Thread: Why are you an atheist?

Originally Posted by ExoByte

You just broke english.

That happens to be an actual term.

Atheist / Agnostic-Atheist / Neutral Agnostic / Agnostic-Theist / Theist

English broke English.

Though, on the broadest level, most people are agnostic. Most Atheists believe that god doesn't exists, but realize that we cannot know for sure. Just as a lot of god believers realize they cannot know for sure. But it makes no real difference as a true agnostic doesn't lean either way.

Originally Posted by wasup

Err, atheism is simply not believing in god(s). So yes, if they didn't believe in god, they were atheists. And before organized religion came along, there were atheists. And after it came along, there were still atheists. It is ridiculous that YOU think a belief came before a lack of belief.

In deference to your established difficulties with reading comprehension, I'll repeat myself:

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The neurological or linguistic incapacity to believe in gods is not the same as the decision to reject them. We've been personifying aspects of our experience probably longer than we've been able to tell each other what we're personifying. Most likely there were also people who didn't bother personifying and a few of each who thought everyone who didn't think like them was stupid, but does it make sense to call these homonids atheists and theists? The whole argument over who came first is ridiculous.

If you want to believe that the period before hominids came to perceive natural forces and social dynamics as powerful entities was a form of atheism, go ahead, but it was not identical to your informed rejection of theism. Atheists have philosophical positions and ontological biases within a range no broader than the various Christian denominations, and founded upon the same Classical roots. The fact that they don't include theism doesn't make atheism a non-position or a-historical null state. It's not The Truth: just one worldview among many, as rooted in our historical moment as any other. Arguing over whether cave men were theists or atheists makes no more sense than debating whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

I changed my sig quote.

You guys like it?

Originally Posted by wasup

What the fuck at the comment about "atheism not existing longer than theism." Atheism is simply not being in a god or gods. Are you telling me that people began to believe in god(s) before they didn't believe in gods? That doesn't even make any sense. Think about it. Ever since people began believing in god(s), there has been atheism. And before that, everyone was an atheist. Think about it.

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Definition 1 refers to atheism as a "belief" or "doctrine" that there is no God. This means that there must be an active, logical consideration as to circumstances regarding some stimuli in the environment, and a conclusion drawn from this. A lack of consideration of the matter thus does not amount to atheism.

This point is utterly consistent with definition 2 as it uses the word "disbelief", which is synonomous with a "denial of", which would obviously require consideration of the mater of whether God exists. What does this imply as to which came first? Thus a simple lack of consideration of the matter of "God", as it were, does not amount to atheism.

Let me put it in an analogy. Left wing, socialists love to help others (welfare .....), while traditional conservatives have a laissez-faire reluctance. These are relatively modern political terms. Now for the analogy.... I am an isolated caveman, living 10's of thousands of years ago, I am selfish and hate to help others, in order to promote my own existence. Does this make me a conservative?

I am still unclear as to which came first, its certainly a complicated issue, but I don't think that one can say with any degree of certainty that one came before the other.

Originally Posted by wasup

What the fuck at the comment about "atheism not existing longer than theism." Atheism is simply not being in a god or gods. Are you telling me that people began to believe in god(s) before they didn't believe in gods? That doesn't even make any sense. Think about it. Ever since people began believing in god(s), there has been atheism. And before that, everyone was an atheist. Think about it.

Before religion we were not all atheists. Before religion we were just unaware and never thought of it, or thought "what happens?" but that was it.
Atheists do not believe, back then it wasn't we did "not believe", it was more we "didn't know".

In regards to the relevance of the topic, it surely is relevant because many of you have cited that it is indeed relevant. Many have said that Christianity is more valid because it has existed so long ("argument" against flying spaghetti monster). I bring up atheism to actually show that by that logic, atheism is much more valid

Secondly, we are just arguing semantics here. But ultimately it comes down to this -- before any belief existed, it didn't exist. I don't think that this concept is that hard to grasp. Secondly, let's pretend that indeed, atheism cannot exist without theism. Even then, when the first person believed in a god and shared that belief, there were many who did not believe in the concept. So atheism, demanding on your definition, either existed since the existence of life, or since the creation of theistic doctrines.

Originally Posted by wasup

In regards to the relevance of the topic, it surely is relevant because many of you have cited that it is indeed relevant. Many have said that Christianity is more valid because it has existed so long ("argument" against flying spaghetti monster). I bring up atheism to actually show that by that logic, atheism is much more valid

Secondly, we are just arguing semantics here. But ultimately it comes down to this -- before any belief existed, it didn't exist. I don't think that this concept is that hard to grasp. Secondly, let's pretend that indeed, atheism cannot exist without theism. Even then, when the first person believed in a god and shared that belief, there were many who did not believe in the concept. So atheism, demanding on your definition, either existed since the existence of life, or since the creation of theistic doctrines.

i.e. what I said.

You guys are kinda missing the whole definition of Athiesm.

It's really simple you are just complicating it:

A - the - ist

"A" -- Meaning 'Without'

"Theism" -- meaning theology be it personal spirituality or organized religion.

Thus, before Theology, everything and everyone was Atheist.

When Theology came, there were atheists.

When theology goes, there will be Atheists. If anything is a constant, it is that.

Therefore: Atheism > Theism

Think of it this way:

"Before you have something, you don't have it"

No, everybody is missing the point of the argument.

No matter what the terminology of Atheism is:

1. Lack of belief in God/Gods existed before initial belief in them. It wasn't called Atheism because Gods didn't exist.

2. It is impossible for religion to have been standard from the beginning. Spirituality, maybe, but not religion.

3. Religion was formed as a way to categorize spirituality, and eventually became a way to enforce belief in either a form or spirituality or a synthetic fairy tale which served as a substitute for religion.

Are you sure?

I always thought it would have been: Religion --> Spirituality.

When you argue from an atheist perspective, you're not simply demonstrating an "absence of theism," but active disbelief in theism and adherence to a different set of values. While you can posit a definition of atheism broad enough to include cacti and igneous rock, because they're not demonstrating theism, to do so is disingenuous and does nothing to support your position.

Hahahaha...

I was demonstrating that at root that's what the word means

Obviously if oyu look at it from the:

"You can't disagree with an idea until that idea is thought" then you are sunk as well.

But regardless, Atheism is the oldest philosophical ground today.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

When you argue from an atheist perspective, you're not simply demonstrating an "absence of theism," but active disbelief in theism and adherence to a different set of values. While you can posit a definition of atheism broad enough to include cacti and igneous rock, because they're not demonstrating theism, to do so is disingenuous and does nothing to support your position.

I don't think that I said that part. I just said the basic argument of the topic at hand.

Can we agree that coelacanths were Jainists?

To actually get down to the etymology of "Atheism" most of you that call yourselves Atheists have actually proven yourselves to be "Anti-theists," even in this thread alone, which is a more accurate label.

So, if you're going to argue the semantics then refer to yourselves as what you are. If you have ever said or implied that God "does not exist," and you want to try to get technical about the terminology, you shall here-forward, call yourselves anti-theists.

This is much different from the literal translation of "atheist" which, yes, simply means "without a belief in God," whether that be an agnostic or anti-theist. I believe it's very important to make a distinction between yourselves - who believe, actively, that God does not exist - and those without an established belief that he does, but is open to the possibility.

Im going to answer the orginal question.


im an atheist many becuase i started to think about god,the bible,jesus and realized its just a bunch of bull.

Can someone resurrect from the dead? no

Is there any real prove that god exists? no

Was jesus real? yes

was he a god? no

Did he trick people into believing him? yes

was jesus a smart man? yes

its just not possible, i was raised a christian since a child so i was brain-washed with it all --just like alot of people. i stop believing in god when i realized i should listen to reason, gravity makes people go down not floating into the sky, people cant be brought back from the dead after rotting for 3 days(Lazarus). its all crap. like all of the regilious leaders :muhammad, jospeh smith, jesus-- these people tricked others into believing what they saw.

muhammad -had a vision

jospeh smith - claimed he found 2 gold tablets and read his bible outa a hat(which was a common trick back then)

jesus- claims hes the son of god, payed people to jump up for him when he touches them (not hard to do).

all these man were great public speakers. they decieved people back when it was easy, everyone was poor and unschooled. couldnt be done now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I believe it's very important to make a distinction between yourselves - who believe, actively, that God does not exist - and those without an established belief that he does, but is open to the possibility.

However, you must remember there aren't just extremes. One may believe that a certain god or gods don't exist, but may be open o other deities. That would sill be atheism no?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

However, you must remember there aren't just extremes. One may believe that a certain god or gods don't exist, but may be open o other deities. That would sill be atheism no?

Very true. However the sort people I'm addressing have openly expressed their disbelief in any god or diety. I'm saying nothing of those who do believe in other versions.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

To actually get down to the etymology of "Atheism" most of you that call yourselves Atheists have actually proven yourselves to be "Anti-theists," even in this thread alone, which is a more accurate label.

So, if you're going to argue the semantics then refer to yourselves as what you are. If you have ever said or implied that God "does not exist," and you want to try to get technical about the terminology, you shall here-forward, call yourselves anti-theists.

This is much different from the literal translation of "atheist" which, yes, simply means "without a belief in God," whether that be an agnostic or anti-theist. I believe it's very important to make a distinction between yourselves - who believe, actively, that God does not exist - and those without an established belief that he does, but is open to the possibility.

No.

I deny the truth of any human theology, but reserve possiblity for a "higher being". Not an ominipotent magic man, men or woman.

Then I wasn't talking to you.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You guys are kinda missing the whole definition of Athiesm.

It's really simple you are just complicating it:

A - the - ist

"A" -- Meaning 'Without'

"Theism" -- meaning theology be it personal spirituality or organized religion.

Thus, before Theology, everything and everyone was Atheist.

When Theology came, there were atheists.

When theology goes, there will be Atheists. If anything is a constant, it is that.

Therefore: Atheism > Theism

Think of it this way:

"Before you have something, you don't have it"

What you are missing is the very distinct possibility that the beliefs of those existing before any of the current theologies were most likely still closer to theistic beliefs than a-theistic ones. As I've said before, I think you would be hard pressed to point to a time in history that was the exact beginning of all theology and what you would most likely find is something that could be called theology, from which theology evolved from, dating back as far as any form of language and perhaps even before. Regardless, there is no default position on this subject. The default position on the question of whether or not there is a god is ignorance of the question, which is not the same thing as atheism.

Obviously if oyu look at it from the:

"You can't disagree with an idea until that idea is thought" then you are sunk as well.

But regardless, Atheism is the oldest philosophical ground today.

.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You guys are kinda missing the whole definition of Athiesm.

It's really simple you are just complicating it:

A - the - ist

"A" -- Meaning 'Without'

"Theism" -- meaning theology be it personal spirituality or organized religion.

Thus, before Theology, everything and everyone was Atheist.

When Theology came, there were atheists.

When theology goes, there will be Atheists. If anything is a constant, it is that.

Therefore: Atheism > Theism

Think of it this way:

"Before you have something, you don't have it"

Atheist is a non believer, you're not a non believer if you don't know what you are not going to not believe. Everyone is not all Atheists way back then, hence the non believing part. NON believing NON believing NON believing compared to NOT knowing. Big difference.