atheist is on track. Any Christian that is really a Christian would agree with the atheist. The only difference between the two is one guesses the universe is infinite while the other guesses the universe is finite. It's trivial if they both agree on good, because for what isn't a guess is clear to both. The fly in the ointment here is that we have bad people in both schools that would not agree with this atheist.

The issue is that for genuine ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to exist morality cannot be relative for it places ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ at the mercy of mere caprice. Under such an ambivalent paradigm nothing is truly ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ making such terms completely otiose; expressing a distinction without a difference.

Trying to form a prosperous, harmonious society on such a miry foundation is like trying to build a fantastic neoteric megalopolis on quagmire. It\'s an exercise in “la bêtise”.

This is why we live in a world with more violence, abuse, strife, discord, sadism, hatred, bigotry, inequality, injustice, abject poverty, STDs and depravity, not less ...

I have already displayed how right and wrong are scientific qualities in another story. You\'ll have to forgive my dismissal of your \"relativistic morality\" statements. You may refer to my story on good and evil and how they are real and try again if you like. I\'m not going to bother rehashing it here just to explain I agree with your accuracy of the current state of the world but a complete disagreement as to the why of it.

What\'s the title of your story?

Chapter 1: Good And Evil And Just How Real They Are

The rub is the writing is totally invalid in a finite universe so the chapter itself is dismissed if you decide we are stuck in a finite state.

1 More Response

Atheists love their fellow man as long as their fellow man is also an atheist. Now I know this isn't always the case, but 99% of all the atheists I've ever met, are the rudest, and most insensitive to other people's beliefs, type of people that I've ever met. They act like anyone who believes in any sort of higher power, regardless of who it is, is some sort of un-evolved caveman.

Well, 99% of all theists I have met (of any religion which includes higher power) think they should convert non-believers to their religion, and consider their religion is the only correct one. They act like anyone who doesn't believe in their god, regardless of who it is, is wrong and needs to be converted, and if that person can't be converted he will go to their hell.

Yea, no argument here. Although, it's mostly Christians, and the like that do that stuff. It's like I always say, "Why can't people just live and let believe?" lol! I don't ever have any problem with people who believe differently than I do, as long as they don't go looking down their nose, and acting like they're better than me, just because of their beliefs.

Actually Godfree, your post describes a humanist, not an atheist. The only definition of an atheist is that he does not believe there is any god or divine creator. Don't be mistaken, some atheists are not nice people at all and don't care for their fellow men. Other atheists, such as those who really help those in need, are also humanists.

I cannot speak for other religions, but in the one in which I worship, we are taught to love our fellow man, not go to bed angry at our fellow man, and treat them as you would want them to be treated. We want poverty and disease vanquished as well. Those things really don't have anything to do with being religious or atheistic. It's just common sense.

I agree, this is a great post. Speaks the true meaning and i love your picture xD

Beautiful post.

Would it be sacreligions (or antisacreligious - or something) to say Amen?

The concepts (Ideas) are universal, you will find them in the teachings of the Buddha, The Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, the songs of praise to Athena and of course the teachings of your jesus's predecessor Mithra.<br />
But for atheists these teachings come without the baggage of gods, guilt, avatars, sins, sacrifices or magic talking animals. In other words atheist teachings as similar as they might be to christian have one big difference, they are grounded in reality

Happy Saturday!

If I may, to what reality are you referring to?

Oddly enough many of your ideas are very Christian. You seem to have met a bad example of Christianity in your life. Of course there are many narrow-minded so called 'Christians' in the world, and especially throughout history. God has warned us about them: 'You shall know them by their fruit'. Why not log into Joyce Meyer's website to find out what real Christianity is all about? You may be surprised to find out that you have many ideas in common!

Happy Saturday!

If you could clarify, what does science have to do with the question of God\'s existence?

I really like this. I feel like this is a point I wish more people would understand and I wish more people would focus on real life and the world and being a good person here just because they should be. <br />
<br />
Thank you.

Happy Saturday!

A question if I may. Are you suggesting theists are delusional?

Hmm . . . I believe 80% of this yet still believe in God.

I must commend you on a very well written account of Atheism. I think people mistakenly imagine that we walk around wild and unclothed and are prone to devouring small children when we aren't being beaten back with whips and chains.<br />
<br />
Thank you for dispelling that myth, Godfree.

The city of Fort Collins, Colorado used to always have a city sponsored Christmas Display every year. Last year the local Atheist s protested that this was the support f a religion by a public office. <br />
<br />
So this past Christmas season Fort Collins, Colorado set up 4 areas around their town , each dedicaicated to a group's religion.<br />
<br />
The Christians had an area where the traditional manger & crib scene was displayed. <br />
Jewish people had an area where the seven candles of Hanukkah were shown.<br />
The black People had an area showing their special day, Kwangju.<br />
and the Atheists had an empty field.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
hPra 4 areas around town, each to a

A doctrine makes a religion? You might wish to cross refrence your beliefs with our lord Mirian Webster. <br />
That aside. You see the difference between the religious and the non religious people is not that they hold an opinion but instead from where that opinion is dserived from.<br />
Non religious people gather thier ideas of morality from the human condition, both past and present with a view to the future. Religious people are taught thier morality from ancient books generally authored by divine beings. They receive thier instructions in the form of disembodied voices only they can hear.<br />
Non religious people are forced to draw conclusions from trial and error, inspection, observation and notation. A non religious person is asked to prove his findings or at least show the work leading to his conclusions. A religious person is asked to exercise faith and as Mark Twain said "faith is believing in things you know aint true"<br />
If I might end this little blurb with just one more quotation, I do not know who to attribute authorship to but it is a nice summation "If atheism is a religion then good health is a disease"

You say, \"a non religious person is asked to prove his findings\". I wonder, then, what demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there proving it’s wrong to rape a little girl to death? Also, what demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable, replicable evidence is there which proves you should treat others with dignity, respect and beneficence?

wow an Atheist sounds just like what God wants from us. To love thy neighbor, to treat others the way you would want to be treated. To give to others and to be kind to everyone else. <br />
<br />
Sounds like Atheism has a doctrine and is therefore a religion with beliefs. But belief I guess is only for those bible thumpers right?

Whatever he desire and it is materialised he can call himself as AETHIST.<br />
<br />
Though best efforts are put by that man, but if it is happening beyond his expectations or more than his capacity, whom he will allegate whether he will curse humself or pass the blame to socalled <br />
bortherlevels( whom they will question him or antogosnising withhim) or the powers beyond his thinking levels. Some body should be there beyond our vision to take that allegations. That is how<br />
another power to absorb our allegations known as GOD.

I love how a lot of religious people claim to see or talk to god or Jesus on a daily basis. If that really is the case, take a picture, record his voice, show us proof. Until I see some sound proof, I refuse to follow the brainwashed and controlled to church

Its called faith.

@Viperman

I concur. Believing in imaginary people is just silly. Just as silly, in fact, as believing the universe came from nothing, by nothing for nothing. You don\'t really believe everything just \"poofed\" into existence 13.70 billion years ago now, do you?

Atheism by definition is to be against theism, not to deny God or that God exists. I am against mych of the theism that exists today as well however, I DO believe in God. People who do not beileve in God are, by definition, Agnostic. Pick up the correct banner to wave if you are going to lead a march.

Wow, interesting comments. Atheism is not a very big thing in Europe. Some days ago, I read this analyse in the newspaper that 57% of American hospital workers believe more in the help of God than medical help. I think that says enough. <br />
<br />
I think that believers need their God to choose for them. Realists prefer otherwise. <br />
<br />
It must be hard to get somewhere in a place so ruled by religion....