Why do atheists...

Aleksandr_V_Fedotov said:they don't have their own "Pope," their own "Church," or anything like that... I’m asking because I see religious fanatics wandering around proselytizing and protesting without anyone even questioning them! Hello!!! Atheists are part of this world too! Wouldn't it be useful to have someone representing the one faith that doesn't believe in anything? 🙂

Aleksandr_V_Fedotov said:They don't have their own "Pope" or a central "Church" or anything like that... I'm asking because I see religious fanatics everywhere, proselytizing and protesting, without anyone even questioning them! Hello!!! Atheists are part of this world too! Wouldn't it be great to have someone who represents the one "faith" that doesn't actually believe in anything? 🙂

LNP20 said:Atheists, skeptics, and basically anyone who opposes any kind of established knowledge—all
they share one massive, glaring contradiction that essentially invalidates
themselves. Here’s the deal:

The claim that one believes in nothing inherently contains a hidden belief, and that belief
is the conviction that one BELIEVES in NON-BELIEF.

To put this in perspective, way too many ATHEISTS believe that no religion is worthy
of their faith.

And SKEPTICS? They believe that absolutely nothing in this world is worthy of their trust.

That is the core issue that completely discredits everyone calling themselves
skeptics or atheists. Avoiding non-belief entirely is difficult—if not impossible.

Veronica said:That’s a somewhat clumsy way to frame it—suggesting atheists reject all religions because none are "worthy" of their faith.

The vast majority simply don't buy the doctrines of any organized religion.
I suppose one could argue that non-belief is its own kind of faith, much like having faith in evolution.
Atheists aren't quite as arrogant as your argument implies. Interestingly, they often seem more moral than those who proclaim themselves devout believers while constantly frequenting churches, yet consciously choosing to ignore divine commandments.
As for those who use profanity and constant blasphemy just to prove they're atheists,
they are actually just outcasts from both faith and basic human decency.
Skepticism and atheism are not the same thing.

Aleksandr_V_Fedotov said:They don't have their own "Pope," their own "Church," or anything like that... It makes me wonder because I see religious fanatics out there proselytizing and protesting constantly without anyone questioning them. Hello? Atheists are part of this world too! Wouldn't it be great to have someone representing the one faith that doesn't believe in anything?🙂

Atheists are basically part of the family here, and honestly, half the people claiming they believe in God probably don't even believe—they're just playing it safe because they're terrified society will kick them to the curb if they come out as non-believers..

so what's the actual difference between a skeptic and an atheist in your eyes? an atheist believes
in the relativity of faith, whereas a pure skeptic's belief in relativity
spreads to other areas of existence that aren't even tied to religion. again
we're talking about a belief in the relative, just on a much broader scale for the skeptic.
another big thing that brings them together is that by seeing how everything is relative,
they either refuse or just can't commit to one single, definitive
viewpoint, which leads to this nihilistic denial of certainty
regarding knowledge, which ends up in a choice of indecision, though that
is itself a choice. atheists do this by opting out of the religious
component, while skeptics opt out of any metaphysical or worldly claims
where duality exists. another proof that there isn't really a hard line
between skepticism and atheism is that every hardcore
skeptic is effectively an atheist, because if you're pushing the idea that everything is relative,
then that applies to faith too. and if we flip it,
not every atheist has to be a skeptic, but it can be a great springboard
for them to carry those relativistic views into other parts of life,
picking up a stronger skeptical edge in the process.

Ronald Rodriguez73 said:don't take this personally... but I'm feeling skeptical about whether I'll ever actually wrap my head around this post of yours. Between the grammar, the lack of line breaks, and the inconsistent capitalization... 🙂
And yeah... I don't agree with your take on atheists. At least not for me, and I won't speak for everyone else since everyone has their own reasons.

LNP20 said:Atheists, skeptics, and basically anyone who pushes back against any established form of knowledge—they all
share this massive, glaring contradiction that essentially ends up debunking
themselves. Here’s the deal:

The claim that one believes in nothing actually hides a latent belief, and that belief
is precisely the idea that one BELIEVES in NON-BELIEF.

To put it in perspective, ATHEISTS believe that no religion is worthy
of their faith.

And SKEPTICS believe that absolutely nothing in this world deserves their trust.

That is the core issue that effectively discredits everyone who identifies
as a skeptic or an atheist. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to fully
avoid non-belief.

Aleksandr_V_Fedotov said:They don't have their own "Pope," their own "Church," or anything like that... It makes me wonder, because I see religious fanatics out there proselytizing and protesting constantly without anyone stopping to ask us what we think! Hello!!! Atheists are a part of this world too! Wouldn't it be great to have someone who represents the one faith that doesn't believe in anything? 🙂

Bluebird. said:Ugh... I went on quite a rant over on that religion forum, specifically in the agnostic/atheist thread. I think I’ve officially typed myself into exhaustion.😁 Well, looks like I have to step in here again...

I have to admit one thing—I didn't exactly expect this level of discourse from the philosophy department.
What a joke. This blatant misuse of the word "belief" is just pathetic.🙄

Look, it’s pretty simple: theists are the ones who initiated the whole "God exists" narrative in the first place. Atheism is merely the reaction to that initial claim—a rebuttal to the premise they laid down. How can you argue against a concept that wasn't even on the table until they brought it up? In essence, atheism is just the response to theism.

blue bird said:Whatever you theists believe in, I don't!

So, who's the atheist? Just whoever isn't a theist!

Aleksandr_V_Fedotov said:Atheists are part of this world too!

I consider myself an atheist, which to me means being unaligned. I simply can't subscribe to Christian, Muslim, or unknown concepts of God, because none of those doctrines hold up under any real intellectual scrutiny.
For me, atheism is always specific: it’s a rejection of particular, defined deities.
It doesn't make sense for me to claim atheism against some random deity "X" that I haven't even heard of.

I don't belong to any specific group of atheists or follow any kind of atheist "faith" or ideology.
I have no interest in being lumped into a collective.
Because of that, I find any questions directed at "atheists" as a whole to be completely irrelevant to my experience.

swiftcobra15 said:

I consider myself an atheist. For me, that means being unaligned: I can't subscribe to Christian, Muslim, unknown, or any other concept of God, because none of those doctrines hold up under actual scrutiny.
Atheism is always specific: it’s a denial of the existence of particular deities or concepts.
It makes no sense to claim atheism toward some deity "X" that I know nothing about.

I don't belong to some collective group of atheists or follow any specific "atheistic ideology."
I refuse to be lumped into a category.
So, any questions about "atheists" as a plural group just miss the point.

I can't quite wrap my head around what LNP20 is supposed to mean here. It feels like we're missing a huge piece of the puzzle. Is this some kind of internal code, a specific product model, or maybe just a typo? Without a bit more context, I'm basically staring at a blank wall. If anyone knows the backstory or what we're actually discussing, please chime in! kaže:
It’s like this: first, you have the theists stepping up to the plate, making their case, and then the atheists just step in with that classic, "Give me a break" attitude. It’s an endless back-and-forth, really. But honestly? That's not even the core of the issue.
The real question you have to ask yourself is what actually pushed them toward that infamous "whatever" attitude. What was the tipping point?
There are two ways this could play out:

I was thinking about this earlier—that whole idea regarding the dualistic possibility of both conflict and peace existing within theism.
I honestly find myself stuck in this weird limbo, completely unable to make a rational call between those two concepts. It’s like trying to choose between two equally compelling paths while standing at a crossroads in the middle of Chicago—you know the feeling, where you just spin your wheels because neither option feels like the "correct" one. One side pulls, the other side tugs, and I'm just left here hovering in the middle, totally paralyzed by the choice.
Ultimately, it all boils down to this: it forces a choice between being decisive and staying completely neutral.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that. It looks like you might have sent an incomplete message or just a single word. Could you please expand on what you were thinking? I'm all ears!

It’s like trying to grasp smoke with your bare hands. When we hit that wall where our own minds just can't wrap themselves around these massive metaphysical concepts, it tends to push them toward... well, somewhere else entirely. It’s an inherent limitation, really. Like trying to explain the color blue to someone who's only ever known grayscale—the gap in understanding forces us to reinvent how we define reality itself.
It’s about pivoting toward a more rational way of looking at things—moving toward a worldview grounded in something like science.

So, what you’re getting at is that atheism isn't really an "answer" to theism in any meaningful sense—it's just a void. It’s like saying the absence of noise is a response to a symphony. One is a presence, a complex arrangement of notes and intention, while the other is simply... nothing. It's just silence. You can't really build a philosophy out of a vacuum, can you?
Think about it this way: most of the major movements that defined the 20th century were essentially just massive pushbacks against positivism. It was a reaction, really—a collective "enough is enough" to the idea that everything could be solved through pure logic and data. But even so...
The reasoning behind those answers matters—and more importantly, it’s the fallout from them that really counts.

Look, you're overcomplicating things. You’re making the definitions of atheism and theism way more mysterious than they actually need to be. It's like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube when it's really just a simple coin flip.
One dictionary defines theism with just a single word.

It’s that core sense of faith—the deep-seated conviction that there’s a higher power out there. We aren't just talking about some abstract force or a distant cosmic energy, either. I mean the belief in a personal God. It’s that feeling that there is an actual presence watching over us, someone you can actually talk to, much like how you might reach out to a mentor or a close friend for guidance when life gets messy. It’s a very intimate kind of belief.
It’s almost like someone thinks they can just step up and claim the title of "creator and ruler of the entire world." It’s a massive ego to carry.

It’s almost a given, isn't it? At its core, atheism is essentially defined by what it rejects—it’s the direct opposition to whatever is written in the sacred texts.

So, let’s stick to the core idea: we define theism simply as the belief in God and...
If we look at it from the perspective of a divine creation—the sheer artistry behind how everything was put together—then really, it’s just...
Believing in something doesn't automatically make you a theist. It’s like saying I believe in the magic of a perfect cup of coffee—that doesn't mean I'm suddenly starting a religion centered around espresso. Belief is one thing; identity is another entirely.
I like to think of my toothbrush as a little cornerstone of my daily happiness—and, obviously, my oral hygiene. It’s that small, reliable ritual that keeps everything in check. But honestly? I don't let it become some sort of obsession. There's a fine line between good habits and making a mountain out of a molehill, and I prefer to keep things balanced.
It’s like being granted divine status and the power to create worlds all at once. It’s really just two sides of the same coin.
Think of it like this: when you look at an atheist scientist, you aren't looking at someone who has abandoned faith entirely. It’s more like they’ve simply traded one set of mysteries for another. They believe in science—not just as a hobby, but as the fundamental framework of reality. For them, everything boils down to the observable, the measurable, and the laws of nature. It's a commitment to the tangible world around us.
Think of laws as a creative force—but without assigning them any mystical or metaphysical properties. It’s more about how they shape our reality through action rather than some abstract magic.
He’s really making an effort to keep things grounded and logical. He stays right in that sweet spot where everything actually makes sense—and honestly, that’s exactly what makes him so effective.
It really drives a wedge between the believers.

It’s funny how you look at it that way—everyone who claims to be a believer is essentially an atheist when compared to whatever other god might actually be running the show. It’s all relative, isn't it?

On first listen, this sounds pretty catchy—almost too good to be true. But if you really start digging into the details, there are some glaring holes that just don't add up.
Let me start with an analogy here. To be considered a carnivore, you don't actually have to be eating meat at this very moment.
Look, you don't have to be a connoisseur of every single cut under the sun. You really don't. But when it comes to options? I say go for it. Explore everything. Try every kind of meat out there—from a classic ribeye to something more adventurous. It’s not about being obsessed with every morsel, it’s just about having the full spectrum available to you. Why limit your palate?
Look, there isn't just one way to play this. You could decide, for instance, that you're only eating chicken from now on and absolutely loathing everything else on the menu—but that's hardly a sustainable lifestyle.
Look, that doesn't change the fact that you're just as much of a carnivore as someone sitting down to a plate of wild boar. It’s all the same.
White-bellied, crocodile-style... just a straight-up carnivore, I guess. =)
I’m not talking about some kind of reckless, predatory behavior here. It's much simpler than that—it's just about pure fulfillment.
The bare minimum requirement for being a carnivore? It’s pretty straightforward—you actually have to eat meat.
If we swap that out for the terminology we’ve been using in this discussion, what we’re really saying is that theism doesn't...
It isn’t really about having some deep, unwavering faith in every single deity out there. It’s more about the ritual itself—just going through the motions to feel complete.
What’s the bare minimum requirement to call yourself a theist? Honestly, it boils down to one thing: you believe. That’s it. Even if that belief feels shaky or incomplete, the act of believing is what defines the label. It’s like saying you’re a fan of the Yankees—you don't need to know every single player's batting average or their entire history to claim the title; you just have to believe in the team. Belief is the foundation, regardless of how much doubt might be hovering around the edges.
It’s an interesting question to ponder—whether one would lean toward believing in a single deity or embrace the entire pantheon of ancient Egypt, for instance.

Theism? It’s like an internal compass for faith. It starts deep within the human spirit and then branches out into everything else.
It’s that metaphysical territory—the kind of stuff that can never be fully pinned down by logic or proven by a spreadsheet. How much of it will actually...
May God tie that thing down tight, because at the end of the day, it’s a matter of personal responsibility. But what it actually does...
A believer arguing against another believes they’ve found the smoking gun—that undeniable link that proves the whole thing. So, really...It’s just not working. Honestly, nothing is clicking right now.
How do you actually frame being an atheist when you’re standing in a room full of people who believe in different gods? It’s an interesting way to position yourself, isn't it? I've always thought about it like this: it isn't just about rejecting one specific deity, but rather how you navigate that entire landscape of belief. It’s less about being "against" something and more about where you choose to stand in relation to all those different paths.

Cut it out with those circular definitions! =)

adriatic said:

I’m an atheist. Which, to me, means being unaligned: I just can't wrap my head around Christian, Muslim, Sivash, or any other concept of God, because none of those frameworks actually hold up under any kind of real intellectual scrutiny.
Atheism is always about something specific: it's the denial of certain actual, concrete deities...
I can't really claim to be an atheist regarding some random deity "X" that I haven't even heard of before.

I don't belong to some organized group of atheists or subscribe to some "atheistic ideology"—that's just another form of "faith" to me.
I refuse to let anyone shove me into a collective box...
so honestly, any question directed at "atheists" as a plural group just feels totally pointless to me.

Blue bird. rustymaker5 said:You really need to go back and re-read what I actually said. You spent your entire response throwing everything out there at once—just a massive pile of words—but none of it hits the mark. By the way, this isn't some debate about why someone might be a theist. Just look at that absolute nonsense you wrote—the part I bolded. An atheist isn't even "in relation" to gods the way a theist is. Honestly, it seems like you don't even grasp the basic definition of theism to begin with. Ouch.

Why don't you just teach me what a circular definition actually is? I'll give you a classic example anyway:

God exists simply because that’s what the Bible says—and the Bible was written by God.
So, circular reasoning actually exists when you bake your conclusion right into the premise from the very beginning.

blue bird said:🙏 🙏 🙏
The Skeptics—well, that includes my dear old friend Dawkins🙏

adriatic said:

I’m an atheist—well, more accurately, I don't fit into a category. I can't subscribe to Christian, Muslim, Shaivite, or any other concept of God, simply because none of those doctrines hold up under intellectual scrutiny.
Atheism is always specific: it’s a denial of certain concrete deities or concepts.
I can't claim to be an atheist toward some unknown God X that I know nothing about.

I don't belong to any group of atheists, nor do I subscribe to any "atheistic" ideology or "faith."
I refuse to be lumped into any collective labels
so, frankly, asking me questions about "atheists" as a whole feels pointless.

I’m an atheist—more accurately, unclassifiable. I cannot accept the Christian, Muslim, Shaivite, etc., versions of God, since none of those teachings survive rigorous mental critique.