Why do atheists...

mistyfox812 said:...let me try to clear this up (assuming I've followed correctly)... 😁

If someone views atheism merely as a sort of "confessional non-affiliation" rather than just being reactive, they fall into the exact same trap that plagues every other "anti-" ideology. See, an anti-stance is fundamentally defined by what it’s pushing back against. Take anti-fascism, for example. It exists in direct opposition to fascism—where one says yes, the other says no, like black versus white. But the actual boundary, the shape of that movement, isn't dictated by the "anti-" part itself; it's carved out by the original ideology it's fighting. Essentially, every "anti-" movement is shaped by its enemy. This leaves all "anti-" thinkers in a permanent state of reacting, rather than truly acting on their own terms. They aren't driving the car; they're just slamming on the brakes.
(There's actually a brilliant Borges short story about this in Aleph, titled The Theologians.)
In this way, an anti-theist simply adopts the ready-made concept of God held by their opponents and then denies it. They don't possess a definition of God that belongs to them.
But, I suppose they feel like they don't even need one.

...as well as the fact that these "-isms" emerged as responses to specific confessions (along with all that religious machinery that comes with them...)

mistyfox812 said:It’s basically saying that an opinion is defined by whatever it's pushing back against. Take anti-fascism, for example—it’s defined by fascism itself. Where fascism says "yes," anti-fascism says "no," and vice versa. If one side is black, the other is white. But the actual boundary, and what shape it takes, isn't dictated by the "anti-" part; it's shaped by the original ideology that the "anti-" movement is fighting in the first place.

William Gonzalez3 said:Agnostics are basically villains.
Just totally amoral and corrupt.
They’re just indecisive types who can't make up their minds about whether God exists or not, which makes them super easy to manipulate.
Honestly, I'd take one decent atheist—someone who knows for a fact there's no God—over fifty of these amoral, wishy-washy, easily led agnostics any day.
At least an atheist sins because they truly believe those laws imposed by a corrupt church shouldn't apply to them, unlike the blind followers.
But agnostics? They sin just because it's convenient.
Because they're nothing more than decadent hedonists.
Seriously, I've met tons of agnostics and every single one of them was smoking weed.

And not even to expand their consciousness or anything deep—just because it feels good!
It's honestly pathetic.
Agnosticism is pure decadence (and we all know decadence leads to ruin because it's fundamentally rotten).
It's entirely self-serving. And that's exactly why people should be atheists instead of agnostics.
People need to define themselves in relation to us and our laws, rather than just making up their own rules on the fly.

William Gonzalez3 said:And that doesn't scare you or worry you even a little bit?

William Gonzalez3 said:so you wouldn't actually be able to call yourself a true agnostic then.
you’d probably fall more into the believer category.

and if you already are, then there's really no reason to worry.

Emericzy said:I wouldn't go that far. A believer, at least, has some sort of structured framework they can lean on. For me, it’s more of an intuitive hunch—this sense that good and evil are distinct categories that exist independently of our own thoughts, almost as if they were governed by some kind of natural law. It's a persistent thought; I find it difficult to even conceive of a reality where such a moral divide doesn't exist. But then again, that's just a feeling and a bit of guesswork, rather than actual faith.

Arthur Anderson49 said:your system isn't set in stone; it’s something you’ve built.
so, are you trying to say you can't actually tell right from wrong?

Emericzy said:Well... I suppose I know.

What you’re essentially saying is that I am, in some sense, a believer. I'm not entirely sure about that, though. If my belief lies in the distinction between good and evil, that feels more like a moral framework than anything religious. Even if I believe that distinction is a sort of natural law, I don't necessarily attribute it to something divine.

I wouldn't rule out that possibility, I guess, but I find myself leaning toward a physical explanation—maybe a kind of "moral physics." We talk about economic physics and the sociology of physics; why couldn't there be such a thing as moral physics?

Faith can't exist without dogma.

Arthur Anderson49 said:I think this point needs a bit more careful scrutiny.
To my mind, dogma is a core component of religion.
But is it an essential part of faith? Not necessarily.
What actually constitutes faith is everything that springs directly from the individual—those truths a person arrives at on their own, without looking to an outside source.

Furthermore, just being certain about something you can't prove is precisely what makes you a believer. (And let's be clear, "theist" is a much narrower subset of being a "believer").
An agnostic would totally reject your whole system of moral accountability or anything else that requires a leap of faith rather than hard evidence.
So, I'm basically forced to categorize them as believers (even if they aren't theists).

LNP20 said:Atheists, skeptics, and anyone else who generally pushes back against any established form of knowledge—well, they all
share one massive, glaring logical contradiction that essentially invalidates
their own positions. It’s quite simple, really:

The claim that "nothing can be believed" inherently relies on a belief—and that belief
is specifically the conviction that one BELIEVES IN UNBELIEF.

To put this in perspective, an ATHEIST believes that no religion is worthy
of their faith.

And a SKEPTIC believes that nothing in this world is worthy of their trust.

That is the fundamental flaw that undermines everyone identifying
as a skeptic or an atheist. Total non-belief is difficult—if not entirely impossible—to
achieve.

LNP20 said:Atheists, skeptics, and anyone generally opposed to any kind of organized knowledge... they all share one massive logical flaw that basically invalidates
them...
self-contradiction. It goes like this:

The claim that one believes in nothing inherently relies on a belief... specifically, the belief
in UNBELIEF.

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

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

That’s the core issue that discredits everyone calling themselves
skeptics or atheists. Total non-belief is hard... maybe impossible... to fully
avoid.

Executioner said:Agnostics are basically bad news.
They’re amoral and twisted.
They can't make up their minds—they just float around not knowing if God exists or not—and they’re easily swayed.
Honestly, you're better off with one decent atheist (someone who knows God isn't there) than fifty of those indecisive, immoral agnostics.
At least an atheist sins because they truly believe the rules imposed by a corrupt church shouldn't apply to them, unlike the blind followers.
Agnostics? They just sin because it’s convenient.
It's pure decadence.
Seriously, I've met plenty of agnostics, and every single one of them was smoking weed.

And it wasn't even to "expand their consciousness"—it was just because they felt like it.
It's pathetic.
Agnosticism is decadent, and decadence is just rot, which leads straight to ruin.
It's self-serving. That’s why people should be atheists rather than agnostics.
People need to take a stand regarding us and our laws, instead of just making up their own little rules.

briskgull27 said:An atheist who acts like they're their own God? That’s just obvious.