I don’t believe in everything you do. You don’t believe in everything I do. We’re the same.

Atheism is sampling of various religions (reading religious texts, joining religious activities) and then based on that research and those experiences, making an informed rejection of the possibility of a “god or gods” outside of our own minds. “God” is a concept created by man, not vice versa.

Religions that endorse “god(s)” (you know, 99% of them) are a flimsy construct that can be bent to fit a specific narrative. Stories mortal men created to make people fearful and obedient. Proof there’s no god? The fact that mortals play god with no consequences. I read that’s a BIG god no-no.

Exactly. The Burden of Proof lies on the one making the claim/assertion. Atheism specifically and only rejects the assertion that any gods exist. Of the roughly 2500 gods asserted, none have met the criteria for evidence to justify a belief in any of them.

Theists claim God is Atheists claim God isn't Both bear the burden of proof, except that neither statement is provable

If an atheist is claiming there is no gods, then that is a fundamentally illogical claim. I'm not aware that atheists claim that though. If they did, then correct...one cannot prove a negative.

That is what atheists claim, though. Still, as Isaac Asimov once wrote, "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge ...(1/2)

If any Atheist claims that, then they are just dumb. Never make a negative claim, it is unprovable and illogical.

I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (3/3)

... one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. (2/3)

I'm atheist and I don't claim that. I cannot prove that there's no God, just as I cannot prove that there are no little pink aliens on Pluto... but until there's evidence for them, I reject the notion that they're real.

It's almost as if atheists aren't a monolithic group. Also, the aliens on Pluto like to call themselves Plutonians. And they're more of a magenta.

You seem to have mixed up atheists and agnostics, an atheist by definition believes that there 100% is no form of God, you clearly are an agnostic yourself if you believe no one can prove a negative, which I agree because I'm one as well.

Nope, that is absolutely not what an atheist or atheism is by definition. I am an atheist. I am not agnostic. I don't "believe" a negative cannot be proven. I accept the fundamental tenant of logic that states a negative cannot be proven.

Atheists do not "claim God isn't." That isn't atheism.

So you believe that Klombradrov is the one True God of the Universe! Awesome!

Some atheists do positively assert that no gods exists. They do bear a burden of proof. But atheism requires only a passive rejection or lack of god belief. Positive disbelief is not required. You claim there's a god. As an atheist, I don't believe you. Meet your burden.

Nobody bears any burden of proof. If believers are fine believing and not demanding everyone else do so, and atheists are fine not believing without demanding everyone else not believe, everything's cool. Nobody has to prove anything to anybody. And they can't anyway.

Without citing your own preferred religious text, disprove the existence of Zeus, Shiva, and the Shinto Kami. If you can't, you have to accept that they're all real. The theist argument becomes absurd when applied en masse.

Yes, I can: the burden of proof is on the assertor of existence. The concept of a vacuum and even the number zero have been invented haha If you say there is something on the plate and I say there is not and we are both looking at an empty plate, the burden is only on you.

(Not arguing with you, just to be clear)

I consider myself an atheist, but I don’t claim that God or Gods don’t exist. I simply don’t believe in them. At all. So I guess I’m a non-believer.

No. Atheist want PROOF of any god. That's not a "claim."

Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. There is no burden of proof on that position. Theists are making a claim about the existence of something therefore they do have the burden of proof.

God does exist in the mind of the believer — that's where every deity ever created by humans for human purposes begins and ends. Atheists have no burden because there is no evidence to disprove!

That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is and how the burden of proof works. If you claim god exists, you have to produce something that corroborates the claim that is separate from the claim itself (i.e saying the Bible is the proof nonsense) All an atheist has to do is wait.

Respectfully disagree that BOTH bear the burden of proof. One side isn’t using their unprovable beliefs to control others.

Your second sentence is a whole different topic Your first sentence sets easier rules for the side you support Neither responds to the point

Hmmm. I would have to say that atheism proves more that there is no god since theists would have to prove there is. And if a god exists, I’d like to know how evil continues to blanket the world with wars, cancers, psycho leaders, mass killings, thieves, rapists, pedos, and money grubbing jerks.

Athiests aren't making claims. Many antitheists incorrectly label themselves as athiests, though. People tend to struggle--conceptually--with the "a-" prefix, so it usually gets treated as a synonym for "anti-".

The hell they aren't

I Don't know what "God" you refer here. Can you describe it?

No, we (atheists), don't claim any gods don't exist. We claim that we haven't been presented with satisfactory evidence to *support* acceptance of *any* god claims, not just your particular flavor of god claims. *Some* atheists do make such an assertion, *they* have a burden of proof. I don't.

Get real

Nope, the one making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Proving a negative isn’t typically something that should be expected in discourse.

I’m an atheist. I don’t claim anything, I just disbelieve the assertion that a god or gods exist.

Besides the Bible has been proven many times to be true.

So you believe in Evolution. A religion that after all these years has never once shown facts. I’ll put my belief in God. You just look at the human body and its incredible cells creations and realize ITS CREATED BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

For me, atheism asserts that there is no magical deity intervening in our daily lives. It also rejects the existence of anything supernatural. All that happens is governed by the physical laws of the universe.

Isn't that agnostic? I'm an atheist, I say god doesn't exist

An agnostic is one who does not have set beliefs, because they do not know. It is more believing that many things could be right, and not feeling you have a personal foundation to attach to any of them. An atheist is one who believes that no god exists. So a specific belief *against* things.

I’ve heard and read about this topic. I settled with Matt Dillahunty’s view of what atheism is. When you brainiacs reach a consensus let us know.

I too am a Matt Dillahunty fan. Many of his atheist co-horts, I have found, agree what atheism is. Unlike a majority of the posters on this thread. I especially enjoy Forrest Valkai (sp?). His energy and passion is intoxicating.

I also like the DZ Debates. What’s puzzling is that people calling into these shows are so misinformed science and religion. But, the trees!

I'll have to check that out. Given the level of education most of the people that call in have, I've stopped being surprised about their misinformation. What does surprise me is how many, long debunked talking points, are continuously recycled. It is so stupid.

Strange that I watch these. Sure the logical dissembling are educational, but I think it’s like watching those crazy videos where people do dumb shit like trying to pet a wild buffalo.

But I think that response might be as clear as what I was aiming for. What was said was that they disbelieve one or more gods, which is atheism - belief against any gods. I think the 'not claiming anything' bit created some confusion, but I think the intention was not telling others what to think.

Hmmm. Many atheists (esp here) absolutely *do* tell others what to think, and I'm not convinced that the OP is an exception. And as others have pointed out "there is no God" is just as much of a claim / article of personal belief [that doesn't have or need proof] as "there is a God".

Taken to its logical conclusion, should we also rejects Atheists claim if *they* fail to prove it?

When you say OP, I'm not sure if you misunderstood that I was referring to what JLo said about not claiming anything. Many people claim many things, and I'm referring to the distinction between belief and claim. And not sure why you think I'm talking about whether you should reject anything?

Sorry, yes, I misunderstood "the intention" - took it to mean "the intention in the original poster" rather than, your intention.

I got it, I think i misread their response. Thank you

Atheism is not an assertion that there is no god, it’s disbelief of the assertion that there IS one. Agnosticism is the belief that there may or may not be a god. It’s saying “I’m not entirely convinced by your claim, but I think it could be true” whereas I don’t believe it could

I think this is where a lot of the discussion gets hung up, of course. Getting into semantics of individual words, but I would say that if you're disagreeing with me, we're saying essentially the same. My distinction is that belief is internal, assertion is what you argue to others.

Thus atheism, I would say, is the belief (your own thought) that there are no gods. Your disbelief of their assertion, their argument, believing that they are wrong, is a belief that there are no gods.

That's not what atheism is. First understand what theism is; theism is belief in the existence of a god or gods. Just as "atypical" is not- typical, and "asymmetry" is without- symmetry, "atheism" is not- or without- theism. Belief is a thing. Non-belief is not a thing.

Nope. Atheism is simply a rejection of the claim theists make. That's it. It is nothing more than that.

I see no reason to believe there are any gods, but because I cannot prove a negative I don’t make the assertion that I know something unprovable for a fact. To me, claiming to know something without evidence to support it is faith.

Hmm... I think you might conflating a couple of terms. Belief isn't the same as knowing. Belief is simply what you have accepted to be true, and you can believe without thinking you know with any certainty.

Atheism is not a belief. It is used to give someone or something a name. I don’t believe in a god or any gods that’s it.

Incorrect. "I don't believe your assertion" means "I don't believe your assertion." It doesn't follow that because "I don't believe your assertion" that therefore there must be no gods. I am agnostic on that. I do not know if there are no gods.

Again, getting into semantics of individual words. If you would say you're agnostic on it, given that agnostic means you're not going one way or the other, then I would not call that atheist. That's just agnostic. On the 'assertion' thing again -

Atheism includes _both_. You can be an atheist who rejects the assertion that gods exist or you can be an atheist that asserts gods don't exist. The term covers both. You might be better off identifying as an agnostic. It would reject both assertions due to lack of information.

Since atheism relates to belief and agnosticism relates to knowledge, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. I describe myself as an "agnostic atheist": I don't believe in a god, but I can't know for sure that there isn't one out there somewhere.

Precisely. You're an agnostic and a subset of atheists. As am I. And when discussing the existence of gods in a knowledge-centric context, it's more descriptive and relevant to identify as an agnostic than an atheist.

I don’t mind calling myself an agnostic atheist, but I find calling myself *just* an agnostic implies that I think there’s a possibility of a deity out there somewhere, which I don’t.

Saying “I don’t see how this could be true” is not the same as saying “I know for a fact this could not possibly be true”

You don't see how you're playing with semantics here, contradicting yourself in a paragraph? Atheism IS the belief that there is no god. And agnosticism doesn't say that "it could be true". It says that the question is irrelevant because it is unknowable.

WOW...that is a new level of fractal wrongness. Changing the meaning of words to fit your narrative only displays the depths of dishonesty you are willing to go. You should stop posting, seriously.

Educate me without contradicting yourself and I'll gladly leave.

Not my job, nor am I obligated to do so. Educate yourself and stop with the dishonesty. It is really simple.

And sorry this was more for the entire thread, not just you

Hey, I'm sorry I asked the question, y'all need to chill, its the internet, not a PhD dissertation

😂 Guessing I contributed to the PhD bit with the way I worded things. Would agree, though. I just meant to try to help people understand each other, but people are so primed to fight about it.

I didn't mind your comments, they were attempting and helpful, making me see my error, but waking up to over 35 comment notifications over a simple misread on my behalf is quite absurd. Apologies to the OP original poster and the OC original commenter that this all spiraled out of control

I'm just here for the cognitive dissonance

As a militant atheist, I think we might get along lol

Then that’s a positive claim that moves the burden of proof to you. “I don’t believe you” is not the same as saying “I know for a fact you are wrong.” But that doesn’t mean I’m on the fence as to whether or not I believe their claim

ssshhhh. let rock mountain and people like that both siderism. they will have nothing else to do if you take it away!

That's not what I've done but you enjoy your high horse

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Agnostics rule. People are silly IMHO to claim there is or there isn’t. We all have to stay tuned and find out.

Agree

Atheist don’t “believe” anything. That’s what theists do. Atheists reject beliefs with no evidence to support them.

That's agnostic, homes Atheists assert the equally unprovable nullity of god

Hasty Generalization Fallacy No, they don't. Stop lying. Very few do this. The majority simply reject the assertion/claim that any gods exist due to zero evidence brought forth to support said assertion/claim. Rejection of a claim is NOT an assertion of it's negative.

It's not a generalization it's literally the definition of the words. You're describing the philosophy of agnosticism more than atheism. Simply because atheism does assert the negative of theism. Hence the prefix A.

Nope.

So, words can have lots of meanings. If you're using "atheist" to mean "actively asserts that gods don't exist", then in a situation where ppl also accept that definition, fine. But if you're talking to ppl who use the term differently, e.g. "a lack of belief in any gods," then you're at odds. 1/3

Among many self-described atheists, we do NOT use the definition you're claiming, and nobody has an authority over what words mean. It's helpful for communicating if we can agree on terms, so if you actually mean to communicate, then it would be useful if you'd seek some consensus of terms. 2/3

So this back & forth ✝️ "it means X" ⚛️ "no it means Y" ✝️ "No it doesn't! You're wrong!" … is pointless & a waste of everyone's energy. You don't like a certain position, fine, argue against that position. Quibbling semantics of a specific word & definition is arguing just to argue. Pointless. 3/3

We disagree.

I don’t feel any burden to prove or disprove made up stories. I don’t try to prove or disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny and many other made up human myths either. I have no interest in it. There are too many real issues to deal with in life. But you’re correct about it not being provable.

The Romans were renowned for recording everything. From buying something or selling. To dealing with lands and its people. No where is there record in Roman text of a man they called Jesus. The bible is man made written 300 years after the events it describes.

As already stated atheists don’t have to prove there is no god, how can you prove something you don’t believe in. Theists have to prove that there is a god because they believe that a god exists.

Do you believe you have no clones? If not you must prove there isn’t one since it is your claim, correct?

That's not how this works. But judging by your responses to other reasonable posters, you aren't interested in reasonable, only in being right. Good luck with that...

I’m sorry, how does one prove something is not ? Just asking , no disrespect intended.

A review of the savagery, the exploitation, the suffering, the violence and the inhumanity all throughout human history, as well as the errors & contradictions in the Bible/Quran etc, IMO, prove there is no caring/compassionate god. For theists, proof isn’t necessary; faith is sufficient.

Atheists claim there are no gods not just YOUR god. They also aren’t required to prove elephants can’t fly.

I didn't say I had a personal god If you say elephants can't fly, it remains your burden of proof If only proving that there is no such thing as God were as simple as that elephant fact Although elephants loaded into cargo planes or hoisted by heli-cranes do, in a sense, fly

I apologize. Most folks who bash atheists on social media are Christians in my experience (do I have to prove my experience?). But, for a giggle, do you believe in a god? (Be careful or you might burn in Hell for eternity if you deny Yahweh.)

Atheists do not make any claim.* (*Some may, but the claim is unfounded.) Whether or not god(s) exist is a matter of belief, which atheists don't have.

Actually, it's a matter of faith, not belief. Belief is when there exists some rational proof for an assertion. Faith is belief without rational proof to support it. It's said that if you could prove the existence of a god, then faith would not be necessary... a true statement about the 2 words.

I believe in evidence. That’s my belief.

That's an odd thing to say. I accept evidence (when it supports a claim), no belief required.

I appreciate your reply. I assert that belief is what we think about what we don't know. And what is known can be shown. Therefore, the Venn diagram of "belief" and "knowledge" has no overlap.

Faith might be a better word than belief. I believe in evidence. I believe we were created by the universe and there is evidence of evolution. Words are just so damn limited.

If there's evidence, what do you need belief for? Do you believe that the sun rises in the east in the morning or do you simply observe? What does anybody have to BELIEVE in the sun for?

Atheists do not claim an affirmative belief that there is no god. Atheists (a- means without) do not believe your affirmative belief that there is a god. Agnostics believe that the answer to whether the Athiest or Theist has a correct belief is unknowable. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a...

Go read the definition you cited It supports the opposite of your thesis

No. You are incorrect.

Lol go read though

I read it too. You are wrong. An atheist "does not believe" the positive claim that a god exists. They reject that claim. That is not the same as saying that they believe no gods exist (although some atheists do claim that).

Why does a belief need proof? I imagine there are many things you believe, do any of them need proof?

They need proof if you’re using your belief in some magical thing to force rules on others to live by.

Following your logic, belief in god is magical thinking when you force rules on others. When not forced on others, it is not magical thinking, and that's a good belief which requires no proof - like your beliefs.

Faith is inversely proportional to evidence. That's why faith is required to believe in a god, ain't no fecking evidence

No thats agnosticism. Atheism states there are no gods or deities or higher intellectual controlling beings or what have you. Agnosticism says we cant know if there are or aren't gods, but if there are, then weve no reason to believe they're yours

Incorrect. Atheism states nothing. An atheist doesn't believe in the assertions of others claiming a god exists and they know which one. Almost all agnostics are also atheists.

Also as an agnostic i can absolutely assure youre im not an atheist.

Atheism is a-theism. Anti theism. It is active disbelief of Gods ie, that God doesnt exist Atheism absolutely asserts something. Most believes do. Even agnosticism. For example, the believe that there may be one or more gods but we have no way to know whether thats true or not is agnosticism

From your own definition quotation there, how does "lack of belief" translate to "active disbelief?"

I dont believe in God is functionally the same as I believe in no god. Because the dont is logically absolute. You could hold the position that there is a god but I dont believe in it but thats a really hard position to hold.

There is, however, a mid ground which is i dont believe in YOUR god, which is closer to agnosticism. You can apply that argument uniquely or to every believe system to say that believe is wrong. And thsts agnosticism. It's when you say I lack belief in ANY God that youre atheist. Not agnostic.

They are not functionally the same position. If I'm on a jury, I can find someone "guilty" or "not guilty". If I find them "not guilty", it doesn't mean I think they were innocent, there just wasn't enough evidence to convince me of their guilt. As an atheist, I find god not guilty of existing.

Incorrect. "a-" means "without" or "not." The only thing I assert is I don't believe the sales pitch of the person who shows up on my porch on Saturday morning.

That's anti religion. That's not the same. If you believe there is no god thats atheism. If you believe that there may or may not be thats agnosticism

Tell me one other concept you need another word to describe your lack of belief in a claim? I don't believe in a god, so atheist. I don't claim certainty on any subject so why do you feel you can force it on me now You believe in fairies? Or are you reasonably certain they don't exist?

Im agnostic about aliens too. They might be out there maybe not. But i have no logical reason to believe one way or another. Also I dont see much value in holding a specific belief about it. Theres no functional value in me having to come to pick. This is about belief, not knowledge

If you use agnostic in reference to other/all concepts I have no problem with it beyond finding it redundant. But the word has been used as a middle ground between atheist and theist which I find unhelpful. I truly identify as atheist/agnostic

There is actually a short logical path to other life forms existing on other planets so I think the chances more likely than not. Gods we have no direct experience/evidence of so I lean far more to them not existing. So I am an atheist as I don't believe in any god. No absolutes required.

Im not arguing with your beliefs

Cool. But I am arguing about your statement about atheism being an absolute statement that there is no gods.

Atheism is a belief system whuch excludes gods. Agnosticism allows for the possibility that they may or.may not exist. There are probably plenty of.people who consider themselves atheist but if you unpack thier actual beliefs they're more anti religion than believe Gods dont exist.

Nope genius. Atheism uses all available tangible evidence that there are no gods Unless....you show tangible evidence. As soon as you do we are no longer atheist. We just then show why the god you've proved does not deserve worship or praise.

Sure, but i never said it didn't. Rejecting rhe belief that someone else's God exists is agnostic. Or biased or anti religion or whatever Rejecting any gods can exist is atheist. In fact thats what ive been saying I have no interest st all quibbling about which belief system is better in fact

That's too much wrong to unpack. Be well

Maybe atheists are smart enough to know when to stop, or not even start, trying to prove God's existence. It's not just atheists who have failed to produce proof. Even the most religious zealots have none. They're just preying on those who they've conned into having faith and believing. $$$ And...

Kinda empty without a soul

Prove there is such thing as a soul.

Your proof!

Where?

Then your a robot I guesd

Belief in god creates conflict globally.

I don't think history is full of examples of atheists going to war to force followers of a religion to endorse their beliefs.

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." - Einstein

Spot on! 👍

Prove me god is tangible.

What is your definition of proof? Whenever I discuss these issues with unbelievers, and speak of the fine tuning of the universe and the appearance of DNA, the non-believing say that's not proof. Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that the intricacies of our solar system could not exist without a designer.

Nothing is forever So believe in Nothing because it’s forever

With all due respect...Who cares?

I wish we could get out of the mindset that their god is something that needs proving. Instead, what's going on is the theist is trying to sell us on something without letting us experience it first. And we're rejecting their sales push.

The reason for this nations problems are radical magic believers got in charge.

Funny, because the same phrase can be used to describe faith. Faith asserts nothing, only what you have failed to prove.

Hello! We are The Unity Center Cincinnati, supporting families through peer support, education, and creating a friendly environment. Please help us spread positive energy by liking and following our account! 💙✨ #SupportFamilies #CommunityCare

Cosmology goes further than simply rejecting the older models--it positively asserts what observation and theory say about the universe based on the most recent results.

It is safer to tell a child that santa doesn't exist, than to tell a religious person that god doesn't exist. They believe in both god and the right to kill those who disagree

Nobody needs to "prove" their religious faith is based on fact. That's why they call it "faith." It can't be proven, it can only be believed in, or not. Believers don't have to prove it; atheists don't have to demand they do so.

EXACTLY

The only reasonable belief is that all gods are real, or none are. Telling someone to disprove the existence of your specific deity rings hollow if you're unable to disprove all the ones you choose not to believe in. Citing your own religious text does not prove or disprove anything.

Exactly. I'd rather live in truth, than fairy tales.

I’d trust an atheist over a Cristian any day as most Christian’s are self righteous H8ers of all Christs teachings, they are not believers they are judgmental evil beings using the lord’s name to hide behind. But all you phony Christians remember he sees all & you will be judged by your actions.

Atheism asserts that there is nothing. That must be a mistake.

Atheism is simply a WORD that means rejection of god(s). There is no claim. Theists are making a claim, atheists are rejecting the claim. This is not a complex concept, it shouldn't be this hard for people. WTH?

The atheists claim there is nothing. Theists claim there is something. It isn’t complex or hard.

Literally Atheism MEANS rejection of THEISM. Clearly there exists SOMETHING. Sheeze.

Theism is belief that there is more to it than we know. Atheism is the belief that there isn’t.

Theism is a belief in a religion.

Notice the word similarities. theism a theism The letter 'a' is a prefix used in many words it means without or not.

Yep, got that.

Nope. Theism is belief in more. Religion has nothing to do with that. Often, the “more” is called God, due to lack vocabulary.

Clearly this is going to be another one of those concepts that you think you understand and the entire rest of the world is saying you're wrong about.

There is a lot of that whenever personal beliefs are in the crosshairs.

Only for you buddy. I rarely experience that. Maybe you should sit down and read a few books before you come back to the table?

They literally gave you the definition. Theism specifically relates to belief in god (in a generic rather than religion-specific sense), not some nebulous "more".

Maybe for the writer of the definition. Look up pantheism.

Notice the similarity between the word theism and pan theism? Pan is a prefix that means 'many' or 'multiple'. I'm going to wager that this isn't going to suffice for you...hands you a shovel.

Please note that: * "Pantheism" also specifically relates to a belief about god (i.e. that god is equivalent to the universe). * "Pantheism" and "theism" are two different words. Your objections seems to be that the definition of theism is not that of pantheism.

Where is this claim by Atheists?

That claim is with the proof that God exists.

So you have irrefutable testable evidence of a gawd ?

To the contrary, no one does.

That is why Atheist reject the claims of Theists. Hence the word: a-theist.

Exactly Welcome to Atheism 👍

Proof, or lack thereof, doesn’t move the needle. The unknown is greater than the known.

Another fail Still zero evidence of any gawds 👍

The fuck kinda bullshit are you slinging here, dog?

Same old bullshit, dog.

You're describing nihilism, not atheism, nihilism is the assertion that philosophically speaking, life has no meaning. Atheism is a rejection. Of theism, theism asserts the existence of a divine.

Theism supports that there is more to the story than can be understood. God, divine, supernatural, universal force, what ever. Atheism says that doesn’t exist.

Any ism is a belief system. Who cares if there's a supreme being or not? Opposing viewpoints are both wrong

I don’t see the wind either but I know it’s there!

So it MUST be the breath of the gods.

Wind can be measured and tested Still zero evidence of any gawds 👍

Didn’t say measured, tested; said seen!

What have you seen?

Wind can be measured and tested Still zero evidence of any gawds

🇨🇦 Well said. Atheists are the last group who it’s acceptable to be “racist” against. (I think.) As far as I know, there isn’t a single member of Congress, the Senate or Supreme Court who is openly atheist. You will NEVER see one either. The closest you get is “I’m more spiritual than…

…religious”. 🙄 But you have to have some sort of “faith” to even be considered by most voters. Faith: the willful suspension of critical thought. One could argue we’re more moral than most religious folks. Not moral for the carrot of Heaven nor stick of Hell. Just trying to do the right thing.

Isn’t that agnosticism?

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. Atheism relates to "belief" while agnosticism relates to "knowledge". One can be an "agnostic atheist": I do not believe in any gods, but recognise that I can't know for certain that there aren't any hiding somewhere in the universe.

Atheism only requires the "agnostic" or "soft" position: the lack of belief in a god. Some atheists take the "gnostic" or "hard" position, actively asserting that there is no god, but while atheism includes that position, it doesn't require it.

The whole point of atheism is that you are less burdened, don't have to memorise stuff ffs. Don't have to talk about it. It's not belief in the non-existence of god, it's just not belief in the existence of god. I don't dogmatically DISBELIEF in Santa and the Tooth Fairy, either

The assertion that God exists is based entirely on blind faith. The assertion that God does not exist is also based entirely on blind faith. The only logical and fact-based answer to all questions related to God is "I don't know".

If an assertion is made that there is no God, it is done via the lack of any evidence, no faith needed. I disagree. The only reply to any questions/assertions regarding a god are the following: What god are you proposing? What evidence do you have? Redundant terms in a system cancel.

I did not assert anything about the nature of God, or about the existence or absence of God. But if I did, those assertions would be faith based since I would have no observable evidence to support them.

I didn't claim you did. I was asking. There are other forms of evidence besides observation, no?

When I say observable I mean everything humans are able to perceive through their physical senses.

Yes, I've deduced that...hence my question still stands. Care to answer it?

Any evidence that lies beyond the limits of human observation is irrelevant. Such evidence may or may not exist. And if I made any claim about such evidence, that claim would be faith based.

Hmmm...you apparently aren't aware of the technological innovations that exist which allows confirmation of things unobservable to humans. Interesting. Repeating yourself and asserting a dumb thing doesn't make it true.

Technological innovations are an extension of our physical senses. They would not exist without our physical senses, and without our physical senses we could not use them to observe things like microbes and radiation outside the visible spectrum. You really aren't bright at all.

🙄 Backpedal harder.

yes, there is also math. If you can mathematically prove god please do so in the comments.

I'm not the one claiming any gods exist.

You cannot assert that something does not exist simply because you cannot observe it. Before devices/methods were developed to detect them, microorganisms, infrared radiation and ultraviolet radiation all existed. Any assertion made without evidence is faith-based, by definition.

That's not why the assertion was made though. The assertion is made due to zero evidence provided for the counter positive claim. Personally, anyone asserting that gods don't exist is illogical because a negative cannot be proven. It is a non starter.

Now you're agreeing with what I posted before... that the only logical, fact-based response to any question about the existence or nature of god(s) is "I don't know". The claim that there is no god(s) is faith-based, because it can't be anything else.

Nope, I've agreed to no such thing. I even pointed out that I disagree with your assertion and pointed out why. Faith requires belief. A negative assertion based on the lack of evidence for the positive mirror assertion is not faith...not even a little bit. It is simply illogical, that's it.

You're still missing the point. If you claim that god or gods do not exist, that is a belief without any supporting evidence and that is the definition of faith.

No it isn't. "There is no gods." \= "I believe there is no gods.". You are fundamentally incorrect. The first statement is illogical. The second is a statement of faith. Faith requires belief. Period.

You don't understand logic. There is no observable evidence related to god. Therefore any statement related to god is a belief (aka faith), by definition. "There is no god" and "There is a god" are statements of faith. "No evidence exists to support any claim about god" is a logical statement.

The only one that has demonstrated a lack of understanding logic here is you. But, keep repeating yourself.

Atheists don't make a claim. Atheism is a word that means 'rejection of the claim made by theists'

Atheists aren't making an assertion, they're just calling BS on the theists assertion of a god.

Atheism is a fundamentally epistemic position. ie. Lack of belief in God. Theism is generally both an epistemic position and an ontological position. ie. Belief in God and a statement about God's existence. Strong atheism might make a claim about existence but Theism always does.

The definition of faith is belief without proof. How is acknowledgment of the absence of proof of God based on faith?

This is not quite true. Atheists don't say "god does not exist" any more than they say Segulargulon Prime does not exist. It is simply the atheist position that if you hold that a thing DOES exist you must prove it. The burden of proof falls on the party that argues that a thing IS.

hows that bit coin working out.

One more question: WTF is a god?

Which an atheist can say. I don't accept claims of gods I am not 100% percent sure on that, but very close to 100 I am an atheist What other concept requires me to be certain of it's non-existent to say I don't accept it? What idea is any honest person 100% percent certain of?

In the end, they will know

There is always someone or something bigger and badder than you. Be Humble before someone teaches you the hard way.

Winner, winner chicken dinner

OOOOH -Chicken! Yummy! As long as it isn't Kompletely Fucking Crook. 😁😆😜

Goes both ways

We Came To This Country A Few Hundred Years Ago And Shoved Christianity Down The "Savages" Throats But It Now Seems That They Were Not Savages At All And Their Beliefs Were More Advanced Than Ours....

Just as religion ACCEPTS what you are unable to prove.

That's agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is the assertion that god does not exist.

Atheists can and do assert that. But atheism doesn't require that assertion. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, which can include (but is not limited to) the positive belief that no gods exist.

Thank you. Fallacies passing off as "clever wisdom" is kind of like dog turds being passed off as chocolate bars.

I love you

There’s more evidence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Have you ever put a tooth under your pillow and had it be there the next morning? Every Christmas morning, here are presents under the tree - can you personally account for the origin of all of them?

Also, Trump is evidence that god’s on vacation with nobody in charge. 🤷‍♂️

No one on this earth is obliged to prove anything they believe or disbelieve to anyone.

...except when they are trying to force THEIR crazy BS on me! I have more morals than most "religious" people I know...and I'm an athiest.

Oh please. Atheism is logical thinking. There is no God

“If it’s true you don’t have to ‘believe’”. From Sir Terry Pratchett.

Atheism literally asserts that there is no god

Nope. Some atheists will assert that, but to be an atheist does not require that. Plenty of atheists simply lack belief in a god, without positively asserting that there are no gods.

Intrigued to find out what you think 'agnostic' means

It refers to not having knowledge, while atheism refers to belief. Knowledge and belief are similar, but not equivalent. Some consider knowledge to be the most confident form of belief, something about which you are maximally certain. In any case, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

I consider myself an "agnostic atheist". I lack belief in a god, but I recognise that I can't know with certainty that there isn't one out there somewhere.

But the point is, you're not understanding the negation at play. Theist = person who believes in a god. Atheist = person who does not believe in a god. Not believing only requires the absence of a belief in god ("not guilty"), but it also includes believing there is no god ("innocent").

Maybe you just go ahead andlook up what 'a' and 'theism' mean. And read a book or three

Maybe you should look up what the term "negation" means. If a jury doesn't find someone guilty, they find them not guilty. They don't find them innocent. As an atheist, I find god not guilty of existing. The negation of theism (a-theism) includes the passive position of not being convinced.

The question, Raymond....

Did you hit send too early? I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Not surprised

If you're not going to explain yourself and/or be a dick about it, I fail to see why we should engage further.

OK, now hear me out. Wouldn't that be agnosticisms? Doesn't Atheism actually assert that there is no God?

Literally, no. While it appears that a few atheists do assert (illogically, IMHO) that there are no gods, the vast majority only reject the claim due to zero evidence. Rejection of a claim is NOT an assertion of its negative. Agnostics don't reject the assertion, nor do they accept the assertion.

Bingo

Actually many atheists are so obnoxious. No different than door knocking JWs. Like get a life.

A lot of atheists have knocked on your door, have they? Cool story.

Obviously not, but they make it their mission to tell me all about how they see things. It's pretty fucking irritating.

Cool story bro Needs more dragons and shit 🙄

Hogwash.

Being baptized asserts nothing, it just shows you took the best offer for the least work. Atheism asserts that I want to see what I can find in life...not what I was pressured into by threat of hell, or because I need eternal life to get through actual life. When you meet God you'll tell him why

You deserve heaven. If I meet God I'll ask him if I deserve heaven based solely on how I lived. If the only requirement was that I believe in him and I never had to be good...I'm asking to go somewhere else. Good luck telling God how to judge you! Religion has never proved a thing so weird to say..

Odin or Zeus?

Thank god I’m an atheist!

It’s all just a man made fairy tale

No one ever discusses or even thinks about evolution anymore, 😢

Don’t you know, daddy wouldn’t like that very much. Lmffao

I'm an antitheist. If a deity proves themselves, I'm against them.

Being a non Theist is as boundless as being a non Astronaut.

cast iron MUTE!!

Well, it can depend. Atheism runs the gamut from lack of belief to the conviction that god(s) don't exist. The latter is most certainly an assertion. That's why I foremost identify as agnostic. I won't assert existence or non-existence because I don't know and, for now, probably can't know.

Truth

In Europe most people are in truth atheists, while also professing to be Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox for old times' sake. Generally they don't give a shit thankfully - except maybe in some residual battle grounds like Northern Ireland, where it's more about national identity than religion

Yet, atheists don't prove no deities or deity exist. So it's really not a strong position to take. It's kind of lazy.

Yes, the ones relying on logic must be lazy. What other explanation could there be? 🐑

What is your logic?

There is no ‘position.’ There’s no way to prove a negative and my lack of belief in deities, just like my lack of belief in Zeus, or Caspar, needs no proof.

You might say “Friends is the greatest show ever”—call that Friendsism. I can live without it, so I never got into Friendsism. Likewise, many people don’t just accept atheism blindly; they explore the ideas and decide it best fits their view.

Look up Burden of Proof to understand how wrong your statement is.

I have yet to assert anything. It is lazy to assert a-theism if you are not going to prove no deities exist. You're saying, "No theist has convinced me." It is just as fair to say, "No atheist has convinced me." That's why "burden of proof" atheism is known as soft or weak atheism.

Point out where I claimed you asserted anything. No. "No atheist has convinced me." Makes zero sense. Atheists aren't trying to convince you of anything. Which god do you believe in?

Yes, and that's a logical problem. Atheists would like to forward a weak position, "No gods exists, but we are too lazy to back that position up." Furthermore, "The fact that none of my evangelical friends nor websites, say, have convinced me of anything, I assert no-godism."

Again, no. That's not how logic works. That is also not how Burden of Proof works. No intelligent atheist would ever assert a negative. That's just Logic 101...a negative cannot be proven. You assert no-godism. Uhm, you are claiming a negative. What evidence do you have for "no-godism"?

I've acknowledged your position, and you re-assert. These "ways of being" or religions, if we can include Buddhism, say, need to be practiced to be "believed". Christian evangelicals say pray for Jesus to enter your life. Like, just look in the microscope.

I repeated facts because you have twice now demonstrated that you are ignorant of the words you are using and making silly, illogical musings. That is not "re-asser"ing. I don't see that you acknowledged anything of my position because you keep trying to assert dumb shit.

I acknowledged your position as being known as weak or soft atheism. That's what it is called. I rephrased it to call it "burden of proof" atheism for your benefit. That's your repeated position. If you don't have a million dollars, prove it. The divorce court justice wants to know. That happens.

Making up definitions and calling them whatever you want doesn't benefit anyone. You keep using Burden of Proof without demonstrating you know what it means. You are still wrong.

You can't prove a negative.

On the other hand, when theists claim God exists through witness, the doubter can say, “I tried that Hindu (or Christian or Muslim, etc.) experiment, and it didn’t work for me.” Thus the agnostic remains. Because if it did work, the atheist’s claim would be disproven. Thus, experimentation works.

You cannot prove some negatives absolutely. Lazy soft/weak atheists simply withhold belief without claiming proof. Hard atheists assert “no gods exist,” but burden stays on claimants since proving universal absence is often impossible—think Bertrand Russell’s teapot.

God, if you exist, hit me with a lightning bolt and cancer, right now.

An out of the blue response! Reminds me how I was struck by lightning once in Charlevoix, QC by the river. And how cancer runs in my family. If that prayer doesn't work for you, Christians do have the Lord's Prayer. Which reminds me of the song "Walk This Way." Anyway . . .

My father used to say, “The absence of proof is not the proof of absence!”. In fact it’s really great proof of absence. The best.

Your father was a wise man (and logically correct). It’s why murderers sometimes walk free. But that’s the tension: for soft atheists, absence of proof is enough to withhold belief; for hard atheists, it’s enough to conclude absence. Agnostics say the jury’s still out, maybe forever.

They don’t have to prove anything. Claiming god is real with no way to back it up with evidence is lazy.

An agnostic says, "It's unknowable either way". You're defending weak or soft atheism, “I don’t believe in gods”, without claiming “I know for sure none exist.” Strong or hard atheism says “I believe there are no gods”, convinced it is like saying "Unicorns don't exist." Agnosticism is strongest.

It's gonna be either agnostic theism or agnostic atheism.

A-Fucking-men!!!!!

Misses the point of faith though.

Faith is lying to yourself.

I think you got the point just fine.

Failed to prove so far

I’m not an atheist, but I’ll say this- I’ve yet to meet a stupid atheist

Hmmm. Interesting. So don't try to seek.

ooh, how edgy :|

Sure. But I don't really care what people believe, what they do concerns me. There are assholes who happen to be religious and assholes who are not

Argonistic. Its okey to be you.

Idk really.

I'm just here to see how many religious people will insist that atheism is a religion.

Oh no - I assert if your religious your not able to keep yourself with out someone or something to blame, to hope for, to excuse your human behaviors.

"demonstrate" Proof only exists in mathematics, geometry and alcohol.

A God could simply show itself, to put all this to rest, since it hasn't the power to do so, makes a dog more powerful.

At least Edo's God on that old Star Trek Next Generation episode showed itself

Don't blasphemy around me! Almighty Godzilla protects! If it wasn't for him the aliens would have conquered Earth and we would be their slaves. We know this is true because we aren't alien slaves.

This sounds more like agnosticism. Theists believe in a higher power, atheists believe in no higher power, agnostics reject both bc neither has been proven

Whenever someone talks about a "higher power' my atheist brain automatically thinks of forklifts. Have you seen how weight much they can lift? And how high? Damn those things are powerful!

There is no god. There never has been a god. There are, however, incredibly stupid and gullible people who can't believe that they themselves are the source of their successes and failures. It's easy to deflect blame or belief on something that can not be proven.

How sad to not know.

Not know what?

One is not gullible or stupid for wanting to believe that they might see their death child in the afterlife. They are desperate for hope. Maybe don't insult people for that.

Unfortunately their "belief" is responsible for some of the worst atrocities know to man, their "beliefs" dictate policies that have a direct effect on my body and my rights. I will absolutely judge and I judge harshly. Too bad they can't keep their imaginary friend to themselves.

And religion is also the inspiration for the great work of Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and many other heroes But they dont fit your gullible & stupid narrative.

Ghandi was a mysogist that slept naked with little girls and Mother Theresa believed pain and suffering brought people closer to god and her facilities were horrific. Maybe you should try not to be gullible and stupid in general. Read a book once in a while.

The Great Soul: Gandhi the Father of India, Gandhi the Misogynist, and Gandhi the Racist – CIW REPORTS share.google/OTwGuHdptAC6...

Mother Teresa has faults that shouldn’t be ignored – The Collegian share.google/RKi4oqkYVIjM...

Who doesn't? Does that negate that you are being as intolerant and hypocritical of those who believe things that you don't.

Who doesn't? Who doesn't what, sleep naked with little girls or revel in pain? A lot of people. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone or using my beliefs to dictate policy. Just keep your sky daddy to yourself. I think you're using the word hypocritical wrong, you do know its definition, yes?

You are forcing your judgment on others by calling them names.

You have turned this argument into Ghandi & Mother Teresa when it is about you being intolerant & hypocritical.

Maybe you should not be a judgmental jerk who believes anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you do is stupid & gullible. You are NO different than intolerant religious zealots.

Oh I don't believe it, know it sweetheart, you're a case in point.

Keep name calling & fighting people who dont agree with you on an argument none of us can proof. Sounds like a wonderful way to live.

Oh honey, look back at this thread and see who started the name calling. And this is not a fight, this is actually quite pathetic.

You are seriously using the what about-ism/deflection defense for your own intolerance & hypocrisy? Well done, you are not only imitating intolerant Christians, you are imitating MAGA's tactics.

Exactly!!!

Unfortunately, religion was created to control the people. Religious leaders used tricks and hidden machines to deceive the people into believing there was a magic performing god. They then abused the people; taking their money, raping the women and children, even using them as cannon fodder in wars

The naked truth well articulated. How better to control the proletariat, peasants, surfs. The elite minority ruling class is the voice of omnipotent and omnipresent God . . . the Holy Bible black book of malicious fiction and fairy tales says so. 😉

So your view is the believers are victims? Why then, should one insult the victims for not thinking like oneself?

edit... dead child in the ...

I do believe in physics, which states that matter is neither created nor destroyed, merely transformed. While this meeting up with the energy of someone who used to exist may happen, that does not mean there is a god. It means that science exists.

Does consciousness exist? Yes it does. Does consciousness create? Yes it does. Has anyone ever located the source of consciousness in the brain or body or anywhere else in the universe with a microscope or telescope or explained how consciousness manifested itself in the first place? Not at all !!!

Actually, we have. We can watch which parts of your brain is working to determine consciousness.

Yes, but you are only witnessing the electric impulses that are governed by consciousness, not consciousness itself nor its actual source, i.e. the effects not the cause. Nice try though.

That is certainly not proof that god exists. That proves that there is biology and physics and science, which explains it most thoroughly. Maybe one can not understand it, but that just proves that our brains have limitations. Not that god exists.

Is God not a conscious Being then? Are you claiming that consciousness doesn't exist or that consciousness doesn't create despite yourself being a conscious Being who creates? Consciousness is not a biological or physical entity, and if it is then what's the size, shape, texture of consciousness?

There is no proof that God exists or is a conscious being. I'm always surprised when religious people claim they have proof of God since it would mean they no longer had faith.

There is no god.

P.S. You failed to answer my questions, and I surely knew you would too...0/10

There is consciousness though, and consciousness is not a physical, biological, or chemical entity. Would you like to explain what the nature and essence of consciousness is and how it manifested itself? Shouldn't be too difficult considering that consciousness is what you are? Go ahead then...

Why don't you ask your favorite AI? I don't need to explain anything. I believe what I believe, and when you respond so angrily, you know I've made a point that makes you uncomfortable. Maybe you should answer why you feel so angry about my points.

Beliefs are typically a poor substitute for actually knowing and typically for people who fall short of the mark so good luck with your beliefs. AI doesn't even think for itself and isn't something intelligent people seek guidance from. As for my anger...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

God is a job description not a name

Do you have a better name to use? Because there is no entity doing "the job."

The name is up to the believer. Yahweh,Jesus,Zeus, etc. I could list thousands of names. make them be specific.

How can there be a believer when there is nothing to believe in🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

I agree. Yet here we are surrounded by billions making the claim.

And yet they are all wrong. I don't ever believe something because other people believe it. I believe in what has been undeniable to me. What I believe to be the truth. And have never cared whether other people agree or not. It's nice when they do😊 but that disbelief never changes my belief.

The word atheist shouldn’t be necessary. Sane works perfectly.

Sounds like agnosticism. Atheism definitively believes that no god exists. Which also cannot be proved.

We simply have no idea or understanding why anything at all exists. If there is a diety, how did that diety come into existence? We exist, make the most of it, do everything one can to not harm the other beings that exist. Nature gives life, sustains life, provides order, it's where I find meaning.

An atheist once said “if I could wave a magic wand and make all religion disappear, I would not wave it.” There are far too many people on Earth who depend on religion for moral guidance. For the most part, it’s a positive. I suggest atheists leave the religious alone, and vice versa.

I can't imagine an atheist saying that.

Yet it was said. There are all sorts of atheists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_...

No way to really know. Agnostic is the way to go.

Atheism asserts, without proof, that god does not exist. In essence a belief system based entirely on faith.

No it doesn't. Theism is belief in the existence of a god or gods. Just as "atypical" is not- typical, or "asymmetry" is without- symmetry, "atheism" is not- or without- theism.

So what is an agnostic?

The word "gnostic" comes from a Greek word that means "know," "knowing," "to know." The "a-" prefix applies the same; not- or without-. In this context, an agnostic is one who does not know. Since, re: the gods, there is no knowledge, nobody knows and everyone is agnostic.

The colloquial usage of agnostic is misused as something in between believers and atheists, but that's wrong. (It makes people feel better, though.) Belief is an absolute state. One either believes or one does not. There is no in-between.

A person who does not or cannot know there is a god or gods. Most agnostics are also atheists.

Everyone is an agnostic because nobody has any knowledge of the gods. Believers tend to be uncomfortable with this fact.

Agnostics aren’t atheists. They literally say they don’t know. They are open minded.

Atheism is simply a WORD that means rejection of god(s). There is no claim. Theists are making a claim, atheists are rejecting the claim. This is not a complex concept, it shouldn't be this hard for people. WTH?

If your argument against atheism is demanding they prove a negative (God does not exist) then I could ask you to prove Santa Clause, Big Foot, Little Green Men from Mars, Psychic Abilities, Dane Cooks Humor, The Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Candyman and Ancient Pyramid Building Aliens don’t exist.

Dane Cook humor... brilliant

You packed a lot of incorrect bullshit into three little lines there. Well done.

Everyone can see you don’t have an argument.

We have a reply guy here. He didn't make an argument. He responded to your argument.

Nope, “I don’t believe your claim that a god exists” does not then shift the burden of proof to me.

I have made no such claim. If you insist that god does not exist, then prove it.

I also haven’t made any claims, nor have I insisted anything. I simply disbelieve those who have claimed the existence of a god or gods.

So aren’t you an agnostic?

No. I don’t believe in a deity, that makes me an atheist

Does your faith that something not yet proven or discovered, does not exist, extend to everything? There is an awful lot that most of us don’t understand in the field of science that we are told is true, and we accept it. All without the need for proof that we ourselves understand.

Atheism is the absence of belief in a god. No thiesm. There is no faith involved.

No, that's just YOU asserting things that aren't true. Why are you lying and trying to twist what is clearly written and explained? Not everyone is as gullible as you churchies.

Your lack of logic even extends to claiming I have asserted something I clearly have not. Your faith is poorly founded.

And yet you DID do you this thing, and are lying again, while projecting your own lying ways on me. Clearly you're not arguing in good faith.

well I've seen some atheists be pretty assertive about asserting nothing lol

My fav is , the bible is the proof !!!

The book “1984” seems to be proving more accurate than the Bible at this point.

Absolutely

Atheists and the Faithful both claim to know the unknowable

No, that's you pushing that lie.

What's your thoughts on fairies existing? Even one supreme fairy?

Whether you believe in God or not it's merely a belief, and beliefs are typically a poor substitute for actually knowing and typically for people who fall short of the mark. The fact is that you either know or you don't know, and believers know not. What need is there to believe when you truly know?

Atheism is a non-prophet organisation, and although I don't belong to any religion whatsoever, God is simply consciousness, and consciousness creates, so there's all the proof you need because you are the living proof you goose !!!

Circuler reasoning like all magic believers.

Would you like to point out anything I've stated that is false then? Please do !!!

The human subconscious is the only all powerful being which we need worry about. It can create rockets to the moon and homeless drug addicts. It can make people believe that a person like trump is good, or that Democrats are bad. Time to forget about Gods and think about our brains I Believe.

What proof do you have that god is consciousness?

Religion asserts many things without evidence. It’s a framework for manipulators, pedos, groomers, and murderers. When anyone raises a concern they’re branded and ostracized. I have never had a need for it and see no point. Don’t try and convert me. You do you and I’ll be me.

Agnostics assert nothing!

there is literally only one thing we'd need to prove the Bible was true (the angel with the flaming sword standing guard against man's reentry to Eden) and it's conspicuously absent. It gets mentioned once and then never again.

AKA: Hitchens’s Razor

My opinion, In 64 yrs of life, I have never had an Atheist knock on my door unannounced and unwelcome, To inform me that I am following the wrong fictional diety. I like that.

I might start knocking on people's doors and giving people the Good News. Then apologizing for stating the bleeding obvious and letting them get on with their lives the way they want to live it unless they are believers in a deity and tell them they're wasting their time. 😂

We lived in Green River Wyoming, home of the "Green River ordinance" It was fun to watch the police explain..that YES, they were soliciting, and yes, there is a ticket and fine. The church didn't care, price of doing business

Anti-atheist’s are literally agents of satan! Prove me wrong!

It is enough.

Christianity also asserts nothing. No religion is provable. Let's get on with it, shall we?

Boy, Ms. Foote, you sure dragged out all the confidently wrong people with one post. There's a whole cornucopia of wrong in the comments.

not entirely true. atheists claim to know with certainty that there is no god, which by definition cannot be known with certainty, ie non-falsifiable. agnosticism is closer to true scientific position on the existence of magical being in the sky

Bullshit. Altheists say there us no proof of any god. Atheists also say that as soon as you drag tangible and undeniable evidence if your imaginary friend up we will no longer be atheists. We still would never bow to or worship this sadistic imaginary friend.

Atheism shouldn't even be a word. There is no special word for people who don't believe in the existence of unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus..

True. If people didn't believe in God there would be no atheist. The universe must always balance itself.☯️

Atheism seems to assert at least that faith should be logically provable. It's a bit similar to the logical positivism movement in the turn-of-the-century Europe, Wiener Kreis etc. Not to say this would be a good/bad thing, just saying that it would be good to analyze claims a bit more thoroughly.

Religion is Santa for adults. A myth perpetrated on us by pryor generations that didn't want to break ranks from their families traditions. A cult living by Iron age writings and stories by people we would see as illiterate today.

well thought out and presented

Atheist is a loaded term. It argues the claimed state is true and the absence of a claim is refuting the claim. This is backwards, zero is the beginning state then making a claim must prove itself to be true.

An atheist can only reject the god of his own imagination.

They haven't failed to prove things, it's all in the BIBLE! 😬

And we do not force Atheism on our fellow citizens

We could discuss something that is real..... Evolution! And you're part of it, like it or not. Other then that... believe what ever you want!!! For evolution has given us (some) a brain with wonderful imaginative qualities!!! Where will yours take you? To God..or beyond?

Incorrect. Atheism asserts there are no gods. That's still a claim that has to be backed up with logic and/or evidence.

Atheism claims nothing. It's an absence of belief in a god/gods. There is no burden of proof for the lack of belief. While some atheists may go further by outright claiming there is no god/gods, they are only one type of atheist.

What you're talking about is gnostic or explicit atheism, which is a positive assertion that there are no deities or the conscious rejection in the belief of deities, respectively. There's also implicit atheism, which is the lack of belief without explicit rejection of the idea of a god,

agnostic atheism, which is atheism that acknowledges the possibility that a deity/deities exist, and apatheism, which is indifference to the existence/non-existence of a deity/or deities. Those three bear no burden of proof.

Dawkins is a chump for trying to define a flipping scale.

Again, enough of the Dawkins dither dather. He proved nothing more than the need to further divide and weaken non believers. His books suck and he lost his nobel for attacking trans rights. As far as I am concerned he is a non player.

Absence of a belief is agnosticism. Atheism is the specific claim that no god or gods exists.

Base atheism (aka soft atheism) is *not* the assertion there are no gods, but the rejection of godly claims which have so far failed to meet their burden of proof, which all have so far failed. Hard atheism is where you start seeing the claim there are no gods.

I'm of the position that soft atheism is actually agnosticism.

And you'd be wrong. A/gnosticism speaks to *knowledge* specifically. A/theism deals with belief. Using them this way makes for better distinctions. If you keep to your current system, how would you label a person who believes there are zero gods but recognizes they don't know for sure? Using *my*..

system, I'd simply call them an agnostic hard atheist.

Sorry it's not incorrect. It's not a claim, it's a response to a claim. To repeat, it says that you have proved nothing therefore I don't believe. The one making the positive claim, that there IS something, not that there is not something, has the burden of proof in this case. Get Over It.

Logic/evidence DO prove that there is no "god"...ITS CALLED SCIENCE!

Can you show me this proof of no gods? AFAIK there isn't any.

Oh, puhleese! I'M not the one claiming some all powerful imaginary (invisible) dude that lives in the clouds created everything....SCIENCE is my proof. Come back to reality...

The claim that something exists or that something doesn't exist requires positive proof.

Atheism is despised because it’s such a searing taunt. Imagine claiming an omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal being that you can’t muster even a speck of evidence for. Then someone points out how stupid that is. Pretty humiliating, if you ask me, and that’s just what atheism does: humiliate believers.

It's also a huge threat to those people who derive their authority from that eternal being actually, well, being a possibility.

Not all deities follow that set of traits. The Norse gods die quite a few times.

Whatever. Claim any traits you want, you still have the same problem: natural evidence to support supernatural claims is pretty hard to come by

Exactly. It's hard to prove a negative. It's easy to say there is no evidence for any number of gods. It's hard to say there's evidence that demonstrates zero gods.

Non-existence is our null hypothesis. Evidence of non-existence isn’t a thing, you do realize, no?

Absolutely, positively, no evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural, because things that are supernatural are equivalent to nonexistent.

The fundamental point is a presupposition that a thing does not exist, does not manifest in any sense, unless there is tangible, reproducible evidence of its existence. The number and variety of claimed or supposed things for which there is no empirical evidence is literally endless, aka infinite.

Still a delusion.

No, it's despised because most people have low level schizophrenia and believe ancient delusions. Any adult that believes in something nonexistent obviously has a mental illness. There's no denying that, or they lack the intelligence to be considered a true adult.

Calling religious ppl deluded is one thing, calling them ill, quite another. Unless you consider the human condition an illness, then we're all fucking bonkers my dear.

Religion is common and widely varied, but because systems of mystical, supernatural, and religious belief have evolved so dramatically over time, I’m willing to concede that fantastical ideation is inherent in the human condition. The specific forms it takes can 100% be considered clinically insane.

I would argue they have stayed fundamentally the same by intent & design since inception. That aside, have this conversation with a psychologist & you'll change your mind, hopefully empathize with those with real mental dysfunction & not lump them in as a product of tribal social conditioning.

But there's been many times when the entire world was wrong but a handful of people, and this is one of those cases.

But it's truthful and 100 percent accurate. There's no other explanation for such delusion than A form of schizophrenia..

No, it isn't. Being impervious to cognitive dissonance does not equal schizophrenia, by any stretch of the imagination. That it would seem insane to you notwithstanding.

Not quite. It carries the same burden of proof, which means to say your reasoning needs to align with your beliefs to deem it rational to not believe otherwise.

NO: when something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. In order to prove that your deity exists, we need to speak to it At least the Edo's god in that old Star Trek [NG] showed itself once in a while.

If I'm playing peekaboo, you don't disappear when I cover my eyes. It's very difficult to demonstrate something doesn't exist, while it's easier to demonstrate something exists. Take the planet Vulcan: people thought it existed for decades, while Relativity was better able to explain things.

There is nothing that indicates anything supernatural or divine except for ancient schizophrenic delusions. Vulcan was a vague supposition, like the aether, but. Ancient Goat Herder Tales does not support divine beings.

Well, you're not as smart as a fifth grader

I am smarter than a Creationist or other Wrong Earthers.

😂😂

Absolute and complete lack of evidence for anything divine or supernatural at this point is proof that there is nothing divine or supernatural.

Your previous statement is contradictory to that.

There is as much evidence for the existence of god as there is evidence against. All the evidence we'll ever have is the universe as we find it.

What evidence, in your opinion, points to the existence of a god? Which god? I've not come across any, personally.

I believe the evidence points to no god, personally. The same evidence points to a creator god as far as theists are concerned.

I asked for what evidence you are referring to. Like... specifically. 🤔 Am I not asking the question clearly? What evidence, for any god that theist has used, convinces you of its validity? Hopefully that makes better sense.

None, evidently. Or it would be valid for me too, surely. Am I not answering clearly? when ppl are conditioned to believe what they do they can validate anything they wish too on the most spurious of evidence. Scripture, wonder & social congruency is enough for most. My contention notwithstanding

I understand your point of view now. At first I was confused given the structure of the sentence I was replying to. I was earnest in my attempt to make sure I understood. Very good. Thank you for clarifying. Sometimes this type of format can be misconstrued. 😁

All good, thank you. glad you asked tbh, it was nice to get a clarifying question rather than being completely misconstrued for a change. Most ppl who answer me think I'm a theist bcs I challenge nonsensical atheist memes.

You are welcome. What type of nonsensical atheist memes do you challenge?

I take a bit of exception to this. We know from anthropology that humans have created over 6000 gods (and who knows how many more lost to history). It seems reasonable to conclude the gods popular today are also human-created.

Very reasonable indeed. That is my belief position. Why would you think I thought otherwise?

There's an awful lot of cruelty, pain, and suffering in the world. Huge amount of horrendous diseases etc. God made all that by design?

I'm an atheist. With that in mind though, God is either mean, impotent or most likely nonexistent.

'God made all that by design?' Sadly, some people believe this 🙄 That God also created the really atrocious stuff in the world, too. [I know you know this]

god is a disaster

Yep. And if you’ve PROVED a higher power exists, then you’re no longer acting on the basis of what you think is morally correct - your “beliefs” - you’re doing it because you’re afraid of what that higher power will do to you if you don’t get in line. It’s the end of morality based on free will.

have you read Michel Onfray: Atheist manifesto from 2005

Nope. Atheism is not a dogma. Those who attempt to quantify it are idiots who really have nothing to say, but they make crap to sell another book.

Atheism asserts that theism is false. The rejection of any proposition is a belief that it's wrong & no one in their right mind rejects something they don't believe untrue.

So I'm guessing you believe in Klombradrov the one true God and her only Son, Gordon?

If you're guessing I believe in Klombradrov & son being fictional like I do Yahweh too, then your assumption would be true. But I'm somehow not quite convinced you do.

It must have been the wording of your comment.

Perhaps. No harm no foul. ✌️

Christians lying for Jesus again. A time-honoured tradition lasting two thousand years. Rejecting a proposition is not an assertion it's false, no matter how much liars continue to assert it. This is really easy. Cough up some evidence.

If that's directed at me...I'm an atheist. I believe theism to be fiction. As in not true. ie: false.

The way I understand it, you are talking about agnosticism 🤷🏻‍♂️

Atheist's assert that they aren't retarded like the religious are. But better than just asserting it, they show it by their actions. The religious show they are unevolved monkeys every chance they get.

Proof is the hard problem. Humans don't do proof. We do inference. To reject anything without proof is to reject anything that humanity can do.

Says an atheist with an assertion.

All they stated was, more or less, the definition of atheism. There's no assertion required in a definition. However, if your beef is with the part about god not having met the burden of proof, there's an easy way to rebut that. Meet it.

The definition is an assertion. But semantics is never a great way to continue a conversation so I’m happy to allow your point.

So much ink has been spilled, but for me it's as simple as "why would I ever think something is true, given there is zero evidence?" Full stop. Anything beyond that is going into pendantry land where I'm forced to admit that all that I believe isn't necessarily backed up with facts

Technically, I don't even understand the logical underpinning for the concept of the number one if I'm to believe Carl Sagan. That still doesn't convince me that any one of the hundreds of religions that were founded before we even knew we live in one galaxy out of billions

Does it matter whether "God" exists or not? Why do so many people need reasons to argue?

No idea, but atheists would appreciate not being killed on sight, excluded from high positions in government, or you know, not being dehumanized. Perhaps we should ask theists why bloodshed, exclusion, and being stripped of our humanity is necessary to keep their gods happy?

Atheists are subject to the death penalty in 13 countries, and are not permitted to hold public office in many more.

So are people who are considered "New Age." Insanity is not specifically focused on any religion.

I was kicked out of first Communion classes and labeled an Agnostic by the church I was baptized into, for simply asking "where did cain get his wife?" Other than God made a "mud wife" from a born again christen, I've yet to get a clearer message from roaming missionaries.

I'm not sure that's a great argument for the existence of a God? Could be applied to Unicorns UFOs Spaghetti Monsters - you name it!

And everyone is free to believe whatever they like. At least until Christian Nationalists get more power.

Many years ago there were thousands of gods Society advanced and winnowed that down to just a few hundred, then a few tens, finally down to THREE (which are actually *one* ) We're def going in the right direction, just gotta get rid of one more and we're golden!!

Might I point out that the entire subcontinent of India alone has more deities that any one person can list. It's one thing to argue for athiesim. it's quite another to act as though Christiandom is some kind penultimate societal advancement.

It's also a joke

Poe's law.

Nothing personal!

I'm an atheist. I assert science which is to say I assert actually looking at things instead of playing pretend.

Do you accept and worship what cannot be proven? Sure sounds like it.

I would never ask a believer to defend their beliefs in one or more deities, any more than I would ask a 6 year old to defend their belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

That’s because you have a good conscience. Religious people don’t. Meanwhile, “the faithful” are organized to steal people’s rights; while atheists & agnostics are peacefully minding their own business. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...

Get out of here Christian you have no power here.

Well, you have to admit, the Bible IS a ridiculous sci fi book. "It's real history!" Oh..so there ARE talking snakes and bushes? "It's not literal!" Oh. Then the flood never happened? "ITS REAL HISTORY, when it's convenient!"

Anyone who thinks the Red Sea can be parted by some God.......geeze. perfect candidates to shoal out ten percent of their hard earned money for life in that manipulative game called religion. SUCKERS!

There's no science in the Bible so it's just fiction not science-fiction, or do you really mean fantasy?

Stuff like talking animals and plants, plagues of frogs and boils and rivers of blood, and alien angels messing with humans is at LEAST fantasy. Let alone some of the interpretations of the Revelations. 🥳👍 And, "The Martian Chronicles" are more believable. Reading the Bible creates atheists. 🤣

Atheism is the inability to tell these superstitious people, “your god and beliefs are bullshit”.

In the long run,atheism.is as harmful as religion

Strange take. Can you elaborate?

Prove it

Seems like the best Christians are Atheists.

"Reality is a simulation" is incompatible with strict (i.e. "there is no creator") atheism, but not with the looser "just because a creator exists does not mean they play any part in their creation". In this essay I will

Highly recommend this underappreciated book

Some argue that there are no proofs.

it's still an assertion. maybe you meant agnostic?

What makes atheism frightening is that it shows theists that we can be good (and in a lot of cases better) morally without their metaphysical baggage.

FUNE: FUCK U NAZI ELON!

To worship a god is to worship a manipulative human. You're worshipping another persons ideas. Worship your own thought process as you are also capable of creating gods the same as those who have.

It's an excuse to kill people...

Did you know that more atheists are against the death penalty and are less likely to commit violent crimes and murders than theists? So no, atheism is not an excuse to kill people, it actually makes one less likely to do so.

Prove it

Why did your mind go there, sicko?

is it really necessary to prove hat God or a god exists? can't people just have their own beliefs irrespective of "proof" ?

Not when those beliefs are being forced on children who don't have critical thinking, or when they corrupt the minds of our political leaders.

We don't need to, but stopping theistic, delusional, People that want to cram it down Everybody else's throat, change laws and everything else to fit their delusional dogma

Sure but you'll be treated just the same as someone else who is wrong about something.