What is an atheist?

[SeVeR]

I always defined an atheist as someone who categorically denies the existence of God. Surely this then requires faith in the same way that Christianity requires it. An Atheist is !@#$%^&*uming that there is no God.

 

This is why i call myself an agnostic.

 

My question is therefore to people who call themselves atheists. Why are you an atheist?

[Dav]

its a very good question. Logically speaking the only conclusion is to be agnostic for this simple reason.

 

You cannot prove the existence of God nor can you disprove it.

[NBVegita]

An athiest is someone who simply believes that there is no god.

 

An agnostic believes there is a god, they simply choose not to !@#$%^&*ociate with any other religions.

[SeVeR]

Incorrect, thats a theist, not an agnostic. Agnostic means you don't believe in a God, and don't disbelieve in God either. In my opinion there may be a God because the definition of a God makes looking for Gods impossible. The answer is strictly 50/50 (despite what Richard Dawkins might believe).

[NBVegita]

I apologize, you are correct.

[JDS]

well as the catholic would say

 

'oh your agnostic? i think we have a cure for that somewhere'

[Aileron]

Hmm, I happen to be Catholic and have never heard that one.

 

 

I think the purpose of this thread is to get me to outline every thing I've come to obserb about atheists, because they are actually a lot more well-defined than they like to let on.

 

An atheist is a person who is absolutely certain of the belief that there is no divine being beyond the universe. Furthermore, they believe that any other person who believes in a divine being is an outdated fool stuck in supers!@#$%^&*ion.

 

Atheists believe that they are the most moral of religions. This is obtained not through actual humanitarianism but because atheism is not organized. For instance, Stalin, an atheist, rounded up any non-atheist in the USSR and put them in death camps. Were this any other religion, that behavior would be described as an inquisition, but because atheism isn't organized the behavor is labeled as an aspect of Communism thus any atheist who isn't a communist can claim to be a member of a religion which has never practiced an inquisition.

 

Atheists believe that one day science will disprove the existence of any divine being. That is despite the fact that science by definition only answers how the universe works rather than why the universe exists, and thus trying to use science to prove or disprove religion is like trying to cook an omelette using a toaster.

 

Not being deterred completely, they furthermore state that they are the most scientific religion. This usually stems from the fact that the major religions were around during the dark ages and atheism isn't organized and thus are not attached to their dark age counterparts. Their favorite is the inprisonment of Copernicus, the man who initially theorized that the Earth revolves around the Sun. What they don't mention is Copernicus was a far cry from what the modern world would call a career scientist. He made his bread an butter by telling fortunes and 'reading the stars' to supersticious farmers. He was essentially a quack who got lucky once. Astrologist quacks aren't as harmless as one would think. Just a few decades ago, a cult committed suicide while coinciding with Hailey's Comet's arrival. In the dark ages people were a lot less educated, more supersticious, more oppressed, and more desperate than they are now, and would buy in to these sort of things a lot easier. Granted, it still doesn't make it seem right, but the whole point is that this is modern criticism towards actions in a world than was nothing like the modern world.

 

Atheists do have a myth towards the end of the world. Generally, they believe mankind will do ourselves in one way or another. In the 70s it was global cooling. In the 90s it was el nino and the y2k bug. Now it happens to be global warming. So far none of these panics have panned out yet, but with each new one comes a legion of 'experts' who manage to scream and scream and scream until the politicians buy their arguements and inact drastic measures to fix the so called catastrophe.

 

They also have their creation myth - Darwin's Theory of Evolution. While the statement that a species will evolve in and of itself is fairly solid, over a century and a half of trying they have yet to prove that a species can actually evolve out of a different species and furthermore that all life on Earth came from a single life-form. For this to happen, there would need to be an almost continuous line of intermittent changes, making Darwinism the most successfull theory that is dependent upon the existance of Bigfoot. They have many examples of proof, such as the classic story of black and white winged moths in England, where as it turns out the biologist deliberately pinned the moths to the trunks of trees, which would be unnatural behavior for that species of moths and would invalidate the experiment. Still the experiment is posted in high school textbooks. Furthermore, thanks to the courts, it is illegal for any high school to even mention any theory other than Darwin's. The point being, instead of being supported by the evidence and the biological community, Darwinism is supported by the legal system.

 

With Darwinism comes a bunch of philisophical statements. That humankind is a cosmic accident and therefore life is cheap. That over time to "fittest" will survive, and thus we do not need to put effort towards equality. Infact, if there is any inequity it is because the have-nots are not as fit as the haves. (For reference, the defintion of "fittest" in this case is "that which has the adaptations conducive to survival", so "Survival of the Fittest" is actually circular logic.)

 

Other religions believe that God made every human being to be a sentient being, and thus every human is intended to have certain rights such as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. - implied from the fact that God would never create a sentient person and then deny him or her these things, much like how a shipwright would never build a boat with the intention that it will never get wet. (Freedom of Religion is infact one of those - God want His children to follow Him freely - hence why He is going through such lengths to be undetectible.) Atheists don't believe in God but rather that there is no authority on Earth greater than that of the majority of the populace, aka. the angry mob, and thus human freedoms are something a government may or may not need to supply their citizens in order to pacify the angry mob.

 

Finally, Atheists have no comprehension towards the purpose of religious texts. They treat them as a historical text and routinely try to prove or disprove events at least a millenium old in Islamic texts, two millenia old for Christians, and several millenia old for Jewish, as if evidence that old is commonplace and that it isn't a small miracle that we have anything left of ancient Egypt at all. Still, the point of religious texts is that they have a meaning. For instance, the story of the prodigal son. Whether or not some time two thousand years ago some son left his father, lived in disgrace, came back and was forgiveen is unimportant historically. What is important are the wisdoms of the parable - that good father's forgive their sons, and furthermore that they will care for the ones they have lost and found again moreso than for the son who never left. This ofcourse is lost on Atheists who believe wisdom stems from survival and thus the only purpose of history is to laugh at the 'fools' who didn't survive.

 

In short, atheist are a very hypocritical form of animal that is very dangerous. I can understand why people can be agnostic as its impossible to definitatively prove God - though in Mathematics admittingly one style of proof is to assume the opposite and find a contradiction, in which case atheism and polytheism have numerous contradictions on the level of "our whole theology is wrong". I mean, monotheistics can be hypocritical too, but the only thing that contradicts is the indivuals' self-righteousness.

[JDS]

In short, atheist are a very hypocritical form of animal that is very dangerous.

 

what the !@#$%^&* is your problem, just because someone does not believe in god doest make them less of a person. If anything YOU are the animal unworthy of anyones respect, !@#$%^&* you

 

 

 

also from what i have read you have taken the most cynical people and tried to classify them for everyone

 

 

evolution makes more sence than trying to say 'god did it' jsut because your ignorant

Edited September 28, 2007 by JDS

[Hakaku]

Atheist = someone who denies the existence of god

Agnostic = a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist); someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

Areligious = unconcerned with or indifferent to religious matters

Heathen: not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam

Religious = concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church

Theist = a believer in a personal God

(...etc)

 

Is there a specific word for someone who believes in another religion that does not involve a single god (or multiple ones - and without a negative feel)? Or one that defines people with no knowledge/contact/perception of either religion, god, or other related matters?

 

(sorry for the off-topicness of my post, but I believe many people are seemingly systematically categorized as either agnostic or atheist if they don't believe in usually monotheist religions, especially in Christianity.)

[Bak]

An atheist doesn't believe in God or any other supreme being... although you're right in that there's nothing that can disprove God's existence.

 

Let's examine a similar argument with a metaphor: say I tell you I have a time machine. Your reaction is "bull!@#$%^&*, prove it". I don't offer any proof. Now which do you believe: 1) I have a time machine (religions), 2) I don't have a time machine (atheists) or 3) it can not be known whether I have a time machine or not (agnostic).

 

Now of course the problem is the accuracy of the metaphor, and some may argue that there's evidence of God all around us. This is fine, although I personally think it's a bit of a stretch (isn't that what the whole faith thing's about anyway?).

 

 

"Atheists believe that they are the most moral of religions." "Atheists who believe wisdom stems from survival" "Atheists do have a myth towards the end of the world." "they believe that any other person who believes in a divine being is an outdated fool" "They also have their creation myth" "Atheists [...] believe [...] there is no authority on Earth greater than that of the majority of the populace"

 

No! the only thing that defines an atheist is a disbelief in supreme beings. Anything else is a generalization along the lines of, "Christians are all church-going do-gooders."

 

 

"For instance, Stalin, an atheist, rounded up any non-atheist in the USSR and put them in death camps."

 

Yawn, this not how logical arguments work. Didn't the crusades kill millions of people? You can find people with every belief system that have committed atrocities. While its true that atheism doesn't require any morality, it doesn't require a lack of it either.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Bak

[Hakaku]

Nah, polytheist = multiple gods

There'd also be animism, shamanism, etc. Whereas something like Buddhism falls in none of those categories.

I was specifically asking if there was a word for non-monotheist religions (e.g. Christianity, Judaism and Islam )