duckznutz

. . . but Lebell has a point here. You cant actually say you 'know'. We atheists cant have it both ways . . . Lebell has conceded that the burden of proof remains with believers . . . . . . . even as I type this, I am sure that Lebell is away to compile that proof for us and we can look forward to reading it any day now!

(PS : Lebell . . I think I saw that proof the other day . . I am sure its in the cupboard . . no not that one . . the other one . . beside the gardening stuff . . on the shelf next to the Holy Grail!)

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

wilywampa

here's my proof that, if there is a god, it is not a benevolent god: (warning, contains a fairly explicit picture)

i am agnostic; i think there is no conclusive evidence for either side, though atheism seems more likely and organized religions seems too detailed to be completely true

billclinton

Science is only an answer to the easy questions......
It is my opinion that atheism is the easy answer to the question of why we are here.....
I have no goal of converting anyone to believe that God exists, but I do believe that science is absolutely lacking in answering so many questions that I do believe in all things spiritual.
I don't have to prove that God exists any more than you have to prove that he doesn't......for that matter prove that you exist or that I exist or anything exists......... nothing is real, except what you believe.

"What does WWJD stand for?" asked the dude about the other dudes hat......."What would Jesus do?" replied the other dude......to which the dude said "Well he wouldn't pay $20 for that fucking hat"

__________________
No Comment....

wilywampa

first, atheism isn't an answer to why we are here, but, if it were, why would it be any easier an answer than yours?
it is not a question of having to prove it; it's a question of being able to prove it. it is almost always impossible to prove that something does not exist, whereas god is the only thing i can think of that people commonly accept as existing without being able to prove it
ever heard of "cogito ergo sum"?

gwangaii8

ok, try this.
you have the choice to decide between two books to read.
the first book is an amazing fantasy...it has gods and monsters and magic and miracles and hot princesses.
the other book has the laws of thermodynamics.
which book would you rather read?
(you atheists just want to be right. try to relax a little and have fun.)

billclinton

Atheism is the accepted definition of one who believes that God does not exist, or for you purists, has no belief in anything spiritual. When you call yourself an athiest you define yourself. A definition could/would be considered an answer to a question..."what is an athiest?"......the answer is the definition of an atheist.........So, once again, proclaiming that you are an athiest would be defining yourself as one who has no beliefs in any God or that damn purple llama or whatever. And in my most absoulutely meaningless opinion, atheism is the easiest answer to the most difficult questions.

I have found that most of the atheists that I have met (a roommate in college proclaimed to be one) generally consider themselves to be intellectuals (elitists) and consider any arguments other than what they think as absurd (see previous posts) and discount any opinions other than their own as "not very well thought out" or "the blind leading the blind" or "cliche after cliche"

Once again, what I believe is really important......to me. What you believe is not really important.....to me.

As for "cogito ergo sum".....just because you do and are, don't mean that you am to me....or something like that.

Believing in God is not wrong....but telling someone that they shouldn't is. As for atheism....."caveat emptor"......

__________________
No Comment....

wilywampa

or, try this... you have a choice between believing in a god who will send you to hell if you do fun stuff like masturbate, or believe that you are free to do whatever you want

nulltype

bill: I think the thing is that the Atheists for the most part don't really believe in anything spiritual so unless you can prove conclusively that spirituality exists, then I don't think they should have to defend their argument. Not believing in something intangible and invisible may be the simplest answer, but I do not think that it is the easiest answer. Atheists must deal with a world that doesn't particularly care what happens to them, their life has no spiritual or instrinsic value, they are just another organism, living or doing whatever. They don't usually see a life after death or some other such continuation. Once it's over, it's over. They are faced with the idea that once they are no longer alive, there IS nothing else. They must, therefore, live as best they can right now, because they won't get another chance or even a reward for their actions. In that same line, I think it interesting that they still have a sense of "morality" or at least subjective right and wrong, because they behave just like everyone else, if not better in most cases (from a subjective viewpoint) even though they will recieve no reward or punishment when they cease to exist. Perhaps they just value them as important social constructs, as CSFilm mentioned, they benefit human society.

I suggest closely reading CSFilm's posts as they seem to be very informative about atheists.

I personally don't see any reason for atheists to force their lack of belief on other people in the same way that I don't see any reason for religious people to force their beliefs on other people. I mean, they may have a good reason, but it's still not very nice. And if there is one correct belief or lack of belief, time will probably resolve what arguments cannot.

Mesmerize

Everybody remember: militant athiests are just as annoying as militant theists.

billclinton

Nulltype......in re-reading my posts I just can't seem to see where I ask anyone to prove or defend anything. I actually seem to defend what I believe.....but, I think that is what is offensive to atheists- me defending what I believe. Atheists feel that it is important to point out how ignorant I must be for believing something that I can't see or touch or smell, but I can't seem to recall a time that I asked an atheist to defend or rationalize or prove his/her beliefs to me.

You seem to indicate that I should in some way feel pity for atheists because they live in a world that thinks differently than they do and that they live with the onus that they have nothing to really live for and that once they die, it is over-done-finished and everything that they lived for, thought, created, remembered....etc. is gone.....OK maybe I do feel some pity...but not in a charitable way so there's no need to take offense to my pity.

Also, morality is as easily undefineable for an atheist as it is for a theist. Atheists seem to argue that morality cannot be defined, but will still comment on how they are denizens of morality, albeit undefined?!?......

My only goal in what I am saying is that I am clear in what I say. I am not issueing a challenge for rebuttal.

__________________
No Comment....

CSflim

I'm not really sure what your point is. My guess is that you're saying that a fantasy book is more entertaining than a science book. Well, even if I were to accept that, it still doesn't make tantasy book, REAL!
Just because religion appeals to you as what you WANT to believe in, does NOT make it the truth.

More importantly, I would admit that a book on fantasy is a lot esier to read than a book on science. But reality is far more amazing and beautiful than ANY fiction ever written. Sticking with learning about reality is far more rewarding than reading any fiction.

I will admit to enjoying fiction, especially movies. But ultimately thay are only entertainment: a bit of escapism.

__________________

CSflim

As firefly already pointed out: atheism is not an answer. It is a REJECTION of answers.

I believe that people who are atheist do tend to be on average more intelligent. But there is a difference between cause and correlation.
Intelligence is required in order to think for yourself. The majority of people will simply accept religion at face value without asking any questions, or without really thinking about it.
People who do have the ability to think for themselves can then come to their own conclusions about religion. Some will turn atheist, others will think long and hard about their faith, but decide to keep it.
Almost all of the religious people we have here are definately intelligent enough to think for themselves. I'm not trying to insult anyone.

[b]

What you believe may be important to you. But it doesn't make it any more like the truth.

Yeah...and? That is the whole point of I think therefore I am?

__________________

Dragonlich

1) You shouldn't feel pity for atheists, because they do not *want* your pity. Your pity for them would be misplaced and rather arrogant: "you know all the answers and those poor deluded fools do not... poor them." So, don't pity us - we'll enjoy our lives regardless. I understand that you may find it hard to accept such joy without an afterlife or reward, but I can guarantee you that I do enjoy my life. I'd also enjoy leaving some permanent positive mark on human history, no matter if I get a reward for it or not.

2) It doesn't really matter what the world *thinks* - they can still be wrong.

3) Atheists do not argue anything. Atheists aren't a homogeneous group, so they do not have one voice. Some of them may argue what you say they do, but others disagree, while yet others don't give a rat's arse. I think morality can easily be defined, as Kant has shown centuries ago. I live my life according to the laws of my country, a lot of common decency and common sense. I don't need a 2000+ year old book to tell me what's right and wrong, because I can think for myself.

tehblaed

The fact that religion was invented by human beings in the first place is usually my number one reason.

The following text is basically a giant crapload of thoughts I have on religion. Enjoy.

I am 100% completely, pure atheist. I believe in no supernatural occurences: no ghosts, no spirits. There is no "soul" or "spirit", these are just fictionalized representations of your current personality. Personality does only exist in a living human brain, be it your brain (i.e. your own personality) or the brain of another human being (i.e. remembering how you used to be, or something). I am a scientist at heart and need proof for everything.

Funny, because my parents raised me Presbyterian. What's also humorous is that I got kicked out of Sunday School at their church (for telling the teacher she was lying!)

I guess what actually determines what religion you are is what other people label you as, and since all religions started out as one religion - basically traced back to Sumer and their king/gods - it doesn't really matter anyway.

Want to know what happens when you die? You rot. There you go. That's the answer. Your body rots, your brain rots, your eyes rot, your "soul" rots - since your brain is rotting, there is no soul. Soul is just another word for personality.

I believe the only reason religions still exist and thrive thoroughly is because people still need an excuse to get up off of their butts and do things. While I do agree that religion is a good way of motivating someone to do whatever (quit drugs, get good grades, stay chaste, etc), the motivation should come from within in the first place. There should be no reason to be unmotivated unless you are lazy and are frightened by the fact that when you die you will have things that you have not held responsibility for. Thus the reason for "forgiving" sins would be to remove personal liability for things you have done wrong.

I really really hate how everyone is so very polite to each other at Church, even though they may hate each other's guts. There is absolutely no reason to put on a show - if "God" could really judge you I bet he would be more pissed at you if you lied to yourself and others rather than just being honest.

Religion is all about motivation. I feel the reason I am atheist is because I have absolutely no reason to feel ashamed for anything I have ever done, nor do I lack any self respect or motivation. I get things done; I have never drank alcohol (to get drunk, I mean. I have consumed one (1) beer on three seperate occasions (eating steak.)); I waited quite some time to do any sexual activity.

All these morals, all this responsibility, all without the help of "spiritual guidance". I think religion is just an excuse to take the burden off of getting things done on your own.

Did you know that in the Stephen King book "It", there is a crazy spider monster that transforms itself into a clown and lures children into the sewers and then kills them?

How about if I told you that story was true, would you believe me? Probably not. For the same reasoning, I do not believe that the Bible is a work of complete non-fiction and should be taken literally; It is simply just a book that someone wrote. Well, more like a couple people. Okay, probably a hundred or so different people. But it’s just a book.

Do not feel obligated to believe in any one of the many different religions just because "it makes the most sense" when you have not yet explored the idea that there is no God, no plan, no apocolypse. Wouldn't the thing that would "make the most sense" be something that has actually been scientifically proven to be exact and right many times over? If you answered yes to this question, then Creationism would be completely out of the picture. There is so much backing to evolution it is not even slightly amusing.

I feel no need to believe in anything, no order, no set path. The idea that I have no control over my life's outcome is pure bull to begin with. If fate is what you are to end up being, then I guess whatever the hell I do, that would be my fate, right? So if I work at a soup kitchen, give to the needy, and home the homeless, would my fate be "giving back to the community and being a kind, caring, gentle person"?

How about if one day I just decided to end all that and kill a few people? I guess that would be my new Fate then, huh? I can say loophole, can you? No matter what happens to me, that is always my Fate. That's not all that thought out if you ask me. So many ways to get around it.

The thought that religion is a security blanket is accepted over here on my end. I am independent enough to enjoy my life without my security blanket, as I am mature enough to say "I do not need help, I am fine by myself." And you know what? I am. I enjoy my life to the fullest, and I seriously enjoy my photography/computer hobbies. I always try to live my life every second as if I were to die the next. I am optimistic, because I have no other chance at living. Once I am dead, I am dead. To me, that is maturity - knowing that even though it will all end without reward or fame, doing your best anyway. Kind of like being a "good sport", don't you think? Instead of playing life to win, I play life to enjoy.

tisonlyi

As an atheist, but one who practises _some_ form of religion (namely schooling myself in and practising Zen X(not necessarily buddhism but borrowing heavily from it)), and back to the original question.

I use no razor to decide for me, I look around.

A miracle without any _solid_ evidence for it's creation.

Miracle: 1 - A wonder or wonderful thing. 2 - An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature.

Theists take this miracle and wrap one or more miracles around it. The miraculous God or Gods (how many invisible men in the clouds to you like pulling levers in the heavens?) of creation and potentially control, who, or whom, sit up on their interstellar clouds perfoming this miracle and that, keeping their creation in check.

For me, the best option when faced with a lack of evidence is not to answer.

The original moment of creation for _this_ universe is held to be the big bang, what created the mass that bigly banged in the first place?

I cannot say, but it is my firmly held belief that everything since can be explained by cause and effect.

£19.99 - The Universe. (No Gods included)

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

CSflim

Amen.

__________________

g.f.p.

And what if none of them are wrong, and all of them are right? I know to some people this may seem a cop-out, an easy answer, but as someone who's spent a lot of time wrestling with the question of the existence of god, I ask you to think about it for a little bit. One of the things that turned me (and I suspect many others) off from the faith I was raised in (Baptist Christianity) was the sheer exclusivity of it. Why is it so hard for people to people to accept the idea of inclusionary religions? The sheer variety of people living varied lives, happily living in the face of astounding contradictions guarantees we can never all believe the same thing. Assuming that there is a god, and we are created in his image, isn't it possible that this is no accident?

There is empirical evidence that there is no god. I've read very logical arguments against his existence. However, I've seen god, and I'd be betraying myself not to trust my own observations over the arguments of the smartest people on earth any day of the week. If you choose not to agree with me, it makes no difference to me at all. What I saw argues for inclusiveness in belief beyond any doubt I may have. I have no interest in the idea of organized religion; it seems silly to me, but if it does it for you, who am I to argue. I'm just one thread in a tapestry, reflected and reflecting; I have little interest in judgment.

And before someone points it out, I will admit that I do find it hard to incorporate the idea of atheism into this notion of inclusiveness. But to be frank, it's not something I've spent a lot of time trying to incorporate.

As an aside, I noticed someone brought up the "Creation vs. Evolution" in this post. I've always been amused that of all the people I've talked about these things with, and some of them were very smart, not a one of them could even conceive of a third alternative, or a fourth, etc.

__________________
"We get checks from the government. And we use them to buy beer."

tehblaed

I saw God once. He was in my Icee, saying "Don't drink me, you piece of shit! I'm sorry I ever even had you, worthless pile of crap!"

The next day, my dad kicked me out of my house. I don't know why.

eggsofamerica

first off i don't think anyone denies the existence of faith. atheist or otherwise. it isn't something that you can throw out. alongside thought, as one of our defining characteristics as a seperate and identifiably greater species, sits the capability for faith. to believe without logic, the ability to know the infinite exists is the purpose of faith. because thought, by itself can't grasp that sort of thing. atheists don't deny that the concept of infiniti exists, that there are things that are infinite and greater than we are. the question is where that knowledge comes from. ask anyone to picture infiniti and, if they're being honest, they'll tell you they can't do that. the fact that they know it exists though, to me, stems from their possession of some sort of faith, in spite of logistical and real constraints of their mind, they continue to believe it exists.

that being said, during my atheist phases, and the current stance of all my atheist friends, I can't say that the reason i didn't believe in god was because i just had faith in his nonexistence. the reason i didn't believe was because it was a direct contradiction to all sorts of logical sense. it just doesn't make sense. it can't be proved. for an atheist, that's enough to stop believing. or not believe in the first place. and who can blame them?

xinophire

Simply historically speaking, organized religion has so manipulated and abused society's faith in the ever-growing numbers of theories of divinity that, personally, I'm surprised that 'God' still plays as dominating a roll in everyday life (regardless of whether you believe in Him or not) as He does. I'm an athiest because I understand the utter power theism has over many people and, frankly, how evil irresponsible people act under the influence of it. When religion stops hurting and controlling, I might regain faith in it.

__________________
I was here five minutes ago

CSflim

Just curious. Could you give us a bit of insider info on your encounter with God?

__________________

CSflim

Infinity exists. Just because we cannot picture it doesn't make it unreal. Square root of minus one also exists (i), but again we cannot picture it. It exists in the mathematical world because we have defined it so. The real question is whether infinity exists in the empirical world, and well thats a harder question. In fact it is a whole other thread. But essentialy, if you make the assumuption that there is in existence at least one continuous system (as opposed to a discreete system) you can very easily empirically prove the existence of infinity. See my post in the inifinity thread for more on this. But "believing" in infinity is not really the same thing as believeing religious hokey poke.

Curious, what made you revert back to religion?

__________________

CSflim

Well no...Fact is Fact. Truth is Truth. Real is Real. Two contradictory things cannot be true.

A: x = 3
B: 2x = 5

Either A or B is WRONG. They cannot BOTH be correct. Similarly Jesus cannot be BOTH the son of God and simultaneously not the son of god. Jesus cannot have resurected himself on the third day, while also on the same day staying stone cold dead locked safely away in the crypt.


The answer to that question is very simple, but it wouldn't be very PC of me to elaborate. But thats never stopped me before.

To all extents and purposes Evolution is a Fact. To all scientific people there is no question about it. The only reason there theory comes under any fire AT ALL, is nothing to do with bad science, it is to do with the fact that it infringes on their personal beliefs. The God story: hence creationism.

There is the Truth, and the Myth, hence Evolution vs. Creationism. Perhaps you, in your infinite wisdom would care to offer us a third and a forth proposal?

__________________

tehblaed

Agreed heavily. The only reason we have not put forth a third and fourth theory is simply because there is already one that is right, so there is no need to procure another.

nothingx

I tend to take the quantum physicist's point of view on this one. Since we can neither prove the existance of a god, nor disprove its existance.... it must both exist and not exist at the same time. The only way to find out for sure is to open the box and see if the cat is dead.

CSflim

So kill yourself already!

__________________

tisonlyi

Oooh, Oooh, Oooh...

Does God have a big white beard? Is he white? Does he sit on a cloud and count teardrops in the rain?

Tell all.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

little limey

Am I the only one this upsets? I agree that being an agnostic is a comfort blanket. I am accepting that I'm a scared little human being when I say that I'm agnostic. It is just to vast of a thing for me to realize what I am saying when I say that there is no unifying power connecting everything that has happened to the Earth and the rest of the universe and other galaxies (which we don't even know about).

Anyway, what upset me is why even bring bisexuality into it and then put a big smiley face after it? Bisexual people are not lazy and have to make the exact same effort and decisions that straight people do (if not more because they have a lot more of the population at their fingertips). I just thought that this was a totally unnecessary remark and couldn't not make a comment about it. Sorry to have deviated from the main subject of this thread.

CSflim

Hey, sorry about that. I really didn't mean to offend. I wasn't at all being serious, just joking.
The big smiley face was there to show that it was a joke, and not meant to be taken seriously in any way. Such was the original purpose of smiley faces.
The joke was just comparing agnostics, who refuse to decide to be religious or atheist, and bisexuals who refuse to choose between hetrosexuality and homosexuality. Of course it is a ridiculous comparision, which is what makes it a joke!
Just a misunderstanding.

Cheers,
CSflim.

__________________

Regziever

Well i see it like this.. The medical Science have proven once and for all that our thoughts feelings and instincts all have a physichal origin in the brain in the form of neurons communicating with eachother. That means quiet simply that the idea of a soul is impossible. There is no such thing.

If we extend this reasoning, The verry reason for beliving in god is the belif in an afterlife. But since it is proven that there is no such thing as a soul there can be no afterlife.

Since the idea of an afterlife is impossible as well, the idea of a god is not really interesting, nor belivable.

Therefore i don't belive. Therefore i say this is the only life we got.. let's make as much as possible with it cause we don't get any second chance.

But as always, i want to belive.. I don't want it to end with death. i don't want the universe to be pointless.. but my reason and logic tells me once and for all that there is no such thing as a god therefore there is no point in beliving..

If there is an afterlife i will most surley be happily suprised. But untill then i stick with the idea of not wasting my life on unimportant things but instead make every breath of air count.

__________________
Life is shit,
Death is even worse,
So what's the point of killing yourself?
/Ignatius Camryn Paladine

pr0f3n

I think God serves two basic purposes. First, it helps to answer the question 'Why?', which many of you have pointed out is beginning to become a moot point thanks to scientific knowledge.

The second purpose is to provide hope. People without hope don't survive/thrive/strive for anything better. They either get by while waiting for something to happen, or they cease to live(generally through their own hands)

I think children learn to trust a benevolent being (typically parent)early on to help them do things they cannot do themselves, to watch over them and keep them safe, and this can translate to trusting in a similar entity (God,etc.) as they grow physically independent.

When I as an atheist look for help, I look to people I trust and care for, ancillary to looking to myself. I think theists tend to do the exact same thing, but may have a far better attitude about it because they can go to their god first, and as we all know, God works through others

'How do you know god doesn't exist' is the same as saying 'how do you know Santa Claus doesn't exist'
It had a purpose, at one point, but that need is gone, at least for me, but I'm glad anyone that needs God, has it. Just respect that it ain't my bitch.

__________________
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Friedrich Nietzsche

MacGnG

someone said something like, i believe in God and practice my religion because the extra effort it takes is going to be worth it if there is a God.

Religion, like Science, answers the unanswerable.

papermachesatan

I generally ask them 'why should I believe it'.

Because believing in God is akin to believing in a invisible intangiable masturbating pink elephant that floats over your shoulder. There's no reason to believe so why should I?

I can respect other's for having faith. Personally though, I don't have faith in things that I have no reason to have faith in.

Why?

papermachesatan

Science is the search for the answers and Religion claims to already have it.

papermachesatan

*Looks through the posts, preparing to comment but sees CSflim has already taken care of business*

chavos

It's like saying the existance of pentiums proves that operating systems are a myth.

Easy to believe that you're right and everyone else is wrong, eh?

papermachesatan

occams razor. no need for a soul, no evidence.


Blatant appeal to popularity logical fallacy.
Demonstrate why I should believe.

Iscariot

I just say, "I take the benefit of the doubt."

Regziever

To be quet frank with you, i do not quiet follow where youre leading with this. The logic in your reasoning is to say the least nonexistent.

Simply look at the defenition of a soul. ("The thing that makes us individuals instead of simple organisms, the thoughts and feelings of our psychological processes, the thing that separates humans from animals as it is a part of the divine being").

Religion makes the assumption that there is a soul. Science however proves that everything the theists claim to be soul is in fact jumping neurons in our physichal brain (That means no Religious Hokus Pokus, just simple FACT).

For there to be a point with god, afterlife and even faith the soul must exist. without the soul i have no reason to worry about what will happen in the afterlife since you need a soul to get there in the first place.

Since the soul doesn't exist, (at least any defenition the theists claim to exist) there is no point and no purpose for an imaginary friend, judge and creator living on some cloud..

The reason i took my time to explain this to you is not because i'm trying to make you stop bleiving, i was merely after showing how i reason. Since your reasoning included two things that had no affiliation what so ever and my reasoning includes two things (the soul and god) whose existence or nonexistence includes or excludes the other (no soul no god. no god no soul.) it is quiet obvious that you missunderstood me completly.

I hope this will shed some light on the matter for you. Since you are (I assume) a theist, i sincerly hope that you can hold on to your naive faith when reality comes knocking on your door. Since in my opinion, the curse of humankind lies not in what we are able to do to eachother it is simply in the fact that we are concious about our own existence. Religion serves the purose of making that conciousness tollerable to some pelope since they can't stand living in a world where there is no purpose.
If that works for you, good for you! But for me that is simply selfdelusion in its gravest form.

If you should feel compelled to answer this message i ask of you to stick to logic and reason as these are the only things i will bother caring about.
If you choose to keep the same nonexistent level of logic on your reasoning i will simply ignore you since the last thing i want to do is start a flame war on our boards.

So to conclude this answer, I'm sorry if you were offended by anything i have written in this or my previous message, but in my opinion i have the right to state what i belive and why. I still don't quiet understand why you had to post your message in the flame-atory manner it was written. It is quiet obvious that you have no reason to be in this post since the question (in the original post) was directed to Atheists.
As I see it you are only here for one thing and that is to pick a fight with atheists since they don't belive in the same things you do.

I ask you this since not everyone belive in religious hokus pokus.

__________________
Life is shit,
Death is even worse,
So what's the point of killing yourself?
/Ignatius Camryn Paladine

wlcm

So if there was a person who never heard of god before, would that person be an atheist? I'm thinking the idea of god came after no ideas of god--which is not the same as ideas of no god.

Why is there a name for people who don't believe in god, as if they came after the people who do? A person could live his life ignorant of all the debates just fine, but he has to be asked first if there is a god or not before he can be given the lable of atheist?

I am not going to say i am an atheist because i don't believe in god. I'd rather say that i don't understand why others do believe in god.

Atheists aren't the attackers here, they are the defenders where people of all religions attack the atheist's set of beliefs--beliefs that happen to not include a god. In fact, it would seem that atheists are the only ones not attacking or engaging any other beliefs. Even so, they like all others, have to defend against all other belief systems.

So i guess all this concludes in what has already been said. It is up to the people who believe in god to prove god exists and not the other way around, because i live content with no thought of god either way.

Also as a last note, i belive that people of all religions should sort out which belief of god/the gods is true before they start disputing with the atheists. Since we are the ones without as the name implies, it would be hard for us to argue with the theists if they can't even get their story right.