Theism, broadly defined, is just the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
Never has such a simple concept provoked so much misinformation, myths, and bigotry. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods -nothing more, nothing less. Beyond that atheists may believe or disbelieve absolutely anything.
What is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism."A" means "without" and "gnosis" means "knowledge." Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. It may be technically correct, but rare, to use the word in reference to any other knowledge as well.Despite such possible usages, it remains the case that the term agnosticism is used fairly exclusively with respect to a single issue: do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible are properly labeled agnostics. Everyone who claims that such knowledge is possible or that they have such knowledge might be called "gnostics".
Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that "agnosticism" actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists, and also that "atheism" is limited to "strong atheism" - the assertion that no gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. However, those assumptions are not true. Commenting on this situation, Gordon Stein wrote in his essay "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism":
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean "neither affirming nor denying a belief in God." Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley's definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe,but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

Men cannot remain stationary. The mind cannot be securely anchored. If we do not advance, we go backward. If we do not grow, we decay. If we do not develop, we shrink and shrivel. Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew -- who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was no guess -- no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity -- back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth -- all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death. They not only knew the beginning, but they knew the end. They knew that life had one path and one road. They knew that the path, grass-grown and narrow, filled with thorns and nettles, infested with vipers, wet with tears, stained by bleeding feet, led to heaven, and that the road, broad and smooth, bordered with fruits and flowers, filled with laughter and song and all the happiness of human love, led straight to hell. They knew that God was doing his best to make you take the path and that the Devil used every art to keep you in the road. They knew that there was a perpetual battle waged between the great Powers of good and evil for the possession of human souls. They knew that many centuries ago God had left his throne and had been born a babe into this poor world -- that he had suffered death for the sake of man -- for the sake of saving a few. They also knew that the human heart was utterly depraved, so that man by nature was in love with wrong and hated God with all his might. At the same time they knew that God created man in his own image and was perfectly satisfied with his work. They also knew that he had been thwarted by the Devil, who with wiles and lies had deceived the first of human kind. They knew that in consequence of that, God cursed the man and woman; the man with toil, the woman with slavery and pain, and both with death; and that he cursed the earth itself with briers and thorns, brambles and thistles. All these blessed things they knew. They knew too all that God had done to purify and elevate the race. They knew all about the Flood --knew that God, with the exception of eight, drowned all his children -- the old and young --the bowed patriarch and the dimpled babe -- the young man and the merry maiden -- the loving mother and the laughing child -- because his mercy endureth forever. They knew too, that he drowned the beasts and birds -- everything that walked or crawled or flew -- because his loving kindness is over all his works. They knew that God, for the purpose of civilizing his children, had devoured some with earthquakes, destroyed some with storms of fire, killed some with his lightnings, millions with famine, with pestilence, and sacrificed countless thousands upon the fields of war. They knew that it was necessary to believe these things and to love God. They knew that there could be no salvation except by faith, and through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. All who doubted or denied would be lost. To live a moral and honest life -- to keep your contracts, to take care of wife and child -- to make a happy home -- to be a good citizen, a patriot, a just and thoughtful man, was simply a respectable way of going to hell.

Culled from 'Why I am agnostic' by Robert Ingersoll.

I am an atheist because all the people i've asked have failed to show me why their god is better than the other gods. . . . . and all the gods are evil in one way or the other. . . . i am an atheist because men created all the gods in their own image and because all religions were created out of the fear of the many and the cleverness of a few. . . .i am an atheist because all religions are a farce. . . . . . .

Are there no scientists or theologians and philosophers who know more than I do but believe in God?

There is a common belief among many theists that there are strong philosophical or theological arguments which have proven that God exists, thus rendering disbelief in God perverse at best. This is not a claim that there exist philosophical arguments that make theism reasonable or the existence of God plausible; rather it is a much stronger claim that theism is necessary and the existence of God definite. This is incorrect and it gives theists a false sense of security in their beliefs.
There are no philosophical arguments that prove that any gods do or must exist. Even the very best philosophical arguments would, at most, make the existence of some sort of god plausible or perhaps likely -and that is assuming that those arguments are strong. In reality, however, even the best arguments defending the existence of God are full of problems, holes, and logical errors. Most of the time they seem to be more about helping believers rationalize and justify beliefs they already hold rather than to provide a sound foundation for adopting a belief.
For theists under the mistaken impression that science, philosophy, or theology has proven the existence of their god, one particular problem is the fact that even the strongest of these arguments don't point to the specific god or any particular religion. They might point to the existence of a "First Cause" or a "Designer," but these share almost nothing with the gods described by various Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theologians. If a "First Cause" exists, it may not even be conscious or intelligent, much less a loving being that sent a son to die for our sins.
This, of course, doesn't take into account the many atheological arguments which are used to disprove the existence of gods (or at least show that belief in them is unreasonable). There are no atheological arguments which disprove the existence of absolutelyall possible gods, but there are very good arguments against the existence of the sorts of gods many people believe in, focusing upon important attributes of God as believed in religious systems like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
It is because of these atheological arguments that many philosophers and theologians will point out that while theological arguments defending theism may offer some intellectual support, in the end theism must rest upon some measure of faith rather than reason. There may be philosophical and even scientific arguments in support of the existence of God, but they aren't strong enough to stand completely on their own or justify belief on their own, especially given the powerful philosophical and scientific arguments against the existence of gods.
What this means then is that there are very good reasons for a person to be an atheist: there are no philosophical or scientific arguments which render disbelief in gods nonsensical, perverse, or completely unjustified. The same is not necessarily true of theism, however, at least with certain forms of theism based upon gods with certain characteristics. There are atheological arguments which make belief in common, popular gods with particular characteristics irrational or unjustified.
It may not be that philosophers have proven that God doesn't exist, but philosophers have made it pretty clear that, when certain characteristics or combinations of characteristics are thrown into the mix, God cannot or most likely cannot exist. Removing those characteristics or seriously redefining them may salvage a possible existence for some sort of deity, but only by sacrificing much of what people think that God (in the Western, monotheistic sense) must be.
In other words, the possible existence of God is only salvaged by gutting the traditional concept of God.This is a powerful reason why many people remain atheists, regardless of what their original reasons for questioning an doubting the existence of gods might have been. Such arguments make the acceptance of theism, or at least any traditional theism, very difficult and very unlikely, because such theism simply doesn't have enough support to make it justified.

Religion is a mental illness.

Religion is a widespread mental illness, of which the defining feature is delusional belief in a powerful invisible being or beings who is/are always watching you and will punish you if you don't follow his/her/their will. (The paranoid delusions found in schizophrenia are often remarkably similar). The illness comes in various strains, of which the most severe is Islam / Christianity, symptoms of which include virulent anti-Semitism and homophobia. Almost matching in severity is Scientology, the system in which aliens blew up a volcano, creating life. People not afflicted by religion are called atheists, and they can be identified by their ability and willingness to use rational thought, unless they don't (see Communism).

Religion is the most common infection in the world, with over 90% of the populace infected with one or another strain. Religion is usually brought on by infection by the group: Fatal Anginal-Infective Transcribing Hepatitis virus more often known by the acronym FAITH. Symptoms involve believing something that is not only unproven but also outrageously illogical simply because someone (or occasionally a book), somewhere, says it's true. In this respect, faith can be considered the chronic form of the lesser mental disorder; Gullibility. For synonyms, see How To Make a Million Dollars. The official catch phrase of religion is "Give us your money, and you will have a good afterlife!", known to critics as the "Pie In The Sky" allegory.

Other symptoms involve donation of money to televangelists, participation in holy wars, a feeling of superiority, paraphilic fetishes towards guilt, lack of sense of humour, and spontaneous combustion.

I have stated this on the romance section why i am an atheist! I fell in love, the girl broke my heart, i blamed the society and religion for making me a cool person why the bad ones get everything in life, i end up suspecting religion and i do a research on religions and find out that i have been decieved all my life, i end up hating religion and disliking the god notion more and i now am a bad boy, get most of the things i want and i dont believe in god anymore.

My life has been better ever since! Heartless yes, godless yes, very very happy with my life, YES!

Yes I read that thread, funny

do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible are properly labeled agnostics.

But can the agnostic argument not be applied to all knowledge whatsoever? Epistemologically speaking, do we know anything? We know how things appear, but do we actually know the thing? What if the manner in which we perceive things is just an illusion and the reality is altogether different from the perception.

Then we will not all share the same illusion, reality is not an illusion.

atheism was a gradual process for me. I went from baptist to no i don't want to go to church to deist then now purely an atheist.  I'm an atheist because i feel no connection or sense of any proof of god(s) people talk about.

bawomolo:

atheism was a gradual process for me. I went from baptist to no i don't want to go to church to deist then now purely an atheist. I'm an atheist because i feel no connection or sense of any proof of god(s) people talk about.

Ebony-Silk:

you got a problem? come seem in my bedroom

Is divine command morality even moral?

The divine command theory of ethics is the idea that nothing is right or wrong outside of God's will. If God wills something, then it's good. If God wills that something not be done, then it's wrong. Good and evil are not independent of God and God's will. Can we really say that this is a genuine theory of morality, though? If not, then divine command theory isn't merely a wrong theory of morality, but isn't even a legitimate theory of morality in the first place.
Divine command theory is closely associated with theism, naturally - there is no such thing as divine command theory without a prior belief in and commitment to sort of theism. Not all theists actually accept this idea of morality, though; in fact, some actually reject it as contrary to true love of God.
Leibniz once wrote :
In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary? Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act.
It's hardly surprising that arbitrary and despotic powers have had little problem with the divine command theory of morality. At the very least, getting people accustomed to following divine commands regardless of their consequences or reasonableness - and always thinking that this is "moral" - is a wonderful means for priming people to follow the commands of any other leader as wel -especially one that purports to speak on behalf of or in defense of traditional religion.
Once morality is equality with obedience and sinfulness with disobedience, rulers have taken a major step towards acquiring the unquestioning submission of a significant portion of their community. It's simply not common for religions to promote the questioning of their gods, religious institutions, religious traditions, or religious authorities.
Even though progressives and rebels have always managed to find license for their activism in their religious traditions, the weight of traditions, leaders, and institutions have tended much more strongly towards support of the status quo - including the arbitrary rule of despots for whom consequences and reasonableness are irrelevant.
If no moral principles exist apart from God's will, God's moral choices cannot be principled, and a being that makes unprincipled choices, is not a being worthy of worship, If actions are neither right nor wrong independent of God's will, then God cannot choose one over another because it is morally better. Thus, any moral choices God makes must be arbitrary. But a being who acts arbitrarily does not deserve our praise. So not only is the divine command theory implausible, it is impious as well.
It's curious that theists would be consider defending such a position. Who would praise a god for doing something completely arbitrary? Wouldn't worship of such a god be nothing more than the worship of power - the worship of a being merely because it is powerful enough to do whatever it wants? It's strikingly similar to toadying to a powerful king or other ruler who holds people's fate in his hands.

To all atheist posters are you Nigerians?
Hard to see Nigerians in Nigeria owning up to be atheist. I
f you guys are Nigerians in the diaspora, then you're a victim of Western ideology where you can denounce God because you think its cool.
All i'm saying is, if you live in Nigeria, will you still be bold to declare openly you are an atheist? Just curious.

Chrisbenogor:

Then we will not all share the same illusion, reality is not an illusion.

Who told you that we are sharing an illusion? Perhaps it is part of your illusion that others are seeing the same things as you.

And then on the other hand, it is possible to share illusions. Have you not heard of mass hysteria?

"All i'm saying is, if you live in Nigeria, will you still be bold to declare openly you are an atheist? Just curious." Huh

What are you implying?

Well I tell only who asks I don't go about bragging.

@pastor
How are you sure you that nairaland exists?
I am really finding it hard to follow what you are saying. The whole world cannot be having an illusion. Please explain what you are driving at.

@Chrisbenogor

Maya (Sanskrit माया māyāa[›]), in Indian religions, has multiple meanings. Maya, is the principal deity who creates, perpetuates and governs the phantasmagoria, illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

MAYA

That which truly is not, but appears to be, is Maya. That which causes infatuation is Maya.

Solidity of stone is a power of Maya. Fluidity of water is another power of Maya. Fire is a third burning power. Air is the moving power of Maya. Ether is the void or space power of Maya.

Maya is an appearance. It is semblance. It is the illusory power of God.

From here: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/hinduism/21133


I am surrounded by 4 thick hard walls of my room. These walls, I believe, are dense and solid and I cannot pass through them. Yet a physicists will tell me that far from being solid, in actually fact, the walls are mostly empty space. If an atom was seen on the scale of a football stadium then the only solid matter would be the nucleus which will be the size of a penny in the middle of the football pitch. All around the pitch will be spinning electron much smaller than a grain of sand as far as to the circumference of the stadium.
So Atoms are mostly empty space. From where to we get the illusion of solidity. That is because the Atom emits a force called electromagnetic forces (as well as certain nuclear forces) that give the illusion of the atom being a sold mass. It is the electromagnetic force it emits that doesn't allow us to pass through the wall and gives it the illusion of solidness.

This is just one example of reality being quite different from the way that things are presented to us by our senses.

The world is full of so many other optical, auditory, olfactory illusions. If you remain unconvinced then I can go and research it for you some more.

@pastor
Lol slow down, first let me apply what you are saying to your answer above, how do you know if what you just said is not an illusion?
First of what is an illusion?
Here is the wikipedia definition:

]An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brainnormally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.

Illusion cannot exist without reality, that's why I asked you to put it into the perspective of what you are saying as regards the topic. Using your atom example, did you forget about just how many of them are packed into your thumb and how many are in a square inch and densely packed?
I know there are illusions but put what you are saying into the scope of the topic.

The N:

To all atheist posters are you Nigerians?
Hard to see Nigerians in Nigeria owning up to be atheist. I
f you guys are Nigerians in the diaspora, then you're a victim of Western ideology where you can denounce God because you think its cool.
All i'm saying is, if you live in Nigeria, will you still be bold to declare openly you are an atheist? Just curious.

yeah Tai Solarin was a victim of Western ideology. don't you find something wrong in a country where people have to hide their religious beliefs in fear.

Oneday in church {in England} when i was only 14 in the early eighties. The whole idea about a man creating the world in 6 days sounded like a fairytale to me. Since then i have embraced evolution and i have never looked back since. Because i haven't seen any solid evidence to prove to me that there is an invisible man in the sky watching looking down on us watching everything we do.

99% of d atheists start doubting the existence of God inbtw d age of 13 and 14,is it some curse placed u lots?

i became an atheist when i went to thailand and discovered that there were so many people that did not understand what i was talking about when i mentioned the name jesus and christainity. i was shocked, i came to england and meet a friend who had lived in china and during the course of our discussion about china and the region as a whole he told me that there are hundreds of millions of chinese, mongolians, burmese and north koreans who he believes have never heard the word jesus, mohammed, islam, christainity and judaism in their lives and many of them have died without ever hearing or knowing about the western and arabic faiths(jesus and mohammed). . . . i was born into a muslim home but had to become a christain when my mum divorced my late father and married a christain man. . . . i have had so many experiences with islam and christainity and the bottom line is that they are both a farce. . . .

mazaje at what age did u start doubting d existence of God?13/14 like ur fellow atheists?

busybein:

mazaje at what age did u start doubting d existence of God?13/14 like ur fellow atheists?

i became an atheist when i was an adult, at what age did you start to get brianwashed by religious dogma? i guess since when you were a baby. . . .

mazaje:

i became an atheist when i was an adult, at what age did you start to get brianwashed by religious dogma? i guess since when you were a baby. . . .

ok,atleast u r amongst the 1% that did not discover this at d age of 13 abi 14

what will happen if (that is if u r still single)u end up wt someone that believes in d GOD of d bible?will u grant her d freedm of worship


its not a must to answer,if u don't want to,i can understand

busybein:

ok,atleast u r amongst the 1% that did not discover this at d age of 13 abi 14

what will happen if (that is if u r still single)u end up wt someone that believes in d GOD of d bible?will u grant her d freedm of worship


its not a must to answer,if u don't want to,i can understand

sure i will. . . .

@busybein
Why don't you tell us why you believe in God, what do you think of atheists, agnostics?

Chrisbenogor:

@busybein
Why don't you tell us why you believe in God, what do you think of atheists, agnostics?

because he saved me alot of times,but one day,even when doctors lost hope,he was always there for me,even when my family lost hope he was stil there for me,waiting for me to call upon him,and i did,that was d very first day i had an encounter with him,and that was d day i started getting my life back

busybein:

because he saved me alot of times,but one day,even when doctors lost hope,he was always there for me,even when my family lost hope he was stil there for me,waiting for me to call upon him,and i did,that was d very first day i had an encounter with him,and that was d day i started getting my life back

what about the millions of people that are presently calling on him in the the war torn demoractic republic of congo? why has'nt he come to their rescue? why is he leaving them to die in the cold despite their cries and prayers?

mazaje:

what about the millions of people that are presently calling on him in the the war torn demoractic republic of congo? why has'nt he come to their rescue? why is he leaving them to die in the cold despite their cries and prayers?

d last time i checked ,i asked u qstion and u said u will answer him,I'm still waiting

call upon him with faith in ur heart,alot of people call upon him but wtout faith,alot of people call upon him whilst serving other "gods"

u can't serve to masters at d same time,if u want God to work for u call upon him alone with faith and blive He's done it already