I believe there is only one God, and all the other ones are man's imagination of the one God, so you are off the hook there. You cannot be an atheist to the other gods, since all that would be doing is having a different opinion than other humans. I would propose that all men who imagine their own god are just as atheist as one who claims he is an atheist. Since humanism has in modern times offered man an opportuntiy to be a-religious, why do you feel the term atheist more appropriate than humanist? To me it seems that atheist is just one who is against God, not one who declares there is no God. Wouldn't it just be more appropriate to say ask a humanist, instead of atheist? Or do you believe there may be a God, but not any of the ones mentioned above?
I don't believe in any of the Gods mentioned by any religion.
I would allow for the idea that there could be a being powerful enough to make what we know of as the universe, from somewhere else in the universe (such as a pre-existing universe we can't detect with our telescopes) however, that
possibility is also one I consider dubious at best. And I certainly do not believe this being is magical, performs miracles, answers prayers, or even holds our souls in an afterlife. I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't really believe in that creator being either. While I can't know the odds, my personal perspective is that existence already exists. It was not put here by anyone, because that implies existence already was somewhere and then someone else made more of it. It's just a turtle walking on top of a bigger turtle. What's that turtle walking on?
It's not turtles all the way down. Reality got here on its own. It's absurd, in my opinion, to believe that someone made existence, because that implies they were already here, inside non-existence.... which means something already existed. Either the universe always was, in some form, or it began without someone making it do so.
How can religions be attributed so many faults in society throughout history, yet when separated and scrutinized, they are lumpes together into a single religious entity? Don't you think that the various religious beliefs affect the moral and cultural outcome in society the same way that political views do?
I would agree that not all religions have the same harmful/positive effects. There are associated philosophies which can have good or bad outcomes for believing in them.
Yes, I would agree that certain religions may be less bad, or better, than others. That said, I'm of the opinion you can hold any useful philosophical or moral viewpoint while also not believing in a religious doctrine, and I feel that works best for me.
Do most atheists feel superior over religious people? (Serious question - if you're an atheist, can you honestly say you don't?)
Can't speak for most atheists.
As for how I feel, does a scientist who believes his theory is closer to the truth than any other proposed theory feel that he is superior to all other scientists?
No.
In fact, he might consider himself just a voice in a choir, and while scientists who came before him had fewer facts to work from, still produced excellent theories and were brilliant people.
Just because one feels their theory is more correct, that does not imply a sense of superiority. In fact, holding "the correct" religious viewpoint doesn't imply any greater value or status at all.... if you so happen to have picked the correct religion (or no religion, if there's no supernatural anything) that does not necessarily mean there's anything extraordinary about you.
What is the most ridiculous religion that you know people who actually worship it.
In one sense, they're all equally unbelievable to me.
Scientology tells a story that just about every sane person hears, and thinks "man, there's no way anyone can believe that...." and yet, there's nonsense of that magnitude in mainstream religions. What baffles me is that Scientology being a new and non-traditional religion still gained popularity even though everything was working against it.
IMO it shows that people are very vulnerable to suggestion, far too much so. To fit in, I believe, people will say or do almost anything. And that is what leads to fascism, if I could offer a commentary.
However, I would suggest that certain religions who preach less about fantasy and more about living a good and decent life, and don't condemn people who don't believe in it, are my favorite religions. I don't have to agree with them to coexist happily with them, and that is why I consider them better.
I also do not think it's necessary for everyone to become atheist to live a great life. You can have a great life as a religious adherent. You can have a bad life as an atheist. If religion leads you somewhere good, that's fine.... my only suggestion to people is to allow for some doubt.
Certainty is not that healthy a thing. Even stuff we think we're certain of in science is open for debate still. Allow for doubt. That is a sign of a balanced outlook.
Why are there so many evangelistic atheists? I mean it's by far most common on the internet, why do some many try to push their non-belief onto others?
With religious evangelism, at least there is a reason behind it [god(s)], but if you don't believe in a god, why do you need to convince others not to believe?
While I don't try to persuade religious people to stop believing, and I cease sharing my views with them when they ask me to, I find that when a discussion opens up about religion, the conversation invariably turns to why I'm an atheist, why don't I believe, and haven't you tried my personal faith yet.
Well, for fairness, the same questions can be posed to the believer. Why are you religious? Haven't you asked these questions yet? Why don't you doubt these things that seem really doubt-worthy? Have you examined your beliefs at all?
I don't believe that is evangelism, it's conversation.
However, I can see why some atheists try to convert; because they believe that too much faith can blind people to rational thinking and consequences. They believe they are making the world a better place.
It's none of my business what people believe. I'll ask them why, and share my views, but it's not my mission in life to convert people.
People who have been asked the questions, and examined their doubts, and still choose to believe, are folks who might have real belief. I'm not going to step on that. I'm looking out for folks who only 'believe' because society tells them to.
I don't think you need to force yourself to fit in by pretending you're in touch with God. If you go to church and wonder why you're there, maybe there's a reason why.
That said, if you decide God is right for you, that's fine with me. I can't say life without belief would necessarily be better. If someone believes truly the only reason why people are good is because of fear of punishment, and that is true for them, then fine... society is better off with their fear of punishment to keep them in line.
But rare is the person I think that would be true for. People 'believe' in God and break the laws of society all the time. Clearly they're not afraid of God, or else there wouldn't still be crime. So I don't think it follows that the idea of God makes people better.
how can the world come to be without any higher being?
If by world you mean universe, I would counter with:
How could the higher being come to be without an existence to inhabit already?
If the argument is, the universe cannot come from nothing, therefore god, my argument is, god didn't live nowhere before making the universe. God was somewhere, if he was anywhere.
The universe either always was, in some form, or began without a hand to move it. It's more plausible in my view. Also, the universe really doesn't look like it was designed; too much is decided by chance. One freak asteroid can ruin your day, and it has before.
Would a long-form birth certificate of the son or daughter of a deity make you a believer of that deity?
Serious answer to a likely non-serious question:
There's probably a way God or gods could prove themselves to me. In fact it would probably be quite easy. The fact that they do not means either they're not interested in proving their existence to me, or that they don't exist.
Anyway I always wanted to ask an Athiest this:
Do athiets believe a human has a soul?
I can only speak for myself, but I would suggest that atheists are not likely to believe in anything supernatural, including spirits, ghosts, souls, angels, demons, or magic.
I don't believe humans have souls, no. I think that my consciousness ends when I die, and there's nothing left of me but atoms and molecules.
If evolution is real, why haven't men evolved a way over the couple million years so that doesn't hurt so bad to get hit in the groin?
There are dedicated threads for evolution, and this particular red herring threatens to drive the entire thread off-topic.
The short answer, however, is that feeling pain in the groin doesn't affect your ability to mate. In fact, feeling pain in the groin makes you learn really quickly to avoid getting hit in the groin, which makes you more likely to be able to mate.
Looking over the thread I can see others have also responded to these; these are my responses, apologies for any overlap. Just consider it "me too" if I responded the same way.
Atheists are convinced that there is no god, of any description. Agnostics don't know if there is any god of any description. Or, in some case, don't care if there is a god.
