Atheism: What's the point?

[The Tofu Islands]

How can we presume to know what babies believe? Perhaps there are atheistic babies, perhaps there are theistic babies, perhaps there are satanist babies, catholic babies.

Perhaps there is a blue china teapot orbiting Saturn. Your point?

It's convenient to redefine atheism such as to include agnosticism because it allows one to backpedal whenever one feels like it. But if you are actually agnostic then why not simply state that? Why claim to be an atheist at all if you in fact accept both possibilities as equally possible?

Firstly, they aren't necessarily equally possible. Secondly, why would not claim to be an atheist if you don't believe in any gods?

[DiscountSatania]

How can we presume to know what babies believe? Perhaps there are atheistic babies, perhaps there are theistic babies, perhaps there are satanist babies, catholic babies. How could we ever claim to do more than hypothesize about the belief structure of babies. When the only significant controlled experiments we can do with babies involve attention tests. What do you propose give a baby a bible and a book by Nietzsche and see what catches his/her interest?

At risk of repeating myself, it has been demonstrated that babies have no concept of a world outside their senses. They don't even believe their parents exist when they leave the room. Anything that is not part of direct sensory input does not exist to them. This being the case, it is impossible to assume that babies have any inherent belief in such an abstract concept of God.

Theistic beliefs have to be taught to babies before they believe them. They have to develop the cognitive ability to retain those beliefs. Ergo, babies are born atheist: they don't believe in anything they can't see, including gods.

A radical and unfounded claim if I ever heard one. How could you possibly demonstrate that babies have no concept of a world outside their senses? Who demonstrated this? Sources!!! I could claim that every baby know pi to 1,000,000 decimal places and you couldn't disprove it. The mind of a baby is a black box. We can only hypothesize about whats going on inside there.

I will recognize that there is some debate on the definition of atheism and that not all atheists agree. Thats as valid as the point that there are multiple faiths for theists. But it's also beside the point since such loosely defined atheism is in fact agnosticism. And the question then is that what you believe? Do you actually believe in an equal probability distribution over the two possibilities - and if so why the emotional need to denigrate religious beliefs at every turn. Why argue the claim that Jesus may not have existed? It's true, I can't prove it but then I can't prove that I do either and yet I am still here.

When you get that metaphysical, the debate becomes pointless. However, I have sufficient evidence that you exist because I'm able to interact with you through this forum. No such interaction exists with any gods that can be proven, which calls their very existence into doubt. Every claim any theist has ever made about gods has been proven false. The only thing left is the one thing we can't prove: they don't exist. Well, we can't prove there's no teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars either, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to believe that either.

I'm not trying to make you accept theistic beliefs. I'm trying to point out the futility of arguing for or against theism or atheism - and to kick those atheists which are silly enough to dare to make probability or quality assessments about the either positions off their unscientific high horses. Yes the debate is pointless... you will never be able to address any problem like this logically. It is therefore infelicitous to claim that theism is any more or less logical than any form of atheism which makes any commitments about the likelihood of god's existence.

It's convenient to redefine atheism such as to include agnosticism because it allows one to backpedal whenever one feels like it. But if you are actually agnostic then why not simply state that? Why claim to be an atheist at all if you in fact accept both possibilities as equally possible? Why denigrate every religious beleif? Why claim that babies are inherently godless if you are not in fact an atheist in the classical sense?

Because agnostic is a statement about knowledge. We do not know. Atheist is a statement about belief. We do not believe. Thus: agnostic atheist. Or, as has been suggested, "implicit atheist." Atheism is implied because there's no way to prove it one way or another.

The first claim made is that there are gods. It is therefore incumbent on those claiming the existence of gods to prove them. Until such time as this evidence is provided, it is rational to assume there are none.

It is equally *rational* to believe in god. It is also *rational* to reject belief in god. Rationality has little to do with logic. I've never argues against the rationality of atheism. Rationality is also not mutually exclusive, two opposing opinions can both be rational. Rationality does not require proof.

[Enadail]

A radical and unfounded claim if I ever heard one. How could you possibly demonstrate that babies have no concept of a world outside their senses? Who demonstrated this? Sources!!! I could claim that every baby know pi to 1,000,000 decimal places and you couldn't disprove it. The mind of a baby is a black box. We can only hypothesize about whats going on inside there.

Actually, no... there were studies done on this, and babies, as best as we can tell, are not aware of anything not immediately detectable by their senses. You could claim babies know complex calculus, but you can't prove it either. And as always, the default position is a lack of belief.

I'll see if I can find the papers, but no longer being in college, I don't have access to the same resources I once did.

I'm not trying to make you accept theistic beliefs. I'm trying to point out the futility of arguing for or against theism or atheism - and to kick those atheists which are silly enough to dare to make probability or quality assessments about the either positions off their unscientific high horses. Yes the debate is pointless... you will never be able to address any problem like this logically. It is therefore infelicitous to claim that theism is any more or less logical than any form of atheism which makes any commitments about the likelihood of god's existence.

Except theist claims are often not logically sound. But the point of the debate, most often, isn't if God exists or not, but how people apply that belief to the world. If people are going to live by "God's word" it makes a lotta sense to argue it, specially if you don't agree with "God's word".

It is equally *rational* to believe in god. It is also *rational* to reject belief in god. Rationality has little to do with logic. I've never argues against the rationality of atheism. Rationality is also not mutually exclusive, two opposing opinions can both be rational. Rationality does not require proof.

Actually... go look up rational in the dictionary... it says, following reason. Look up reason. At least one definition says "following logic".

[Treznor]

A radical and unfounded claim if I ever heard one. How could you possibly demonstrate that babies have no concept of a world outside their senses? Who demonstrated this? Sources!!! I could claim that every baby know pi to 1,000,000 decimal places and you couldn't disprove it. The mind of a baby is a black box. We can only hypothesize about whats going on inside there.

We call it...science!

http://social.jrank.org/pages/335/Infancy-Cognitive-Development.html

There's plenty more where that came from, if you want to look up "infant cognitive development." Go ahead. Don't take my word for it.

When you get that metaphysical, the debate becomes pointless. However, I have sufficient evidence that you exist because I'm able to interact with you through this forum. No such interaction exists with any gods that can be proven, which calls their very existence into doubt. Every claim any theist has ever made about gods has been proven false. The only thing left is the one thing we can't prove: they don't exist. Well, we can't prove there's no teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars either, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to believe that either.

I'm not trying to make you accept theistic beliefs. I'm trying to point out the futility of arguing for or against theism or atheism - and to kick those atheists which are silly enough to dare to make probability or quality assessments about the either positions off their unscientific high horses. Yes the debate is pointless... you will never be able to address any problem like this logically. It is therefore infelicitous to claim that theism is any more or less logical than any form of atheism which makes any commitments about the likelihood of god's existence.

There's plenty of reason to call into question theistic beliefs. Have you ever had a theistic prediction come true, outside of the Bible? Have you ever had a theistic claim that wasn't proven false under testing and observation? As I pointed out, the only thing left to prove is the existence (or lack thereof) of gods. We could rest on the knowledge that since theists made the first claim that gods exist, it's up to theists to prove it and reject it until such prove is given. But since the only thing theists have left to point out you can't prove gods exist or don't exist, it very aptly demonstrates the weakness of their argument.

All other claims have been proven false. With a track record of 99% failure and the last 1% unprovable, why shouldn't we assume the last 1% is also false? In any other field we could safely dismiss the claims as pure fantasy, but because theism is a sacred tradition we're supposed to respect it? I reject that assertion.

Because agnostic is a statement about knowledge. We do not know. Atheist is a statement about belief. We do not believe. Thus: agnostic atheist. Or, as has been suggested, "implicit atheist." Atheism is implied because there's no way to prove it one way or another.

The first claim made is that there are gods. It is therefore incumbent on those claiming the existence of gods to prove them. Until such time as this evidence is provided, it is rational to assume there are none.

It is equally *rational* to believe in god. It is also *rational* to reject belief in god. Rationality has little to do with logic. I've never argues against the rationality of atheism. Rationality is also not mutually exclusive, two opposing opinions can both be rational. Rationality does not require proof.

Is it equally rational to believe in the teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars? Is it equally rational to believe there's a dragon in my garage? It is not rational to sustain belief in something that can't be proven, especially since all of the claims built on that belief have been proven false. It is not rational to believe in gods when all the claims about the influence of gods in the world have been proven false.

[Dystopian Polymarchy]

Why does this forum grow???????????

[Treznor]

Why does this forum grow???????????

New players come in and don't want to wade through 78+ pages of argument.

[DiscountSatania]

A radical and unfounded claim if I ever heard one. How could you possibly demonstrate that babies have no concept of a world outside their senses? Who demonstrated this? Sources!!! I could claim that every baby know pi to 1,000,000 decimal places and you couldn't disprove it. The mind of a baby is a black box. We can only hypothesize about whats going on inside there.

Actually, no... there were studies done on this, and babies, as best as we can tell, are not aware of anything not immediately detectable by their senses. You could claim babies know complex calculus, but you can't prove it either. And as always, the default position is a lack of belief.

I'll see if I can find the papers, but no longer being in college, I don't have access to the same resources I once did.

I'm not trying to make you accept theistic beliefs. I'm trying to point out the futility of arguing for or against theism or atheism - and to kick those atheists which are silly enough to dare to make probability or quality assessments about the either positions off their unscientific high horses. Yes the debate is pointless... you will never be able to address any problem like this logically. It is therefore infelicitous to claim that theism is any more or less logical than any form of atheism which makes any commitments about the likelihood of god's existence.

Except theist claims are often not logically sound. But the point of the debate, most often, isn't if God exists or not, but how people apply that belief to the world. If people are going to live by "God's word" it makes a lotta sense to argue it, specially if you don't agree with "God's word".

It is equally *rational* to believe in god. It is also *rational* to reject belief in god. Rationality has little to do with logic. I've never argues against the rationality of atheism. Rationality is also not mutually exclusive, two opposing opinions can both be rational. Rationality does not require proof.

Actually... go look up rational in the dictionary... it says, following reason. Look up reason. At least one definition says "following logic".

Just because there are papers about lack of belief in babies doesn't mean it's true. I've read all kinds of things in 'scientific' papers. Although, In my studies I don't do a lot of reading about babies.

The fact that in the United States a whole bunch of 'Christians' go mad every time two Gay's hold hands in public doesn't really affect the reason-ability of theism in general. People say all kinds of ridiculous things. I would be among the first to criticize anyone who claims to know the word of god.

I stand corrected Kant's use of Theoretical Rationality would support your definition of the word. I was referring to the more human definition of the word - Wertrational as defined by Weber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalit ... ationality

[Enadail]

Just because there are papers about lack of belief in babies doesn't mean it's true. I've read all kinds of things in 'scientific' papers. Although, In my studies I don't do a lot of reading about babies.

Uh... sure... but when a scientific claim is repeated and verified... that's sorta how science works...

The fact that in the United States a whole bunch of 'Christians' go mad every time two Gay's hold hands in public doesn't really affect the reason-ability of theism in general. People say all kinds of ridiculous things. I would be among the first to criticize anyone who claims to know the word of god.

Except... that doesn't say anything about the rationality of theism... just of people. When someone says gay's are wrong because God says so, then it reflects the rationalist of theism.

I stand corrected Kant's use of Theoretical Rationality would support your definition of the word. I was referring to the more human definition of the word - Wertrational as defined by Weber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalit ... ationality

So... you selected one definition of rationality and decided its the right one? Regardless, rationality is generally judged by believability. With many God claims, replace "God" with "Pink Unicorn from Jupiter" and people say its crazy... why?

[Treznor]

Just because there are papers about lack of belief in babies doesn't mean it's true. I've read all kinds of things in 'scientific' papers. Although, In my studies I don't do a lot of reading about babies.

Now that sounds like it came straight from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh. "Science isn't valid unless it agrees with what I think."

It's relatively simple: we understand cognition well enough to test for it. Infants demonstrate only the very basic levels of cognition, that doesn't allow them to process abstract thought. How did they prove this? They took a toy away and observed the reaction. Once the infant got over the loss, it forgot about it. When the toy was re-introduced, the baby treated it as though it was brand new. Abstract thinking requires you to focus on things that are not tangible to your senses. Babies lack abstract thinking, thus cannot handle the concept of believing in what isn't there.

The fact that in the United States a whole bunch of 'Christians' go mad every time two Gay's hold hands in public doesn't really affect the reason-ability of theism in general. People say all kinds of ridiculous things. I would be among the first to criticize anyone who claims to know the word of god.

How does homophobia relate to the existence of gods? It doesn't. Every single testable claim about gods has been proven false. Every single one. The only test left is unprovable: the existence of gods themselves. Given how unreliability the evidence about gods thus far, it's irrational to believe the last untestable premise is true. If we had anything to even hint at the possibility then I could accept it as a rational position, but there isn't even a hint. There's far more evidence that we created gods out of our imagination to give meaning to patterns in nature that we couldn't yet comprehend.

[Biteme]

Little logical alternative.

Logical ... you shouldn't use that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Please explain how atheism is "logical." I can't wait to hear a response...

[Treznor]

Little logical alternative.

Logical ... you shouldn't use that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Please explain how atheism is "logical." I can't wait to hear a response...

Every single testable claim about gods has been proven false. Every single one. The only test left is unprovable: the existence of gods themselves. Given how unreliability the evidence about gods thus far, it's irrational to believe the last untestable premise is true. If we had anything to even hint at the possibility then I could accept it as a rational position, but there isn't even a hint. There's far more evidence that we created gods out of our imagination to give meaning to patterns in nature that we couldn't yet comprehend.

[Trve]

Little logical alternative.

Logical ... you shouldn't use that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Please explain how atheism is "logical." I can't wait to hear a response...

Certianly more logical then believing in a magical sky creature who created everything when your only evidence is a book written by a few cattle worshipping primatives 10000 years ago.

[DiscountSatania]

Just because there are papers about lack of belief in babies doesn't mean it's true. I've read all kinds of things in 'scientific' papers. Although, In my studies I don't do a lot of reading about babies.

Now that sounds like it came straight from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh. "Science isn't valid unless it agrees with what I think."

It's relatively simple: we understand cognition well enough to test for it. Infants demonstrate only the very basic levels of cognition, that doesn't allow them to process abstract thought. How did they prove this? They took a toy away and observed the reaction. Once the infant got over the loss, it forgot about it. When the toy was re-introduced, the baby treated it as though it was brand new. Abstract thinking requires you to focus on things that are not tangible to your senses. Babies lack abstract thinking, thus cannot handle the concept of believing in what isn't there.

The fact that in the United States a whole bunch of 'Christians' go mad every time two Gay's hold hands in public doesn't really affect the reason-ability of theism in general. People say all kinds of ridiculous things. I would be among the first to criticize anyone who claims to know the word of god.

How does homophobia relate to the existence of gods? It doesn't. Every single testable claim about gods has been proven false. Every single one. The only test left is unprovable: the existence of gods themselves. Given how unreliability the evidence about gods thus far, it's irrational to believe the last untestable premise is true. If we had anything to even hint at the possibility then I could accept it as a rational position, but there isn't even a hint. There's far more evidence that we created gods out of our imagination to give meaning to patterns in nature that we couldn't yet comprehend.

Comparing me to Rush! Well now I'm sure your an American. Thankfully radio waves don't travel that far for me to listen to that hate monger. I did read your source btw - it says nothing about belief in god. Belief in god *could* be instinctual! Extending an increase attention length to a toy being concealed behind and object to proof all babies are atheists seems like quite the leap of faith.

Whoa how has every single claim about god has been proven false! I don't think I've even heard every single claim about god or gods. Being able to rationally say that genesis isn't a very reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe doesn't entitle you to say that theism is false. As for proof....

[Grave_n_idle]

Little logical alternative.

Logical ... you shouldn't use that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Please explain how atheism is "logical." I can't wait to hear a response...

The evidence conflicts.

If the evidence conflicts, then logically it can't all be true.

If it can't all be true, then any claim to be true must logically be worthy of doubt.

If there is reason to doubt the claim, then the logical response is skepticism.

Thus, Atheism is entirely logical.

[Treznor]

Comparing me to Rush! Well now I'm sure your an American. Thankfully radio waves don't travel that far for me to listen to that hate monger. I did read your source btw - it says nothing about belief in god. Belief in god *could* be instinctual! Extending an increase attention length to a toy being concealed behind and object to proof all babies are atheists seems like quite the leap of faith.

No, not a leap of faith, a logical extension regarding the ability of babies to believe in something. Belief in an abstract concept like gods requires the ability to think abstractly. Babies lack that ability, as demonstrated in that link. There can be no belief without it.

Whoa how has every single claim about god has been proven false! I don't think I've even heard every single claim about god or gods. Being able to rationally say that genesis isn't a very reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe doesn't entitle you to say that theism is false. As for proof....

Let me go down a short list for you:
Gods create thunder and lightning: debunked.
Gods make the rain fall and the crops grow: debunked.
Gods drive the sun and moon across the sky: debunked.
Gods make people sick and cure them: debunked.
Gods answer prayer: debunked.
We see gods after traveling through a tunnel of light when we die: debunked.

Go ahead, look them up. They tested all these claims and more. Every single one of them has been been proven to be a result of natural causes or no different from random chance. Every testable claim about divine influence in the natural world has been proven false. Why, then, should we believe in the untestable claims? How is that logical?

[DiscountSatania]

Little logical alternative.

Logical ... you shouldn't use that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Please explain how atheism is "logical." I can't wait to hear a response...

The evidence conflicts.

If the evidence conflicts, then logically it can't all be true.

If it can't all be true, then any claim to be true must logically be worthy of doubt.

If there is reason to doubt the claim, then the logical response is skepticism.

Thus, Atheism is entirely logical.

Except that you don't include your own claim in the set of claims to which to assign equal doubt.

Unless you claim to make no claims about the existence of god - in which case your safe but your also an agnostic.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except that you don't include your own claim in the set of claims to which to assign equal doubt.

Unless you claim to make no claims about the existence of god - in which case your safe but your also an agnostic.

My 'claim' is skepticism.

Yes, that's still atheism.

[DiscountSatania]

Comparing me to Rush! Well now I'm sure your an American. Thankfully radio waves don't travel that far for me to listen to that hate monger. I did read your source btw - it says nothing about belief in god. Belief in god *could* be instinctual! Extending an increase attention length to a toy being concealed behind and object to proof all babies are atheists seems like quite the leap of faith.

No, not a leap of faith, a logical extension regarding the ability of babies to believe in something. Belief in an abstract concept like gods requires the ability to think abstractly. Babies lack that ability, as demonstrated in that link. There can be no belief without it.

Whoa how has every single claim about god has been proven false! I don't think I've even heard every single claim about god or gods. Being able to rationally say that genesis isn't a very reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe doesn't entitle you to say that theism is false. As for proof....

Let me go down a short list for you:
Gods create thunder and lightning: debunked.
Gods make the rain fall and the crops grow: debunked.
Gods drive the sun and moon across the sky: debunked.
Gods make people sick and cure them: debunked.
Gods answer prayer: debunked.
We see gods after traveling through a tunnel of light when we die: debunked.

Go ahead, look them up. They tested all these claims and more. Every single one of them has been been proven to be a result of natural causes or no different from random chance. Every testable claim about divine influence in the natural world has been proven false. Why, then, should we believe in the untestable claims? How is that logical?

5+ claims does not equal all possible claims about the nature of god. Furthermore natural explanations for each of those claims does not necessarily exclude the possibility of supernatural explanations. Also If god did create the universe and all natural laws then all all natural explanations can be attributed to god and all claims which you have listed except for the one about prayer becomes true. And as for god answering prayer... how do you know?! It would seem to be a pretty difficult thing to prove wouldn't it? The tunnel of light thing is just silly in my opinion but then how the hell would anyone know? Near-death does not equal dead.

[DiscountSatania]

Except that you don't include your own claim in the set of claims to which to assign equal doubt.

Unless you claim to make no claims about the existence of god - in which case your safe but your also an agnostic.

My 'claim' is skepticism.

Yes, that's still atheism.

We've already established that the definition of atheism which we're operating under includes agnosticism and that the only difference is a lack of belief in theism. I do question why one would insist on the term atheism if they accept the reasonability of both possibilities. What I wonder though is if you equally distribute your skepticism across both possibilities.

[Treznor]

No, not a leap of faith, a logical extension regarding the ability of babies to believe in something. Belief in an abstract concept like gods requires the ability to think abstractly. Babies lack that ability, as demonstrated in that link. There can be no belief without it.

I'm glad it amuses you. But ask any cognitive scientist. Ask anyone who works with children. Babies don't have advanced cognitive abilities. Place an average four-year-old in a room with a scaled representation of the next room. Place a scaled representation of a toy in that room, and tell them that they'll find that toy in the same place in other room. The four-year-old will go straight to it. The average three-year-old will not. They have to learn how to think abstractly before they can conceive of anything not in their sensory range. If you can't conceive of something, you can't believe in it.

Let me go down a short list for you:
Gods create thunder and lightning: debunked.
Gods make the rain fall and the crops grow: debunked.
Gods drive the sun and moon across the sky: debunked.
Gods make people sick and cure them: debunked.
Gods answer prayer: debunked.
We see gods after traveling through a tunnel of light when we die: debunked.

Go ahead, look them up. They tested all these claims and more. Every single one of them has been been proven to be a result of natural causes or no different from random chance. Every testable claim about divine influence in the natural world has been proven false. Why, then, should we believe in the untestable claims? How is that logical?

5+ claims does not equal all possible claims about the nature of god. Furthermore natural explanations for each of those claims does not necessarily exclude the possibility of supernatural explanations. Also If god did create the universe and all natural laws then all all natural explanations can be attributed to god and all claims which you have listed except for the one about prayer becomes true. And as for god answering prayer... how do you know?! It would seem to be a pretty difficult thing to prove wouldn't it? The tunnel of light thing is just silly in my opinion but then how the hell would anyone know? Near-death does not equal dead.

What, you think I'm going to be able to list every single theistic claim that's out there? I've done my due diligence; if you want additional proof you can look it up on your own.

Furthermore: logically, any supernatural event that cannot be distinguished from an act of nature is disqualified as a supernatural event. That's the whole point of being supernatural: it happens outside of nature. I can make the claim that I'm responsible for rain falling on your head, but since it would fall on your head regardless of whether or not I make the claim there's no logical reason for you to believe it.

Gods answering prayer: they placed prayer under rigorous testing. People who prayed for things or events did not achieve a higher success rate at having those desires come true than those who didn't pray. That debunks the ideas that gods answer prayers.

The tunnel of light is one of the most persistent arguments about gods, because it's one of the few claims that has more than one reliable witness. So some scientists finally devised a way to test it, and managed to reproduce it with the right combination of chemicals. Again, naturally occuring phenomenon automatically disqualifies supernatural claims.

[Treznor]

Except that you don't include your own claim in the set of claims to which to assign equal doubt.

Unless you claim to make no claims about the existence of god - in which case your safe but your also an agnostic.

My 'claim' is skepticism.

Yes, that's still atheism.

We've already established that the definition of atheism which we're operating under includes agnosticism and that the only difference is a lack of belief in theism. I do question why one would insist on the term atheism if they accept the reasonability of both possibilities. What I wonder though is if you equally distribute your skepticism across both possibilities.

Because, again, agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. I do not know whether or not gods exist. Atheism is a statement of belief. I do not believe that gods exist. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Grave_n_idle]

We've already established that the definition of atheism which we're operating under includes agnosticism and that the only difference is a lack of belief in theism. I do question why one would insist on the term atheism if they accept the reasonability of both possibilities.

Because 'not believing in gods' is Atheism.

Seriously - how many times?

What I wonder though is if you equally distribute your skepticism across both possibilities.

Over both possibilities... of what?

Do I think it's possible there's a god? Sure. Do I 'believe' in gods? No. Because allowing that it COULD be the case doesn't mean that I believe it IS.

Do I think it's possible there's NO god? Sure. Do I 'believe' there's definitely no god? No - because allowing that there could be no gods doesn't mean I believe there are no gods.


Which leaves me with a simple lack of belief. Which is still atheism.

[Medyum]

Wow. This is why no one debates this, because the people that believe in "God" have such deep beliefs in it and refuse to change their views. You may not think it, but it's more true then you know. The point is, even if we do PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that "God" does or does not exist, only a few people will change their views. So arguing about it is pointless, unless the person you're arguing with is a complete and total idiot.

And to answer the topic question, Atheism is believing that their is no "God". The point of it is trying to live according to definitive truths rather then beliefs or skepticism, being not sure if there is or is not a "God" (Agnosticism). Sure, I think we can never know rather or not "God" exists, but I'm fairly sure that we made "him" up because we needed something to believe in.

Five bucks says I get a response to this stuff, and another five bucks says it's from someone who believes in "God".

[DiscountSatania]

Wow. This is why no one debates this, because the people that believe in "God" have such deep beliefs in it and refuse to change their views. You may not think it, but it's more true then you know. The point is, even if we do PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that "God" does or does not exist, only a few people will change their views. So arguing about it is pointless, unless the person you're arguing with is a complete and total idiot.

And to answer the topic question, Atheism is believing that their is no "God". The point of it is trying to live according to definitive truths rather then beliefs or skepticism, being not sure if there is or is not a "God" (Agnosticism). Sure, I think we can never know rather or not "God" exists, but I'm fairly sure that we made "him" up because we needed something to believe in.

Five bucks says I get a response to this stuff, and another five bucks says it's from someone who believes in "God".

Sir I will not take you up on your bet.

[UnitedNationss]

Its for Evil people who probably are gonna get beat up with there attitude.... well my cousins a atheist and his attitudes mean and negative... .but also dont believe in anything good and dosent believe in god. i think its pretty tacky.