Atheists Don't Exist
 

hehehehe
...so thanks for joining me a new kind of twist/tilt.... I want to know if anyone can prove to me atheism exists? And what purpose does it serve?

So, we meet again... :D

Atheism exists. It has to, since Sixate exists, and Sixate is an atheist.

Atheism serves no purpose. It just exists.

Perhaps you meant to ask for proof that God doesn't exist...?

Be careful what you write in an eventual reply. I would refrain from trying to disprove the existance of a Moderator.

I am an atheist. My life is lived in the absence of the belief in any diety or preternatural force. I identify my religious conviction as atheism. Therefore, atheism exists.

Purpose? Why do I need one? I am an atheist because I sincerely believe that there is no God. Likewise, my belief that the sky is blue serves no purpose; as Xenu said, Atheism simply exists. Must every idea have a purpose?

But if you really want one, I'll give you this: The purpose for my beliefs is my need to understand the universe around me. It makes me more comfortable with my place in the world to know precicely where I stand in the Great Scheme of Things. I can look at a clothespeg, and wonder at all of the tiny coincidences that put this clothespeg in front of me at this time. I can understand that my actions are ultimately devoid of meaning to the uncaring universe, but that I still have a moral responsibility to my peers, and my belief that I am the sole judge of my worth gives me a frame of reference in which to construct and justify that moral code.

So now, prosequence, I put it to you to justify your question; to explain your purpose in making me write this response. On what grounds do you make your assertion that Atheism does not exist?

prosequence, can you prove *you* exist? And what purpose would *you* serve, pray tell?

Quit sniping at prosequence, he's without consequence =P
Now... to address TIO, of the TLA (forgive me my name japes, tis late at night and my mind rapidly degenerates into such folly...), One must wonder at the utility of a belief which is held because it is comfortable... Such a charge has been frequently leveled at religion, without a great deal of backing I might add, and here it is freely admitted by an atheist... but to the next point, or, in the order of your post, the previous point. In light of what you say concerning your wish to feel comfortable, can you accurately state that you understand your surroundings? An understanding for the sake of comfort is rarely understanding at all, and if you mean to say where you fit in the great scheme of things, what scheme is there, or any way of fitting at all? Surely there is no meaning, events are simply the results of, when you get right down to it, collisions of matter following certain laws. Yes, its an oversimplification, I know full well, I have considerable knowledge of various branches of physics if it matters, but it doesnt. The general gist of what I am saying stands, that there can be no "great scheme of things" if we take an entirely materialist reading of the universe. Nor, one might note, is there any value in understanding, or truth, if one can say there is such a thing, as all your understandings and beliefs are simply a certain configuration, effectively random, of neurons in a certain greyish mush. I think you put your finger on it perfectly when you use such words as coincidence and unmeaning. However, one wonders where, in such concepts, you find the idea of moral responsibility. This bouncing matter knows no morals, it is simply stuff (I cannot pass up the opportunity to use properly the word I abuse the most...). You can have no morals in the sense that our minds present them to us, as YOU are just stuff, and stuff, I might add, and indeed shall add, that is far less lasting than a lot of other stuff. You, in a shape that we would call you, cannot exist much longer than another hundred years or so, if you are exceptionally longlived. To address your final demand, the weight of evidence in such propositions usually lies on the positive. In other words, unless you justify your position beyond rebuttle, it is not accepted.
As an aside, XenuHubbard, you say that Atheism exists, because another entity possessing this attribute, namely, an atheist, exists. Now, does this necessarily and sufficiently imply that Atheism can exist independantly as a concept? I suppose that depends on whether we prescribe to Plato's theory of forms or not, but I imagine the question is rather irrelevant anyway, as thats not what either the original question, or your answer, meant...
Please forgive my flippancy and address the points I make, I have this irritating habit of letting my mind and fingers run when I'm tired. I imagine it irritates others even more than it irritates itself, and that is my only consolation...

I'm not even gonna get involved in this one.

How can an atheist not exist? Don't carrots exist? Do christians exist? Do democrats exist? Republicans? Watermelons?

What are you talking about?

I don't even know how to respond to this. I mean . . . are you serious?

Of course they exist, i have met atheists so i know they exist.

edit: i sincerely hope that this was a joke or something. . . RIGHT?

*Pinches himself*

Yeah... I exist.

no comment.

Yes, Virginia, atheists don't exist.

And every good boy and girl has a mommy at home waiting for them with cookies and milk. And at night you can crawl into your warm comfy bed and be safe in the knowledge that nobody anywhere is tougher your daddy.

I am a solipsist so actually none of you exist...

are you saying you don't think a sane person can truly believe they KNOW that nothing exists beyond them? everyone at least has a touch of agnosticism in them?

i dunno, if people can believe if you blow yourself up you get a bunch of virgin pussy, i guess you can believe your body absorbs enough information from the universe to believe there is nothing beyond it.

for every belief there is a belief that disagrees with it. Theism exists, therefore Atheism exists. As long as people identify with those beliefs, the beliefs themselves will exist.

Lerre, you're missing my point. I don't believe in Atheism because it makes me comfortable. Believing that I have some idea about how the universe works makes me comfortable; I would get the same comfort in Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. I believe in Atheism because I think it is the truth. I bother to believe in anything because that makes me comfortable.

As for the Great Scheme of Things; I believe that there is no Great Scheme of Things. Don't you think that belief pretty clearly defines what role I may or may not have in the GSoT?

And as to the moral code and unmeaning (nice word!): I believe that there is no absolute meaning, no absolute right or wrong. But from there, I have come to the conclusion that if my life means nothing to The Universe, then I'd best start making sure that my life is meaningful to myself and everyone around me. So I build myself an artifical moral code, and a sense of right and wrong, which helps me to live my life in a way which may end up having some subjective meaning.

You could also say that your life is lived in the presence of the belief that there is no diety or preternatural force.

Atheism is not lack of belief. It is presence of a counter-belief. I'm personally agnostic, in the classic sense that I don't think it can be proven either way. But I believe (!) that atheism is no less a leap of faith than a system of belief. And it tends to be a sign of a lack of imagination ;).

Johhny, you're taking the cop-out there. I agree, I can't prove that there is a God, and nobody can prove that there is, either. But I do believe that there isn't one. Now get off that fence.

On a Forum? No I cannot. My purpose on the forum is to learn and ask questions... oh, and have fun!:)

Bermadude.... I kinda agree, except people tried to burn me whe I used that logic on another thread.
The concept of belief making something exist.....
Just so I don't pull you into agreement by mistake, I offered the thought that God Exists because people believe in Him.
It was amsuing how many people objected to the fact that just because you believe in something doesn't make it real. I thought it was kinda fun!!;)

Ahh crap.... my over the shoulder buddy just enlightened me to the fact that I would also have a hard time proving I exist in real life not just on a Forum. Let's say I walk around saying I'm ....oh lets use... Dragonlich .... I tell people that I'm him/her, after a while people know me as him/her... does that make me dragonlich? If I'm an imposter, I can say I'm anyone... hard to tell otherwise. The "ahh crap" is that it throws a wrench into one of my favourite/fun arguements. I hate it when that happens!

I don't exist.

Ah, but if you cannot prove you exist, nobody can ever know for sure that "you" think atheism doesn't exist, now can we? After all... how can *you* think if there's no you to begin with?

Which leads to the obvious question: if, by some random event, your webserver starts asking weird questions like "do atheists exist", is it time to reboot? :)

I understand what you mean but I didn't mean the existence of a belief system indicated the veracity of the beliefs themselves. I simply meant that the belief of atheism existed because there are atheists.. just as Islam exists because there are muslims, and christianity exists because there are christians.

I didn't mean to verify or falsify anyone's beliefs, but state that those beliefs exist as long as there are people who believe them. For instance, I don't believe there is a god, but my belief alone doesn't prove there is no god. It does, however, prove that atheism exists.

(Note added after rest of post: If you can't be bothered reading my ramblings, my essential points are summarised at the end, as briefly as I can. If they seem unclear, try reading the parts of the ramble that relate, if you wish.)

As an aside, it's not an L, it's an i, like the personal pronoun. My name ierre il, not king Lerre the second, means angry hedgehog in Old English, and is entirely irrelevant to our discussion.
I think perhaps you might also be comfortable with the belief that nothing can truly fall within the field of your understanding, which is more likely to be true. "I know that I know nothing"?

In other words, none whatsoever. Thanks for clarifying.
But subjective meaning is no meaning at all. I could call myself a tortoise, wander around the city believing I carry the world on my back, and attach to it meaning. I could attach to it all the meaning I have at my disposal. Does that mean ANYTHING in objective terms? No. Is there any point to it? No. If there is no objective meaning, and you try to convince yourself of your own subjective meaning, you are no less living in a fantasy than I would be if I took up my shell and headed for Central.

On the point of Atheism and Agnosticism, I think it's a fascinating distinction... While niether outright believes in God, Agnostics acknowledge that they know nothing, which is a nice start if you are going to learn anything, be it philosophy, metaphysics, science, ballet, whatever. If you think about it, it is an entirely philosophically indefensible position to hold that something absolutely does not exist, anywhere, unless it can be proved to be inherently self-contradictory (purple invisibility, anyone? =P). Maybe it is equally foolish to believe that something DOES exist, and it certainly is if one has no knowledge on the subject. Agnosticism would seem to be the best position to hold. An agnostic that is trying to find out more, even better. If they are truly looking, they can't find what isn't there, and if they do find it, they have found the only thing that can last... we all know physical stuff goes pretty quick. I would say devoting one's life to trying to find out if there is anything more would be the best way to spend it. If you find nothing, and die, and have achieved nothing in your life, so what? NOONE achieves anything in their life, objectively, if there is nothing but stuff. If you do find something, and it is something that really exists, that is the ONLY way they can achieve anything. Jesus stated it something like this (I'm not asking you to take this on authority because it's Jesus, that would assume my conclusion. I'm just giving you another way of putting it.): "The kingdom of God [the spiritual world, God, that which is more lasting than the physical world] is like a buried treasure in a field. If a man finds that treasure, he will go away and sell all he owns to buy the field." In the context I'm giving it, 'all he owns' may definitely be interpretted as far higher than it is. It's more like all he has is a similar field, perhaps a little larger, but growing nothing... just a dry, dusty patch of earth, from which he can gain nothing but the knowledge it is his. Then he swaps that for the very similar one with the treasure. I'm not entirely sure why I quoted this parable... it seemed appropriate at the time... but perhaps it gives you another way of visualising what I'm saying. You don't have anything to lose in this world, because you'll lose it all anyway. You may as well look around to see if theres something you can keep.

To sum up my rambles, which have a tendency to bury their own treasure (or at least, points) very deeply in manure,
1) You got my name wrong =P
2) You can make up any subjective meaning you want, if it makes you feel better. It's still an illusion.
3) Agnostics don't build up the illusion of believing they can disprove the existence of something, and are hence closer to the truth than atheists. They may also be closer to the truth than theists, but this is yet to be proved.
4) This life is meaningless. There might be more, and you CANNOT prove beyond doubt there isn't. You may as well look, and give all you have in looking if necessary, because eventually you will lose it all anyway.
5) If there is something more, it's worth finding, and if you sit in your comfortable atheism all your life, you will miss it, and lose the only thing you could have kept.

Summary of my summary:
You can't know there is nothing "out there", you CAN know there is nothing here. It is not folly to give what you cannot keep to obtain what you cannot lose.

atheists may exist, but they are NOT considered citizens or patriots. sry guys!

George H Bush

I hate it when I don't exist.

I can change my name to Atheism, and then there will be no argument.

So what qualities do we look for before we decide that they exist?

??

he's not taking a cop out. i'm agnostic. i highly doubt that there is a god or a higher being, but i accept the fact that there is no way to prove it one way or the other and that there is a possibility of god. i think the idea of a god, especially the god of an organized religion is illogical and rather immature (kinda like the boogie man and santa claus). but i think taking a stance one way or the other saying something is the way it is when there is really no way to know is a cop out.

so if we can give anything a subjective meaning, which is worthless, what defines an objective meaning? objective to whom? (which i realize is a bit of a contradiction since objectivity relies on the absence of opinion).

i dont' think that morals and meanings can be objective. they aren't a math test where 2+2=4 every time. morals and meanings dictated by religion are just as subjective as those an individual gives to them because it is just the opinion of that religion that dictates them. you can say "well, there are objective morals and meanings dictated by god," but how does anyone know what those are? i don't remember him showing up on Oprah to tell us.

if there is any objective morals/meanings to the world, i think we can only find them in nature, and if we used those morals to guide society, our civilization would be much different.

Regarding (a)theism being a cop out:

It's logically impossible to prove that there is *no* god. It is also logically impossible to prove that there is no 5-star hotel run by aliens on the far side of Pluto. Shall we all be "agnostic" to that option too?

Remember: extraordinary claims, like "there is a god", require extraordinary evidence. Well, since you (theists/agnostics) belief there is/might be a god: show me the evidence...

I am familiar with two varying definitions of 'agnostic'; (b) one of which would have to step up and respond to your call for evidence, (a) the other actually addresses the failure of positive proof or evidence.

[QUOTE]agnostic:
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.


My own ideas vary. At times when I call myself an agnostic, I definitely follow definition a. I would be more likely to profess full atheism rather than follow definition b, especially since reading Douglas Adams' humorous description of vague, wishy-washy anglicans turning into vague, wishy-washy agnostics.

1) Sorry

2) Like I said, the meaning I make up is only meaningful to me. But in the absence of any absolute meaning, I have to take what I can get.

3) I don't think that I can disprove the existance of God. I acknowledge that my position can be neither proved or disproved, ever. But at least I have chosen a side. In the absence of proof, I have gone with balance of probability. You can't prove that there is or is not a God, but which do you consider more likely? Moreover, how can you comfortably live your life on the fence, not believing in anything at all? What framework do you use to determine your morals?

4) and 5) I do look. I have attended bible studies, and read texts on most of the major religions. Whenever I encounter adherents to a new religion, if they are willing, I sit down with them and learn about their beliefs. As yet, I simply have not found any that have convinced me.

Atheism is Lack of belif, I don't belive therefore I am an atheist. There are those who have a positive belif that god doesn't exist and they are a group in themselves. Atheism (just the word) means 'without belief' not 'belife in nonextistence'.
As an atheist i don't have a positive belif in god's nonexistence, I simply don't belive at all. Tha'ts what makes me an Atheist.
For a more indepth explenation of what this means i refer you to George H. Smith's book ' Atheism, The case against god'.


Hmm.. Lack of imagination.. I don't know if that is labled flaming but it's verry close in my eyes.;)

Regzeiver, I beg to differ. Theism is the belief in God (or whatever), so atheism is an anti-belief. It is the belief in a non-religious system; a positive belief that there is no God (or whatever).
Gnosticism is the posession of some spiritual knowledge; the idea that you know (or, at least, believe) the truth about the spiritual state of the universe. Thus, agnosticism is the lack of any spiritual idea at all.

If you positively believe that there is no God, you are an atheist.
If you haven't made up your mind either way (or don't plan to at all), you are an agnostic.

And Johnny Rotten, my imagination is just fine. I can imagine a God. But I can also imagine purple giraffes hunting little green men on the sweeping plains of the Antarctican steppes. It doesn't mean I believe either exists. If I have a lack of imagination, then you have a distinct lack of conviction.

But I have made up my mind :). My conviction is that it can't be proven or disproven. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The term "agnostic" came from Thomas Huxley, a 19th Century British scientist.

From a Google search:

"He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called them, who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870."

The term has been used to describe "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something," which is why I emphasized that I'm an agnostic in the classic sense.

JR, that's the only sense of agnosticism I know.

But it still seems a bit weak to me that you have made up your mind not to believe. Sure, we can't prove it either way, and I accept that. But don't you feel the balance of probability pushing you one way or the other?
And what if the Christians are right? Are you going to stand in front of St. Peter and say, 'Nobody could prove you existed, so I didn't believe'?
Me? At least I'll be able to say that I made a choice based on the evidence.

I still haven't heard prosequence tell me why he doesn't think I exist.

Of course Athiest's exist. They are all around, just as are Christian's, Catholic's, whatever people may be.

How could you know what the "probability" is of something you know nothing about? What would make the odds lean away from 50/50, in either direction? I would think that would require some kind of proof, not just a belief bent in a particular direction. Ask a christian which way the odds are balanced, and Im sure you wont get 60/40 with atheism in the lead, because both of your views are such that you would "think" one is more likely than the other, when you really cant know at all what the odds are.

Did I say you didn't exist? hmm don't quite recall that...

Still waiting for proof atheism exists...

Kind of cool that atheism is based on others belief there is a God.

TheKak, what I mean to say is that I believe that it is more likely that God does not exist. I'm not writing gambling odds, just saying that that's how it appears to me. I think it's more probable that I evolved and that before that the universe spontaneously created itself, than that a divine being created both me and the universe.

Prosequence, you know what I mean. Why do you say that Atheism doesn't exist?

If you're telling me that Atheism doesn't exist because it is defined in terms of theism, I disagree. We are usually asked to defend our positions in terms of why we don't believe in a particular deity or theistic system, so we react to that. But if no religions existed, atheism still might; we don't "not believe in God" so much as belive that "the universe works in the absence of a divine being." It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

If you want a better response, you're going to have to further clarify your question. Explicitly and at reasonable length.

The title of this thread is Atheists don't exist. Perheps he/she meant atheism. Either way, you're wrong. They exist and have posted on this thread. Their belief in atheism also exists, because it is impossible for a belief not to exist, as long as someone beleives in it.

I don't understand the point of all this debate. Is anyone here seriously unsure if atheists exist? Or atheism?


*blank stare*

...so belief=existence ???

Of course a belief exists simply because people believe in it. It's not like a concrete object that exists im spite of someone believing in it or not. It's not like a law, like the law of gravity where if you believe in it's existence or not it will still act upon you. This is a belief, concept, philosophy that can only exist in the mind. An athiest believes in the absense of a supernatural being - it's not like religion that believes in an actual being. You can try prove that there is such a being. An athiest can only try to prove it's absense. Atheism and Athiests exist just as much as religion and it's believers exist. I really don't think understand the point of this question. It's obvious to me what the answer is.

... so if the belief exists then of course atheists exist... am I getting that right raeanna?

If you're trying to use this as an exapmle as to why god exists you're wrong. Atheism simply means without religion. We don't believe in anything.

Theists believe in an imaginary god or gods. There is a huge difference. Theists exist, but that doesn't mean that their god or gods do.

Anyway, belief doesn't equal existance in all cases. I bet you believed in Santa when you were a kid.... You were eventually let down......

My take on the whole 'religion' deal is simply that people rely too much on religion. Their lives depend on this 'God' and what the consequences from this 'God' will be for their actions. People praise a 'superior entity' hoping they will get something good in their lives. And if something good happens they praise 'God'. But if nothing good happens they are like 'well, God just didn't want it to be.' I just don't like the idea of devoting my life to a 'God' that i've never seen. And I don't see how other people can either. But they do, and that's their choice.

Yes, if you're talking about a belief!

.....

Christianity exists. Doesn't mean that God exists, but the belief in him does. Obviously. Just as with atheism. What, exactly, are you confused about? You are questioning whether or not a belief exists. It's abundantly obvious that atheism exists, because that's what atheists believe. Therefore, it exists.

Why is everyone talking about God? I want "imperical" evidence that atheists exist, don't try and bring God into this, aparently he has no place in atheism.

i fluctuate between being an atheist and an agnostic. during the times where i believe god does not exist, i am an atheist, and i exist, so therefore atheists exist. if you'd like it more imperical than that, i can put in the form of a mathmatical expression.

i really don't see the point of your topic/argument here. is it just attempted flame bait? if you really don't see how atheists exist, then i don't think you'll ever be convinced.

people keep bringing "god" into this, because a belief in god is central to theism, and ATHEISM involves the concious (sp?) belief that there is no god/god does not exist/god is a figment of a crack babies imagination (take your pick, am i missing any?).

I guess the only way I or anyone else that considers themselves atheists to prove their existance to you would be to come to your house and bitchslap you. :) i'm sure someone would be willing.

edit: got the damn smiley right.

Tell you what prosequence, how about you give your phone number so that i can have an atheist call your house. Would that be enough proof?

There really is no point in this thread because i know that you know very well atheists exist. So since we all know that your not ignorant enough to say that atheism doesn't exist, could you please expain why you made this thread?

edit: i can't believe the amount of responses this thread has gotten. I would have thought that no one would have taken you seriously but i guess you pissed off a lot of atheists by saying that they didn't exist.

So, Prosequence, you want me to define my religion without reference to a deity? If that's your question, then for fuck's sake stop being obfuscatory and ask it straight out.

But if that is your question, why are you asking it? Do my beliefs have any less relevance because they are defined in terms of something else? Orphans can only be called orphans if the concept of a parent exists. Are you saying orphans don't exist?

Should I be expecting you? Will you be bringing your ignorance as well, don't know if I have enough room.

If you can't respond nicely then don't bother reading ANY thread, for you be bound to find more that you won't like.

I would hate to see you get high blood pressure have a heart attack, die and go to wherever it is you'll go (the ground I assume).

I think some people are getting a little wonky.
The REASON for this post was to see if anyone had ideas of how to prove Atheists exist, other than them just saying so. I didn't mean offence, I was curious.

I do find it interesting though that some are experiencing the same frustration that those who believe in God have when asked to prove God exists. It's pretty tough not relying on "I just know"
or "It's what I believe so therefore it's real".

The reason I asked "what purpose does it serve?" is because most belief systems were created to serve a purpose, I admit I'm ignorant and don't know what purpose Atheism serves, please enlighten me.

As for those who threatened me (joke or no joke), PM if you truly feel that way and we'll set up a time to give you the opportunity.

It serves no pupose. Atheiesm simply means without religion. I didn't make the word up. It's a label that's out there that fits me, and I never called myself an atheist for quite a while, but after reading and learning what the word means it's what I am. You seem to think it's a religion. It's not!

What purpose does religion serve? None for me, but for others it does. I don't go around and say that religion doesn't exist because I don't believe now do I....... This is a retarded coversation. I'm done with it.

Indeed, the premise alone is pretty silly. "You don't exist!" There is a time to stop talking and abandon trying to make a stupid point in a profoundly stupid way, this guy should stop while he isn't so far behind.

Atheism exists. More than two people fit under the left side. Therefore atheists exist. My sister exists, there is at least one.
Atheism | Theism

edit: decided not worth my time after finishing reading others posts.

People who believe in a God tend to believe they were created by God, by making a statement that God doesn't exist, is telling them you don't believe they exist.

As for "retarded", I appreciate the thought you put into it.

interesting thoughs in this forum

No I'm not.

Atheist = a person believes in atheism
Theist = a person who believes in theism

Denying the existence of god is disagreeing with the basis of a theist religion. Claiming the existence of god is disagreeing with the basis of atheism. Nothing more or less than that.

Denying the existence of atheists is claiming no one believes in atheism. That is flat out stupid.

A better description in my opinion:

I am an atheist. My life is lived in the absence of the belief in any diety or preternatural force. I identify my absence of religious conviction as atheism. Atheism's purpose is just to serve as a descriptive term defining the absence of religion.

Wrong.

Athiest = a person without a religion. There is no such thing as a religion called 'Athiesm'. As Kuroneko once said, describing athiesm in the same manner as a religion is "kind of like calling a vacuum a particular kind of atmosphere."

So is denying Christians were created by God.

You really don't understand the difference, do you? :)

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com

a·the·ism __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(th-zm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.
http://www.dictionary.com

in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism , which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions?
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...ry=atheism&ct=
---------------------------------


Atheism is the active belief that there is no God(s). To be without religion/belief is a wholly different thing. I have yet to find out what it's called. If anyone knows, tell me because I don't a) believe there is no god b) believe there is a god or c) wonder if there is a god. I just don't think about that. And I'm not humanist, either.

You're just pulling some entries out of the dictionary without really understanding the terms that are identifying athiesm.

Your errors:
1. You think having a belief or belief system must make it some form of religious system. I believe that every man naturally must have a nose. These beliefs come from multiple observations. Is this system of beliefs a religious system? Religion deals with the supernatural(dieties, etc.), the spirtual, etc.

2. Re-read the definition. "a disbelief in the existence of deity", "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."
Athiesm's litteral meaning is non-theism. Athieism is simply the refusal to acknowledge the existance of such.



You should first figure out the difference between belief systems and religions.

a and b are redudant. You don't believe in God. That doesn't mean that you have to prove that there isn't one. That would be misplacing the burden of proof. Finding proof of the negative is near impossible. The theists are the one's making the claim. They have to justify their claim. An athiest simply refuses to believe the claim. You don't have to have a belief system in order to counter another one.

There's no specific term describing the belief that there is no pink, invisible, intangiable elephant floating near your head. You just don't believe in it. No fancy greek descriptions neccessary.

C describes agnoticism.

Humanism has little to do with the existance of God.

'

You don't have any business calling someone stupid for pointing out an *observable* fact when your own claim is completely baseless and unobservable.

Well, think whatever you want. I don't think opinions can be wrong and I know what I think about this whole thing.

And the fact that humanism has little to do with the existence of God was the reason I mentioned it. Apparently you were too busy calling me wrong to even care to see what I was trying to say.

Enjoy your trolling.

I think, therefore I am. :D

I'm going to cover ground that has been covered before in this thread; maybe we can all get it up to 20 pages reiterating the same philosophical points.

This seems to be the post around which the whole thread revolves. It's a cute argument and it is true that nothing can be proven to exist. I cannot even prove my own existence, I could just be a brain in a vat with a simulated consciousness. Based on the evidence available to me, I can reasonably believe that I exist, despite my comment earlier in this thread. I am less inclined to believe that you exist because I cannot see you. I can interact with you though so I do have faith in your existence.

I have observed so little evidence as to the existence of God that I am currently not inclined to believe that he exists.

We have established that there are humans who believe that they and other humans exist. Some of these humans call themselves "Christians" and others call themselves "atheists". Some others even call themselves "teacups" and we believe they exist too even if we do feel a bit sorry for them.

Your point is that the concept of atheism exists only because theism exists. Of course - It would be pointless and meaningless for me to say that I did NOT believe in blargchuchux unless somebody else had at one time said they DID believe in blargchuchux. So for the concept of atheism to exist, the concept of theism has to have existed. This does not mean that God exists. The belief does not establish the reality.

If I falsely believed that you existed when in fact you were an elaborate computer program, my previous faith in your existence would not be enough to somehow bring you to life any more than the posting of this thread will give birth to dear old blargchuchux. The fact that atheists have conceded the existence of theists is really no vindication for the theist's belief in the existence of a higher power - atheists were already perfectly willing to concede your existence on the basis that you were a human being who was standing there in front of them declaring yourself to be a "Christian". They never agreed to believe what you believed just as they were never foolish enough to try and pour boiling water on a "teacup's" head.

Now you ask if atheism serves a purpose beyond a non-belief in God. I have to confess that, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. This does not mean that atheists are shallow human beings whose lives are devoid of purpose. A devout Christian whose faith is the source of 90% of their moral values would think that the "believers" in the atheist "faith" gain 90% of their values from atheism; that their belief in NON-belief must therefore make them amoral and spiritually empty.

I am an agnostic but my morality does not come from there or directly from any religious source. Some of it comes from humanism, specifically <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm">secular humanism</a>, which I find to be a good means by which to understand the world around me and something that does not fundamentally rely on the belief or non-belief in a deity.

You can't attempt to make an objective claim and then say "it's right because it's just my opinion." The definition of athiesm is not a matter of personal preference.


Just exactly what were you trying to say?

Way to attack the person and not the argument. Who is being the REAL troll here?

Macheath, thank you. Although it's unlikely we will never completely agree (nor should we), I appreciate your last post and in the way you expressed your idea and opinion. As well as being willing to actually look at it from another point of view (even if you don't agree with it). Once again thank you.

Atheists exist, because we have defined what an atheist is, however I have never met an atheist, even though I've met many people claiming to be atheists. An atheist by definition is a person who does not believe that God exists, but in order to "not believe" in something, on must first acknowledge that there is something there to not believe in, either physically, or in this case theoretically. So thusly, you must believe in God in order to claim that you do not believe in Him/Her. A lack of faith in the definition if not the actions/power of God would be a better definition of an atheist, but I am not Noah Webster.

That is the most errored, convulted statement I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

If I say, "I do not believe in god," then I am essentially saying, "I do not believe that god exists." I maintain my stance that people who refuse to read between the lines on semantics and definitions only lie to themselves to make themselves feel comfortable with the nonsense that their mouth is (or fingers are) spewing.

One argues over whether a concept is true or false; not whether the concept itself exists. Obviously the concept exists, otherwise we could not argue over it.

To clarify; a concept of a cat sitting on my desk comes into my mind. The concept is there in my mind thus it exists. If I look onto my desk and there is no cat, then the concept was still there but it has been proven false.

As for the existence of atheism,

Atheism is defined as the belief that the concept of God is false. As long as some one believes that there is no God, atheism will exist. It is irrelevant whether the belief of atheism is actually correct or not.

For example: people believe that the world is flat, thus such people exist and the fact that the world isn’t flat doesn’t change the fact that they exist.

Cheers

i always thought it was interesting that if any person with convictions had been raised under different conditions, they might be arguing a completely opposite point now.

undoubtedly Atheists exist...

They are just the least rational of all...

Not really but hey I like riling them up...

(Yes I know what you're thinking, isn't the idea that something exists undoubtedly irrational...)

Bingo, hit it on the head. How is this 2 pages now?? lol

I apologize, I wasn't aware that reading "between the lines" was required when reading a dictionary, I'm proud that you've devoted your life to attempting to be intellectually superior with your fingers. But, while I'll grant you that some dictionaries will define an atheist as one who denies a doctrine of faith, it is also defined as one who denies the EXISTENCE of god or gods. I can read, and I can think, you aren't the only one. My opinions are mine, your dismissing of my opinions is not very intellectually open (I'm assuming from your posting you see yourself as quite the intellectually open, yet superior type, I could be wrong). If you have a problem with my rationale, by all means critize, but your assumption that you are indeed more intellectually gifted than someone you have never met is, funny.

Thanks for the input.

Of course Atheism exists. It exists just as all other religions exist, as time exists, as science exists, as quantities and equations exist. They all exist as creations of man-kind, a race of beings prone to faults, mistakes and misinterpretations. None can be proved to exist before we concived of them, but since the idea of Atheism came into being it existed, and so did atheists.

I have to say the question posed in this thread makes my list of top ten really fucking stupid things I've seen on a forum.

I would have thought that making decisions based upon the current evidence would be the most prudent approach, from a practical point of view.
On the other hand..
I'm sure a lot of people here know of Pascal's Wager, which basically states you have nothing to lose by believing in God, whether he exists or not, but you're a bit screwed if you don't believe in him and he does exist..

If there is a god of the type that people believe, then finding out more (what do you propose to achieve this?) is surely pointless.
It would be a long and fruitless search to disprove the existence of a god, or prove the existence of an undetectable omnipresent god.

What sort of proof would an agnostic accept that a god exists?
What could it do that would remove all doubt from your mind?

I would say the best position is no position at all. Like in the film War Games, it would seem the only way to win is not to play. If you genuinely do not care then you can avoid engaging in futile discussion that presently cannot be proved either way.

Apart from the existence of athiests, which is true.

Of course Atheists exist; the Bible says so. Doesn't it say, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God"?

stealing my thread arent you!!!!!

i'm an atheist.

Hello everyone, I'm a newcomer to the forum but I hope I'm not too late to hear / see some more on this subject - particularly in respect to current world actvities.

Hehehe... well, it's been more than a year since I started this post, and I must say I 'm surprised to find it floating to the top again.
I haven't contributed anything to this thread for over a year, not that I've really had any new thoughts on it.
I decided to post to let you know that no one has come to "get me", "bitchslap me" or even PM me so I could arange the oportunity for them, even after my generous offer.
Keep adding, you folks are doing a wonderful job!!

Hahaha, prove that athiests exist?

*points to an athiest*

Next!

I'd like to see someone prove that red is actually red.

Perhaps the better question is: What is religion? Since atheism means "being without religion" ("a-" meaning "without", "-theos" meaning "religion," and "-ism" meaning "actively being" (or something similar)), what do we define as religion? Suggested read here: The World's Religions by Houston Smith.

However, as a Christian with atheist friends, atheists can be just as buttholish about atheism being right as Christians can be about Christianity being right (not that anybody here is like that). I just can't stand people (Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Shinto, Rastafarian, Taoist, Unitarian, Confucianist, ect. people alike) bashing other people's religion. Show some respect people.

Atheists exist, but have just as much faith that there is no God as Christians do that there is one. While this is an interesting point, the answer to the original question is "yes".

Actually, the original question was phrased like this

"...so thanks for joining me a new kind of twist/tilt.... I want to know if anyone can prove to me atheism exists? And what purpose does it serve?"

But I appreciate your participation regardless.

well OK. Atheists exist. They practice athiesm. Therefore, atheism exists.

so practice of beliefs equals existence?

Finally, I've found another solipsist!

the only way atheists dont exist is if their 'theme' of atheism doesnt exist. per'se by denying God and claiming he does not exist, you accept it but chose to ignore it. Atheist, just like Christian, Muslim, Jewish.. just a title, now if titles didnt exist, nothing would :P

but there ofcource IS a God, if there wasn't then who pops up the next tissue when you take yours out of the box.