examiner.com:


Until recently, the number of organized atheists has been pretty small and so religious believers have more experience proselytizing to people of other religious or even those who are barely religious but still consider themselves believers. This may be why they have such a hard time understanding that atheism is not a worldview.

Atheism is the radical position that theists haven’t provided adequate evidence for their claims. There are no atheist holy books nor are there any popes of atheism. If you lack a belief in deities, then you are an atheist.

However, many vocal atheists do seem to share some similar points of view. This is not because they are atheists, but rather it is that their point of view has a tendency to lead toward atheism. For example, most vocal atheists tend to value science, skepticism, critical thinking, logic, and reason. While not everyone who values these things are atheists, those that do value those things are more likely to either be atheists or to become atheists. The arc of human understand of reality bends toward atheism.

What we also find is that many vocal atheists tend to share humanistic values. This is because religious dogma tends to be one of the few things that stands opposed to humanism. When people become atheists, their thinking is no longer tainted by that religious dogma and the logical conclusion tends to be humanism. For example, without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, there really is no reason to oppose same-gender marriage. As a result, most vocal atheists are supportive of gay rights. The same is true with women’s rights and the rights of others.

This said there are many atheists who are not active within the greater community of reason. Some of those atheists don’t value science and humanism the way the majority of modern atheists do. They simply lack a belief in deities. That’s fine because atheism isn’t a religion. It isn’t a worldview. There are no atheist holy books.

It is perfectly logical that there will be atheists who will hold some really horrible points of view and who will do some really terrible things. This isn’t a reflection on atheism because there is no doctrine of atheism. On the other hand, religious believers do have doctrines and so when particular believers act on their very understandable interpretations of those doctrines, their actions do reflect on their religion and their worldview.

When Muslims demand that women cover themselves up, they do this because of their interpretation of their holy book. When Christians oppose the science of evolution, they do so because of their interpretation of their holy book. In both cases, those interpretations are very understandable in that a reasonable person can interpret the text in that fashion. It isn’t like reading The Lorax and concluding that the book supports de-foresting and unfettered industrialization. That would be an unreasonable interpretation.

As an atheist, I don’t have to worry about the proper interpretation of holy books. All I really have to do is lack a belief in a deity. That is not my worldview; that is simply a lack of believing in any of the religious worldviews. I do have a worldview and it can’t be described by a single label. Humanism is certainly a large part of my worldview, so if I had to give a simple answer that might be it. Atheism, however is not a worldview in and of itself.

skepticink.com:


Atheism Proven Wrong?

I got a hilarious comment from a Christian recently. He claimed that atheism has been proven to be wrong. I didn’t know whether my gut was going to explode from laughter or my head was going to explode from his ignorance and stupidity.

For starters, atheism isn’t a belief system. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in deities. So the only way to prove atheism wrong is to prove that theism is true. I have yet to see any valid evidence in support of theism let alone solid iron-clad proof that any gods exist.

That’s really all it would take; all a theist really has to do is present some sort of valid, testable, evidence for their deity of choice. Instead, all we get are poorly thought out philosophical arguments, word games, threats of eternal torture, bribes of eternal rewards, and a whole lot of mere assertions. Religious believers seem to be a little light in the actual testable evidence department.

On the other side, many religious claims have been demonstrated to be flat out false. The list is nearly endless. Starting from Genesis and straight on through to the Book of Revelation, claim after claim has been refuted. Why would anyone take anything the Bible says seriously after so many of the claims made in the book series has been exposed to be false – not to mention completely ridiculous.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is any testable evidence that disproves God – although there are some pretty good arguments that disprove God. I do think that the track record of the Bible isn’t that great and that alone should raise some doubts about some of the more ridiculous concepts – like a deity.

In the absence of evidence for the existence of a deity, it is only logical to be skeptical about the existence of such a deity – especially given the ridiculousness of the concept and the ridiculously poor track record of the Bible and other “holy” books. Plus, like I said, there are some pretty good arguments against the concept of a deity ad science has shown time and again that it can build a probable model of the universe without the need for a deity in that model. While this is not “proof” or testable evidence, it is a valid reason to reject the claim in the absence of supporting evidence for the claim. So there!

examiner:

Does it take more faith to be an atheist?

I hear it all the time, “it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.” This popular Christian argument claims that in order for atheists to reject the claim that god exists, we must first know everything that there is to know. What those who use this argument are basically saying is that atheists must know the entire set of facts about the universe before we can look and that set as a whole and see that their God is not included in that set of facts. Of course this argument is just absurd.

First it claims that atheists are claiming to know with faith-based, dogmatic, absolute certainty that God does not exist. While some atheists might claim that, this is really just a false caricature or “strawman” of what most atheists think. Most atheists simply see no evidence and thus no valid reason to believe.

Second, this argument assumes that we have to know what is in order to know what isn’t. I’m not a computer expert and so if someone asked me how computers work, I really couldn’t tell them. But if someone told me that there is a gerbil inside running on a wheel which powers the computer, I would be more that just a bit skeptical of such a claim. In truth, I would call such a claim ridiculous and so would you. Even though I don’t personally know how computers work, I am reasonably certain that gerbils are not involved. I would need to see some pretty solid evidence to convince me otherwise. I don’t need to know everything about computers to know that gerbils running in a wheel inside my computer are not in that set of facts. Common sense informs me that gerbils do not power the computer. So the claim that one must know everything that is, in order to know one thing that isn’t, is just absurd.

Third, this argument focuses on the Christian God, but we could really switch that focus to anything or even any god for that matter. What about the God Zeus? Christians would have to admit that if their argument is true and that in order to reject belief in something, we would need to know everything, than they would have to admit that they should also believe in the God Zeus because to not believe would mean that they know everything about the universe and see that Zeus is not in that set of knowledge. It is just such an absurdly ridiculous argument and yet Christians seem to use it all the time. They seem to forget that their particular god isn’t the only god ever imagined. The fact is that it still takes more faith to believe in imagined deities than it does to simply not believe in such absurdities.

Reyginus: More like an atheist bible

Uyi Iredia: Atheist Basic 1: Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

Mr Troll: Do you still persist in this foolishness?

Uyi Iredia:

The foolishness comes from those who merely rephrase a belief as an unbelief and pretend theirs isn't a belief, ideology or philosophy. Christianity was once deemed such. I had a desperate soul who claimed that atheism wasn't the belief that God doesn't exist_do you agree to that ?

Mr Troll: you mean logicboy.

Uyi, atheism is UNBELIEF. Theist believe that god/gods exist. Atheists dont believe that they exist. Why are you forcing an argument where there's none?

An unbelief is not a belief in the opposite.

FrostyZonn:

Reyginus: More like an atheist bible

Uyi Iredia:

The foolishness comes from those who merely rephrase a belief as an unbelief and pretend theirs isn't a belief, ideology or philosophy. Christianity was once deemed such. I had a desperate soul who claimed that atheism wasn't the belief that God doesn't exist_do you agree to that ?

examiner.com:


Atheist: Lack of belief in a deity. This is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “theist” meaning belief in a deity.

- Agnostic: Lack of knowledge in a deity. Again, this is derived from the prefix “a” meaning “lack of” or “no” and the word “gnostic” meaning “knowledge.” The context provided the deity aspect but it is certainly possible to be agnostic about the weather or any number of other things.

There seems to be some question about the terms “atheism” and “agnostism” so it is time to discuss it. The definitions are listed above, but they are not mutually exclusive terms as many people (particularly Christians), seem to think. Atheism concerns belief while being agnostic is a claim about knowledge.

This may get a little complicated, but let me try to explain it. I don’t know if there is a purple house on Oak Street, so I might lack the belief that there is. That doesn’t mean that I disbelieve that there is a purple house on Oak Street necessarily, but it could mean that too. However, if someone showed me a picture of a purple house on Oak Street, then I would have knowledge of the purple house and would almost certainly believe that there is in fact a purple house on Oak Street. By that same reasoning, if I said that I don’t have any reason to believe that there is a purple house on Oak Street, that doesn’t mean that I believe that there is no purple house on Oak Street. It also doesn’t mean that I believe there must be a blue house on Oak. In other words, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, but it is not a disbelief in a deity necessarily and it is not necessarily a belief in something else either. It can be, but that is not a requirement of the set of people who lack the belief.

There are atheist religions such as Secular Humanists, The Brights, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. Believe it or not, I have even met an atheist Christian (I don’t understand it either so don’t ask) and there are also a number atheist Jews that I have met. I might even be considered one of them. But that has to do in part with the Hebrew heritage and traditions and less to do with the Jewish religion. But when someone claims to be an atheist, they are not talking about a belief that they hold, but rather a belief that they don’t hold. Unless it is modified or married to some other belief, the term “atheist” is not about the person’s beliefs but rather the person’s lack of belief in a particular being or beings.

If someone were to tell me that there was a man named David living in Israel, I could say that I lack the knowledge of such a person, but I still believe it to be true. David after all is a pretty common Jewish name and it is pretty likely that there is a man named David living in a country full of Jews. This is an example of belief without knowledge. And if I were at a magic show and the Magician sawed a girl in half right in front of me, I could say that I have knowledge (in that I saw it happen right in front of my eyes) but I still don’t believe that it happened. One could argue that I know it was a trick and that is additional knowledge but I can’t really say that I “know” it as much as I can say that I don’t believe it was real based on other factors.

My point here is that knowledge and belief are two separate things and so it is entirely logical to be both an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. I also want to again clarify that atheist does not necessarily mean an active disbelief in a god just a rejection of a belief in a god. Personally, I will make the claim that particular Gods do not exist. I am reasonably certain that Thor, Zeus, and Yahweh are made up fictional characters. But that isn’t to say that I am not open to the idea of some vague higher power entity. But currently, I see no knowledge to suggest that such a vague higher power entity exists, so I lack that belief. Show me evidence for the purple house on Oak Street and I would probably believe it, but I am reasonably certain that there isn’t an Igloo on Oak Street (especially not during these summer months if we are both talking about the same Oak Street in Pennsylvania). I have no knowledge of that Igloo and I also have no belief in that Igloo.

benodic:
The atheist challenge to religious doctrines and believes is a very welcome development which any right thinking theists will welcome with open arms.
the opportunity to re-examine one's believes with particular emphasis on how it affects the next person who does not share that believe is of paramount importance. for me i have learnt a lot from atheists and i have a lot of respect for them for it is not easy in our present society to stand on the other side of the fence and look squarely at people who are ready to kill you for what you stand for and tell them that you do not believe in their Doctrine.

wiegraf:

Still trying to wish a god into existence? That's not going to happen anytime, ever.

I know reading stuff doesn't actually help you (in particular) much, but read this regardless..

Mr Troll: I hope this is clear enough for you Uyi. Frankly, sometimes I just wish you'll go back to being a christian and save us all the stress

wiegraf:

Still trying to wish a god into existence? That's not going to happen anytime, ever.

I know reading stuff doesn't actually help you (in particular) much, but read this regardless..

wiegraf:

HEED THE GOSPEL HEATHEN!!!

wiegraf: Why should anyone take y'all seriously?



http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2013/08/19/atheism-proven-wrong/

lahchi:

If you happen to be an atheist can you possibly come up with a valid information of how you got to exist on this universe?

Mr Troll: Can you do same? I mean come up with a valid information of how you come to exist in this universe?

Uyi Iredia:

Typical snotty-minded bloke. Having problems knowing a disbelief is a belief as well, that a certain thing is false, or that rejection or refusal is bound to a prior belief in an opposing viewpoint. Faff on please, your fortè.

Mr Troll: abstinence is sex in reverse as well.

I give up on you Uyi. Such a shame

jayriginal: Uyi, if a judge releases an accused person for lack of evidence, is he saying he believes that the person is innocent?

Think about it.

Mr Troll: Can you do same? I mean come up with a valid information of how you come to exist in this universe?

lahchi:
I strongly believe a being had something to do with the creation of this world. The Bible further made me understand that God which is a Supernatural Being created this world. If you choose not to accept the fact that God exist and even created you, how come did you come to exist? There should be a valid reason for every word you use in answering this question.

Uyi Iredia:

By implication, for the time being. You can try wiggle around it as I do on issues attimes but, the fact is, if a judge releases an accussed then he is supposed innocent given the legal precedent: innocent until proven guilty. I find it irksome that atheists would dishonestly assert they have no belief, what next, not making a choice isn't a choice, right.