Should Atheism be a thing????

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I tend to believe the label justifies the person claiming it...

Care to explain that?

the reaction of cultists when you reject THIER beliefs = amussining

i has yet to meet anyone who made a serious claim to believe in // worship zeus in the 21st century

and all the cultists i have ever asked roundly reject the " troof " of zeus with no hint of irony

but when i reject God , jesus , allah , yaweh , krishna etc etc

the relevant cultists are most offended

go figure

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I tend to believe the label justifies the person claiming it...

Care to explain that?

sure...

accept a label, and defend it...

a reply to: Akragon
I accept my label of atheist and the anti theistic beliefs it entails.

I think you are the one struggling to find a label to defend.
If you are apathetic to theism then atheism isn't a label for you.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I am NO Atheist brother

a reply to: Akragon

Sweet.

It's always nice to have a team.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Akragon

Sweet.

It's always nice to have a team.

lol

I don't have a team either...

I just don't need a label to explain what i believe to be true

a reply to: Akragon

Good for you, you are now labelled as one of those who don't need labels.

You are either theistic, atheistic or apathetic to theism.
You can't claim that you're correct, but you've gotta at least make a claim.

Not making a decision could be a big decision.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well... far as i know, regardless of claim, the truth will be in the end

regardless of claims or belief..

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The beginning of the universe and the concept of a god cannot be separated.
It's the question of the beginning that brought rise to the concept of god in the first place. (In my ignorant opinion)

What do you mean they can't be separated? There are numerous math theories that explain how the big bang can be caused by natural events. There is no math that points toward god and certainly no science.

You are putting faith in unproven science like abiogenesis, or panspermia or a vast range of unproven hypotheses to explain the answer. The possibility we could be inside a simulation is a valid hypothesis which allows for a god that lives outside time.

No, I don't place faith in hypotheses. I never said they were proved true, I clearly said they are scientific works in progress. The point was that there IS evidence for things like abiogenesis, unlike the position of god, which has no evidence at all. How can you tell me I have faith in abiogenesis, when you literally just appealed to simulation theory, something that can't even be tested?

You are also denying the vast amount of books out there that "god" deemed necessary to have published.

I don't care about religious people publishing apologetic books. That doesn't prove anything about god. Most of those arguments are god awful.

If you are claiming there is no evidence you have to debunk the many claims of evidence out there. That requires understanding of biology, geology, astrology etc. etc.

No, I don't have to debunk anything. My claim that there is no evidence holds true until somebody can show that there IS evidence. Your logic is a bit backwards. If you have testable evidence for the existence of god, please post it. Philosophical nonsense like "something can't come from nothing" and books on theology aren't valid arguments nor are they testable, just like all apologetic arguments. They rely on word games and semantics that try to trick the reader, rather than logically justify their position.

Is there really?

The results are pretty much the same.

What results? Saying that we don't know, is not the same as saying god exists. One is admitting we don't have knowledge about it, the other is assuming god exists and created everything. Apples to oranges.

a reply to: Barcs

No, not really. Those are scientific hypotheses, currently being studied and figured out. They aren't based on blind faith, in fact abiogenesis has several experiments that back it. They are basically works in progress in science, they aren't just made up out of the blue, they are based on what we understand about the universe.

You have considered the entire matter? My God is the God that consists of the materials you use in learning of abiogenesis. Therefore your tools of science are my God. Not so? Then tell me how can one determine a beginning of a beginning without bringing forth something out of nothing. The first understanding is to know what nothing is. Without knowing what nothing is you will never know what a beginning is. You are as a dog chasing its tail while the master laughs at the whole event.

originally posted by: Seede
You have considered the entire matter? My God is the God that consists of the materials you use in learning of abiogenesis. Therefore your tools of science are my God. Not so? Then tell me how can one determine a beginning of a beginning without bringing forth something out of nothing. The first understanding is to know what nothing is. Without knowing what nothing is you will never know what a beginning is. You are as a dog chasing its tail while the master laughs at the whole event.

I'm not saying that abiogenesis proves god wrong. I'm saying there are natural explanations of how life can form from it's basic components without the interference of a special being. I'm also saying that we don't know the answer yet and that science hasn't worked it all out. Arguing against other people's claims about a god/creator, does not mean I'm arguing that god doesn't exist. Theists try to argue this constantly, when it's not the case. I'm saying that people who claim that god exists usually have bad arguments and shouldn't be trying to prove it to others. It's based on faith. I'm quite content not knowing the answer to everything.

You say that something can't come from nothing, but your god literally comes from nothing, he just randomly happens to exist, so it's a bit ridiculous to use that excuse. We don't know if there was a definite beginning, we can only make theories and come up with explanations that are supported by math and see what it might indicate. I'm admitting we don't know the answer, so saying I'm chasing my tail is absurd. I'm arguing against irrational claims, not trying to prove god doesn't exist.

The whole idea to designate atheists as a "thing" is ridiculous.

It's like singling out people who don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or astrology. They aren't catagorised or marginalised into segregated groups away from everyone else just because they don't believe in fairy tales.

You don't have aSantaists or aAstrologists. You just have people who do not believe in those things because there is no evidence to support their claims.

Just as every single person of religious faith has no evidence to prove their claims that there is/are God/s.

So why the need to label someone who does not believe in something that has no evidence?

Seems like a colossal waste of time.

Nice trolling title. Although to really get the clicks, you need to phrase it like, "12 Things that Will Shock You About Atheists."