CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Why do atheists...

Why do atheists...

Started by Ronald Rodriguez73 · · 👁 8 views · 86 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Ronald Rodriguez73Thomas Cruz12Hannah Thomas13Elizabeth Ruiz65Chris Peterson53William Gonzalez3silentsailor63Brenda Cook4Rebecca Cox2swiftcobra15Ryan Hayes36rustymaker5Taylor Campbell4mistyfox812Jason Sanchez3Thomas Rogers12Charles Taylor10mistyscout2Arthur Anderson49Harold Doyle3Keith Lee2Jesse Kern67darkrider96briskgull27 …
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#21 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:God is God; saying He doesn't exist feels absurd, though I don't necessarily mean a specific persona with a beard or anything. To be honest, I'm not quite capable of mounting a rigorous intellectual defense for His existence myself. When I say "I" can't defend it, I don't mean it's impossible for someone else to do so.


No worries at all! 😉 I have no intention of stripping anyone of their God.
It wouldn't even cross my mind to deny the existence of God as a core part of your own consciousness.
In fact, those "personal" deities can be quite endearing to me,
but organized versions—like the Christian God or the Islamic God—can feel a bit silly to me.


Taylor Campbell4 said:I don't understand God through any dogma, but rather through my own experience, however thin that might be. My personal experience, on an intellectual, logically speaking, purely level, clashes with both modern physical discoveries and various spiritual teachings.


I believe only atheists (those without an affiliation) can discuss God or gods without bias.

And of course, spiritual experiences are inherently private and incommunicable. 🙂

Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#22 ·
swiftcobra15 The user said:

No worries at all—it's all good! 😉 I have no desire to take anyone's God away from them.



Phew, thank God I don't have to go on another jihad trip... 😁

To be honest, I don't really have a clue when it comes to God. And when I say God, I'm not necessarily picturing a person—more like an absolute concept. There are different levels to it, I suppose, including that one specific level we try to grasp, which is basically the closest representation of the Divine we can manage. I tend to see that particular version as a single being, but I won't bore you with the details right now—my own thoughts are a bit muddled on the subject, and honestly, trying to type out how messy it all feels wouldn't do it justice.

I wouldn't dream of questioning the existence of God—it's simply part of your own consciousness.
And honestly—even those "private" biographies can be quite charming to me.
To be honest—whether we're talking about the Christian God or the Islamic God—the whole concept just feels a bit absurd to me.


It really depends. What exactly defines the Muslim God? What is Islam versus what is Christianity? If we’re talking about the fundamentalists within Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism—then sure, you could make that argument. However, one has to realize that these organized religions are essentially constructs—systems built by people based on the teachings of great figures like Jesus and Muhammad. Because of that, their specific interpretations can be quite ridiculous—as someone once put it. So, while their interpretation of God might be laughable, I don't think God Himself is anything remotely funny in that sense.
I’m fairly certain that both Jesus and Muhammad possessed a truly great sense of humor. 🙂

I honestly believe that only atheists—those who don't align with any specific faith—can engage in a truly impartial discussion about God.

And, of course, spiritual experiences are—by their very nature—essentially incommunicable. 🙂


I have to say, I can't quite bring myself to agree with that.

First off, how can you claim to be unaligned? You aren't just sitting on the sidelines—by refusing to pick a side, you're effectively siding with the other. It’s one single system, not two separate ones.

Furthermore, if an atheist is considered unaligned, where exactly would I fit in to ensure everything remains logically consistent and follows a coherent framework?

That simply can't be right—it wouldn't hold any sense of integrity or fairness if we were to categorize things that way.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#23 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:Secondly, if an atheist doesn't belong to any group, where would I fit in if I wanted everything to be logically consistent?

😕



Ultimately, only you get to make that call.

I don't see how anyone else could provide you with an answer to that.




I truly believe that being human means having the freedom to define ourselves.
The most basic level of that freedom is the right to self-determination.
So, just be who you are and don't be afraid to own it.
mistyfox812 mistyfox812 Regular
295 messages
joined Mar 2004
#24 ·
inglorion said:👍 respect... I’d just add that for me, being an atheist basically means not being some brainwashed sheep. Like, if it hadn't been in someone's interest to declare a random rock as God back in the day, we wouldn't even be talking about Yahweh, Allah, or whatever else today—just some dude's divine pebble...

Man, you seriously have to be out of your mind to think all atheists are just mindless sheep.
Seriously, go read some biographies of great people from any field or era. Just do it.
Jason Sanchez3 Jason Sanchez3 Active Member
126 messages
joined Jan 2007
#25 ·
Executioner. said:
Atheists actually have their own churches, rituals, and leaders and stuff like that too.
It's just that they don't actually call it by that name. Instead, they refer to their religious leader as, say, a scientist.
For an atheist, everything boils down to knowledge. There's really no room left for belief, since they've already moved past that.
Atheists love calling themselves "open-minded" all the time.
Honestly, they act like if you aren't an atheist, you just can't be open-minded. It’s such a stretch. They totally ignore the fact that so many fathers behind massive scientific breakthroughs were actually people of faith.
Honestly, I feel like a true believer doesn't actually need a church—though they still go because the atmosphere is just so lovely, especially around Christmas when everyone is in such a good mood. It's the same for a real atheist; they don't really need their own circles either. It seems like the posers on both sides just want a stage to show off their labels.

That's right. 👍
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#26 ·
oceanic said:😕



Well, that’s a decision only you can make.

I don't see how anyone else could step in to help you with that.




I believe that being human means possessing freedom—the capacity for self-determination and self-creation.
The bare minimum of freedom is the right to define oneself.
So, just be who you are, and don't be afraid to say it out loud.

Personally, I view this more as a matter of objective fact rather than just labeling oneself or relying on subjective perception.

As for me, why would I feel the need to pick a side?

Human beings are inherently free creatures—provided they actually tap into that potential. But let's be honest, very few people truly break through to realize that full potential, which makes us all somewhat unfree in a general sense.

So, just be who you are, and don't be afraid to say it out loud.

He-he, sounds like you're religiously committed to everything and nothing at once. I'm holding out for a scientific religion; then maybe I'll commit. 😁

Religion is really about tradition—it's not necessarily about whether I choose to be Christian or Muslim, for instance. Right now, I don't formally belong to any faith, and I don't think I ever will, even though I find the traditions and the cultures of Islam quite fascinating.

There are many paths one can take, and religion can simply be one of them—that's my perspective.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#27 ·
I don't see how anyone could actually help you with that.

Look, I'm not asking because I need someone to put a label on me—honestly, please don't try to categorize me at all! 🙂—but rather to spark a decent debate. As I mentioned before, I view classification as an objective fact, not just a matter of opinion.

Cheers to the unclassifiable! 😁
Thomas Rogers12 Thomas Rogers12 Newcomer
1 message
joined Dec 2006
#28 ·
LNP20 said:Atheists, skeptics, and anyone else who generally pushes back against any kind of established knowledge—they all
face this massive, glaring issue of self-contradiction where they basically end up debunking
themselves. Here’s the deal:

The claim that one believes in absolutely nothing actually harbors a hidden belief, and that belief
is essentially the belief that one BELIEVES in NON-BELIEF.

But honestly, believers run into the exact same wall of contradiction, effectively proving themselves
wrong. I mean, if they are truly BELIEVERS, then by definition, they don't actually believe that God doesn't exist, right?
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#29 ·
So, Živko Kustić—if I’ve got the name right—wrote a piece about this today in his column over at USA Today.

To be fair, the guy admitted he might have misheard what Kuljiš actually said (he even offered an apology for the potential slip-up in the article), but honestly, the piece isn't half bad. Usually, I find his writing a bit dry and narrow-minded, but this one's different.

Here’s the link:

Look, I’m not saying I agree with him 100%, but after skimming through it, I think there might be some merit to his point—it should definitely spark some interesting debate.

That said, I actually find myself siding with Kuljiš, at least given the context of how he phrased things when I saw him on TV during that program.
Charles Taylor10 Charles Taylor10 Member
18 messages
joined Jul 2006
#30 ·
I’m an atheist mainly because I can't stand the idea of some idiot profiting off faith—it doesn't matter if it's a street vendor selling cheap trinkets or the Pope himself. It just grinds my gears, especially since nobody ever makes a dime off atheism.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#31 ·
I suppose I would say I DO believe that God exists.
mistyscout2 mistyscout2 Active Member
197 messages
joined Feb 2007
#32 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:I guess I BELIEVE that God exists.

So, a double negative basically turns into an affirmation. It’s like saying not only are the birds singing in the trees, but the branches themselves are singing too. The person above tried this "clever" little reformulation to reach the brilliant conclusion that believers don't believe in the non-existence of God, which somehow means they aren't actually believers. 🙂 They completely sidestep the actual object of belief, focusing instead on the mere act of believing. 🤣 🤣

Of course, we could get bogged down in semantics here and argue that a "believer" is anyone who holds a conviction, whereas a "theist" specifically believes in God, but in this context, it's pretty obvious they're using "believer" and "theist" interchangeably. Those are just the standard ways people talk, and honestly, I highly doubt the person above was trying to make some deep distinction about the hierarchy of those terms or their "original" definitions. A believer simply 🤣 ... Anyway, it was a pretty amusing attempt at an argument, if you can call it that 🙂))...
mistyscout2 mistyscout2 Active Member
197 messages
joined Feb 2007
#33 ·
In a broader sense, this was just a continuation of that somewhat clumsy—though slightly more polished—phrasing used earlier:

LNP20 said:Atheists, skeptics, and anyone else who generally opposes any kind of knowledge, all
they share one massive problem of contradiction that actually ends up undermining
themselves. It goes like this:

In claiming that one believes in nothing, there is a latent belief bubbling underneath, and that belief
is essentially the act of BELIEVING in UNBELIEF.

I’m not entirely sure if an absence of faith necessarily implies a belief in unbelief. Personally, I don't think so. I mean, you can certainly phrase it that way, but the real question here is: why choose that specific wording? Well, probably because it suits your argument. We might be better off saying it implies a belief in nonexistence—specifically regarding God. That would be a much smoother way to put it. Honestly, it all depends on what we're actually discussing, because things seem to be getting blurred between the general concept of believing and the specific act of believing in God. We really need to be clear about our terms.

At the end of the day, none of them are truly certain; they don't have foolproof knowledge, just various opinions. From there, one person might choose to believe, while another might decide it isn't such a big deal. Of course, there are atheists who are just as narrow-minded (if not more so) as some of those stubborn "believers" (using quotes there because of the point made above 😁). This third group—the fundamentalist atheist—represents a different extreme, much like the fundamentalist believer; they are just two different poles of the same system. They often emphasize their lack of belief so intensely that they become almost obsessively focused on trying to convince others of "their" way. That might be what you were aiming at with the idea of "latent belief"—a sort of negative fixation. It's like if I told you, "Don't think about a butterfly, whatever you do, don't think about a butterfly"—you'd immediately picture a butterfly, wouldn't you? Some people might see a clever opening here to pose a question in defense of faith: "Well, then what is THAT thing you're working so hard to deny?" Of course, that moves us away from pure philosophy and more toward engaged politics or religion, where it becomes a game of cat and mouse. History has shown us that secular religions exist too, like Marx even suggested (just a side note—Marx himself wasn't a Marxist), which featured individuals very similar to the ones described earlier.

Moving on.
The phrase "belief in unbelief" is, as I mentioned, quite a "belief-centric" way of putting things. It's as if a believer can't even conceive of (and likely can't) a state of consciousness that doesn't involve faith. That's just how they're wired, and they aren't ready to step outside their own belief system at that moment.
Again, if we only look at things from a single perspective, it's easy to walk away with a somewhat credible, yet limited, view of the whole situation.
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#34 ·
So, can we circle back to the original thread for a second? Why is it that atheists don't have their own "Pope"?

It’s actually a pretty wild thought, though maybe what we really need isn't a Pope at all, but more like an ombudsman. You know, a public advocate? It would feel way more in line with the whole atheist, skeptic, and agnostic vibe.

And honestly, if we did have this kind of representative, they’d need to be totally ecumenical—not just picking sides or favoring one of those three groups over the others.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#35 ·
mistyscout2 said:Again, if we're only looking at this from a single angle, it’s a small thing that we won't get a truly credible picture of the matter.
__________

Yeah—I just hope you're actually trying to approach this with that same level of fairness, because otherwise, this feels more like you're just venting—which is pretty destructive rather than constructive.

Because if we’re going to be consistent about it, you can't really speak for believers since you aren't one; you don't have that state of consciousness or even the experience under your belt. But honestly, the sheer amount of nonsense in these recent posts on this topic really shows how absurd things get when people start deconstructing everything in this specific way.

mistyscout2 said:Ultimately, none of them are certain—meaning they don't have absolute knowledge, just an opinion—so one person might choose to believe, while another might not find it particularly important.

Following that logic—if we were being strictly consistent with your grievances—one could ask why you framed the question this way in the first place? It seems even more obvious: because it suits your narrative. It’s the same deal with almost everything else.
The real crux of the matter is whether a person is open to new experiences and, if so, to what extent. To what degree is their mind free from preconceived molds and their thoughts liberated?

That is the essential part. And the more someone dwells on things in a specific, narrow way (it reminds me of a kind of tunnel vision, if you will), the more they—almost as a rule—fall into various illusions disguised as mental or emotional concepts. It isn't a problem with the concepts themselves, but rather how much a person clings to them, effectively closing themselves off to new experiences.

But thank God, the world we live in is persistent 😁 and constantly showering us with experiences.

Maybe that sounded a bit too personal—who knows, maybe it was...

So, to sum it up: I think it's vital for a person, whether atheist or theist, to remain open to new experiences. Beyond that, it's all mostly trivial.

And it's interesting—as I've mentioned before on other threads—how often the more educated a person is, or the more "knowledge" they possess, the more material they have to build those illusions. It happens all the time.

So, that idea of Platonov's—or whoever's it was—about how the more you know, the less you know, holds true in a different sense as well. 😁

You made a good point that it might be important to distinguish between God and god in this debate—we could certainly discuss both. But even that is somewhat secondary, and I'm not sure where it would lead us, since everyone's concepts differ so wildly that we might never truly reach an understanding.
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#36 ·
To me, religion feels totally pointless because it’s all about blind faith. I just don't have it in me to believe in anything without questioning it first. But then again, isn't atheism just another form of unquestioning belief? To me, they both seem equally hollow.

Being an agnostic, the whole "is there a divine power out there?" debate doesn't feel solvable to me—and honestly, it’s not even that interesting. What *does* catch my attention, though, is why people believe in the first place and what that belief actually does to them.

Every single religion carries some kind of moral code. When you line those teachings up side-by-side, it’s pretty obvious how much they overlap. That actually makes me wonder... maybe there really is something to this idea of a "higher" morality after all?

That’s why I find something like the New Testament so incredibly fascinating and inspiring. I’m not talking about the stories themselves—I view those as pure fiction—but rather the moral principles they lay out. They are truly captivating! It’s no wonder they completely reshaped the world and have managed to stay just as relevant today as when they were first written.

It’s almost like Euclidean geometry.
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#37 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:... in the spirit of atheism, skepticism, and agnosticism.

That defender would essentially need to be ecumenical—someone who doesn't favor one of those three "faiths" over the others.

😕 😕 😕

Are you picturing these as three separate sects? 😕



First off, I am a skeptic by methodology (*De omnibus dubitandum est*).

Then, as a direct consequence, I am an agnostic (*Ignoramus et ignorabimus*),

and finally, stemming from both of those, I am an atheist (though I’ve already explained what that means to me).

In my view, only atheists can engage in an unbiased discussion about "God" or "gods." 😉

Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#38 ·
swiftcobra15 said:😕 😕 😕

Are you seriously picturing this as three different cults? 😕

Nah, I was just messing with you! Seriously though, even if we're diving into a heavy topic, there's no reason why we can't have a little fun while we talk about it, right? No need to get all grumpy and serious on me!
mistyscout2 mistyscout2 Active Member
197 messages
joined Feb 2007
#39 ·
Taylor Campbell4 said:Yeah, I really hope you’re trying to handle this with some level of decency too, because otherwise, this whole thing just feels like mindless nitpicking—more destructive than actually helpful.

Oh, I’m definitely trying; if I wasn't, this would just be empty venting... but honestly, I don't see how any of that even connects to the actual topic. I haven't once resorted to attacking anyone personally...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Because if we’re going to be strictly consistent with that logic, you shouldn't be able to say anything about believers at all since you aren't one yourself—you don't have that state of consciousness or that lived experience. But looking at the chaos of the last few posts in this thread, it really shows how ridiculous things get when people start reasoning like that.

But what defines a believer? How can you be so sure I'm not one? And even if it turns out I'm not, how do you know I wasn't in the past? In that case, if I used to be a believer, I’d actually have a much wider range of conscious states and experiences to draw from...
On top of that, I don't see a single post here that would lead someone to conclude whether I am "this" or "that," nor am I trying to force myself into a specific little box. Is it just that you feel the need to pigeonhole every single person you talk to so you can decide which stance to take in a "debate," or do you just feel like the ground is shifting under your feet if things aren't strictly binary, like a 1 or a 0? I'm not the subject of this discussion, and frankly, that shouldn't matter. Yet, based on what you've said, you couldn't legitimately tell if I'm a believer or not—and if you think you can, then I guess you’ve found a shortcut to "Insight(tm)," albeit a slightly glitchy version, haha... but hey, no big deal.

So, you don't like the analysis? You don't like the deconstruction? You don't even like philosophy? I honestly don't know why you're even hanging out in this forum then 😉.
And again, I really don't get why you're resorting to these ad hominem attacks, especially since you're the one dragging the conversation down from high-level ideas to these petty, personal levels...
If you feel the need to label everyone as one way or another—believer or non-believer, this type or that type—maybe you've missed the point of the last century. Or maybe you haven't. But the fact that you feel the need to go on the defensive suggests there's something bothering you deep down...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Following your line of reasoning regarding all this complaining, one could just as easily ask why you chose to frame things this way in the first place. It seems pretty obvious to me: because it suits you. It's the same pattern with everything else.
The real crux of the matter is whether a person is truly open to new experiences or not, and to what extent. To what degree is their mind free from molds and their thoughts liberated.

If you’re going to talk about my "complaining" (and look, I'm not sitting here whining, I don't know what you think you read, but that's beside the point), you’re going to have to be more precise. Otherwise, we're just talking in circles. As for that second sentence—I wouldn't add a thing; that's exactly the whole point.

Taylor Campbell4 said:So, if I were to sum it all up, the real key is for a person—whether they’re an atheist or a believer—to just stay open to new experiences. Otherwise, I feel like we're just spinning our wheels in the same old patterns.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it. There's nothing new under the sun. Honestly, at the end of the day, I don't really identify as either an atheist or a theist. If you want to call me an "a-theist" or something, go ahead. 😁 To me, those labels feel a bit superficial; they serve a purpose in politics, sure, but they also tend to oversimplify us, reducing what should be a multidimensional human experience down to a single checkbox. It feels like a completely unnecessary dualism, too. But hey, let's move on.

Taylor Campbell4 said:And here's where it gets interesting again, like I've mentioned in other threads before: the more educated someone is, the more "knowledge" they pile up, the more raw material they actually have to build their own illusions. And it happens all the time.

That's certainly possible... though it really depends on what kind of knowledge we're talking about—is it just propositional facts or actual, lived wisdom? Knowledge isn't such a straightforward category, is it? You see these New Age groups nowadays love to brag about possessing "Knowledge" with a capital K, tossing around all these platitudes about how their insights are true "Knowledge" while everything else is just mere "information." I don't mind people doing that within the bubble of their own guru or their specific little community...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Maybe that sounded a bit too personal, or maybe it was, who knows...

Well, yeah, it did. Usually, I don't get sucked into these kinds of "debates," nor do I really intend to in the future, because I honestly think it's just a massive waste of energy and time that ends up going in circles. But I believe philosophy should primarily be about clarifying our positions—defining what we actually mean when we say certain things and working through the arguments—rather than chasing after some eternal, absolute, unchanging cosmic truths. If you look at it that way, philosophy doesn't even need to deal with the latter. History has already made its point, and it's still speaking. I suspect you might disagree with me on that, judging by your approach, but to be perfectly honest, it doesn't really bother me much. 🙂 Best,
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#40 ·
oceanic said:First off, I’m a skeptic by design—methodologically speaking. (Basically, *dubito omnibus*.
Then, as a direct result of that skepticism, I land on being an agnostic (*ignorantium et ignorabimus*),
and finally, as a consequence of both, I consider myself an atheist (which is how I broke down the term earlier).

In my view, only atheists can actually have an unbiased conversation about "God" or "gods."😉

The whole breakdown you gave for the word 'atheist'—from where I'm sitting—isn't really an 'explanation,' it's just your personal take on what it means. Let me quote you here:

oceanic said:I'm an atheist. For me, that means I don't subscribe to any specific camp: I just can't wrap my head around the Christian, Muslim, or Shivite versions of God, because none of those doctrines hold up under actual scrutiny.
Atheism is always specific: it's the rejection of particular, concrete gods or concepts.
I wouldn't call myself an atheist regarding some random god "X" that I haven't even heard of.

Look, that's your personal philosophy, but it isn't the standard definition of atheism. If you look at the etymology, the word literally means 'without god.' It doesn't mean 'without Yahweh' or 'without Allah' or anything like that; it's a flat-out rejection of the idea of divinity itself.

Since there's zero empirical evidence to prove a deity doesn't exist—just like there's no proof they do—an atheist is essentially someone willing to believe in something unproven. In a way, that makes them a type of believer, doesn't it?

And honestly, I don't see how you can claim to be both agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Plus, I fail to see how believers could ever have an objective debate about God or gods.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads