The issue with atheism

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
in theory you're only an atheist if you don't use the word God at all or only to refer to a man with a bear on a cloud in a drawing.

God damnit, It seems intelligence has forgone the religious-minded here, yet again.

atheist
/ˈeɪθɪɪst/
- noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That's all it means. It isn't a way of life, a belief system, a church, an ethos, an ideology. It's simply stating the disbelief in a God(s) based on the lack of evidence.

I also use God in the blasphemous and expletive sense frequently. Not because I believe in a God but because it's a common linguistic device in English. When I say, Jesus f**king Christ, I don't believe that Jesus is actually fornicating with himself nor does that validate a belief in him.

I'm also an aUnicornist as well.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

What a load of garbage, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any claims of gods. I don't believe in goblins or ghosts either but I can still use the names in discussion and lack belief in them.
And I attack the Christian version of god claims because (A) he is barbaric in the teachings of the Bible, and (B) he sits back watching millions of kids die of starvation. Oh, crops failed because it hasn't rained in your region for a year? I could fix that for you but nah, # you dying babies, I'll sit here watching and eating my popcorn.
Crap god, I wouldn't worship that beast even if he was proven to exist, I'd call him a sadistic savage to his face.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I don't think the opposite to worship is to hate, that's why I find all these atheists in this thread peculiar

The opposite is to not care at all
The people who are anti God do care, that much is clear

a reply to: noonebutme

So that means you're just the same as any believer.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Would atheism be put in a similar boat as polythiests, Pagans!? They disbelieve in one god and his workings, but beleive in half a dozen gods that explains how mother earth works?

Would you cast them into the lake of fire too?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Rna most definately can form naturally occurring chemical reactions. Dna very well may as well.

Still no definite answer. Allow me to rephrase all the assumptions in the excerpts

1. Chemists are close to demonstrating

2. If they succeed,

3. probably existed on the early Earth.

4. RNA may have formed spontaneously.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Yes, but those inanimate molecules combine to form living beings.

Man were made by dust. But it was God who breath life into the living body.

I can demonstrate that living gut bacteria alone doesn't make human alive although beneficial bacteria is crucial to man's health. Even if you assemble millions of every living block organisms, there is no way you can confidently bring life to animal or person. Because, there is something else we are missing in biological life. Soul.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Therefore, life is made up of inanimate molecules.

Conclusion based solely on assumptions is not scientific fact.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Would atheism be put in a similar boat as polythiests, Pagans!? They disbelieve in one god and his workings, but beleive in half a dozen gods that explains how mother earth works?

Nope. Pagans are not Atheist.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: noonebutme

So that means you're just the same as any believer.

No it doesn't. I don't believe in a God, for Christ's sake.

God damnit don't you get it?!


(see what I'm doing there? )

a reply to: EasternShadow

Well they would be deists or polythiests, but yet they reject the op idea of God?

A..the...ist...what is that some beleive Ina theory of everything or some jargon along the lines of creationism?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
that's why I find all these atheists in this thread peculiar

Peculiar? It's a thread bashing atheists lol, I'll stick my oar into any lame arsed religious silliness going on about atheists, every time.
I do it for the laugh and intellectual stimulation, it is always a chuckle when theists desperately try to justify their faith in unverifiable god claims. And trying to give added value to someone simply not believing in any gods, that's priceless, this has been a funny thread to be honest!

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: EasternShadow

Well they would be deists or polythiests, but yet they reject the op idea of God?

A..the...ist...what is that some beleive Ina theory of everything or some jargon along the lines of creationism?

They reject other gods, but they still believe in their own gods.
Take example, Christian reject Bahai's god, but they still thesist. I reject sun god but I believe in Abrahamic God. It doesn't makes me Atheist, it only makes me A-sun god. Lol

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: EasternShadow

Well they would be deists or polythiests, but yet they reject the op idea of God?

A..the...ist...what is that some beleive Ina theory of everything or some jargon along the lines of creationism?

They reject Op because Op's God is based on Christianity. Op should clarify his subject to be universal God.

Atheism. Apart from the official definition. Is. Freedom.

Freedom to explore. Accept or dismiss, based on whatever satisfies as a sufficient answer. Based on one's interest/need of an answer.

Not believing in god/s doesn't mean you have to believe in something else instead.

There is no issue with Atheism.

a reply to: EasternShadow

A sun of God...play on words.

And yet it was common for the Abrahamic religions to demonize pagan beleives, like the Devil's Horn. In more earlier beleives, horns were a sign of divinity and had something to with light. There the western unicorn, to one of avatars of Vishnu, to the eastern Qilin...which is a dragon that looks like a giraffe. Even Judaism patriarchs had horns similar to the modern concept of the devil which is also inspired by Celt and Greek lore.

I'm only teasing really, I usually like to test the waters, I personally think the whole beleif system is more or less a figure of speech

a reply to: EasternShadow

Well, he did say supreme beings, then went to god himself. Maybe the op doesn't like that nothing and boring a good thing?

a reply to: noonebutme

so I can conclude atheists stick to any theory they see fit no matter how much it's derailed from the topic?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Lol, are you back again?
Your entire OP has been destroyed by logical reasoning. You failed to get your echo chamber, it happens.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I think I'll abandon this thread. It's too emotional. How about some self control.

So you post your view of what atheism is and when asked to express a little deeper instead of vague posts you abandon your thread.


Great form.

How about adressing my claim that if you claim you worship nothing you are claiming to be sovereign.

almost every poster did.


How you make leap in logic is beyond me and it seems a few other readers as well.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

More like any theory that will fit that they can see.

Btw, what is your concern with Atheism? There are other schools of thought that disregard deism, and more or less go for Providence?

What is your overall concern that athiest don't need to beleive any further then their only two eyes can see? Is it eternal fire...or not getting any where in the relationship with God after the third date?

the offense, it's offensive

haven't you got anything better to do than being an atheist?