You, sir, are a supreme twat.
None of us believe in god.
We don’t believe in it. We admit that there’s a chance that there are some, the same chance there is for toasters to be sentient or the moon being made of cheese.
That isn’t belief, you arrogant moron.
So because you have no idea about the concepts of atheism, atheists don’t? As an atheist I don’t believe there is a god because there is no evidence of a god. Atheists believe the entirety of existence is a large system of naturally occurring events. We believe this because that is what the evidence suggests. It isn’t that we are waiting for proof, we aren’t waiting for anything. We believe what evidence suggests is true. Because there is zero evidence of a god, to an atheist, god doesn’t exist. If someone comes up to me and says they have invisible elfs at home but I will not be able to detect them with any form of available method. When I say that since they have no evidence to support their amazing claim, so I don’t believe it to be true. This doesn’t mean I’m waiting for proof, it means I don’t believe it because there is no evidence it is true.
I still find your sweeping generalization about both religious and atheists to be offensive. You make claims about people you make inaccurate claims about and berate them as people when you are the one claims about both groups without providing any accurate information.
No. You’ve got the wrong idea. Atheists don’t believe. If you were a “true atheist” (note the capitalization), then you “do not believe in deities”.
You’re getting your terms mixed up and then attacking us when we try to correct you. And we’re the “stuck up” and “ignorant” ones? :meh:
“B-b-but the dictionary says–”
Yes. A dictionary might say something different because the dictionary uses commonly used definitions for words. If a majority of people making and researching the dictionary ‘poll’ religious people and these religious people use the WRONG definition, then the dictionary will have the WRONG definition for its common usage of the word.
Atheists use the definition which is “the disbelief in the existence of deities”. Christians and other religious people use “the belief that there are no deities”. Who is right here? The atheists. Is the dictionary right? Yes. It gives the definition that religious people use…which is WRONG…but it’s right in giving that definition because that is how people use it.
If people suddenly started defining their pet cats as “something constructed or designed to support a person in a seated position” (aka “chair”) and this definition become common usage, then the dictionary writers would say “cat: something constructed or designed to support a person in a seated position”. But is a cat a chair? No. Is the dictionary right to use that definition? Yes.
Whoa. May I stop you there? Atheist’s don’t believe there are gods because there’s no evidence for them. That’s it. That’s the only definition that every atheist I’ve ever talked to gives. Beyond that, well, you’ll find a lot of atheists that agree with what you’ve ascribed to atheism, but what you’ve ascribed is not atheism but materialism. Many (most?) atheists are materialists, but they don’t HAVE to be. The only thing binding avowed atheists together is their mutual lack of belief in the existence of deities. Point blank.
No it is not. ALL atheist believe existence is based on a large natural system. A natural system without the influence of any supernatural entity. Atheists believe what evidence suggests. If evidence suggests it, then it is a natural part of the system. While it is possible that some may not know the correct interpretations of the evidence, but they agree that what is to believed should be based on evidence, not something supernatural. Atheists believe there is no super natural force or entity. It is all part of a natural system, and if something cannot be explained it isn’t supernatural, it is simply not known. You can’t be an atheist AND believe in the supernatural because the supernatural exists beyond evidence.
Well, I, for one, believe that there are intelligent beings living on other planets in other solar systems in other parts of the galaxy and in other galaxies. I believe that because it’s nearly mathematically impossible for these beings to NOT exist.
However…I have no evidence that these beings actually DO exist. I believe in something that doesn’t have any actual evidence to support it. What does that make me?
Uh, mathematical probability is evidence. Extrapolation from microscopic life forms in our own solar system outside of earth is evidence. The unfortunate thing is that there isn’t enough evidence to say one way or the other. So an atheist SHOULD say they may exist, but there isn’t sufficient evidence to say one way or the other. It’s simply unknown.
You may still be an atheist, but you are also a bit of an optimist.
Keep in mind atheist doesn’t cover what is unknown, it simply says it’s unknown, or conclusions are difficult to make based on limited evidence.
Well, what I’m saying here is that even if all atheists are materialists, that doesn’t mean that it’s a core tenet of atheism. All atheists are human (though I guess we could debate that if you wish), but being human is not a core tenet of atheism. Get what I mean?
But I do thank you for calling me an optimist. 
Are you suggesting that deities could exist as natural beings? Or are you suggesting that some atheists believe in the supernatural, just the the supernatural doesn’t include deities?
Hypothetically another being could be an atheist if they don’t believe in the deities. They could be more advanced atheists than us if they have a more defined grasp of existence, and thus more evidence to define the truth of their reality. They could be less advanced and base their beliefs off their limited evidence.
What it comes down to is atheists don’t believe in any supernatural deity, or the supernatural really. It could be argued that anything supernatural is a deity because it exceeds our understanding. The problem here is how do you define a deity when it is beyond definition?
What I think you are trying to get across is that an atheist can believe in something that has no evidence. While that is true it isn’t the core of the belief. There is different ideas or beliefs that have nothing to do with deities. But at it’s core it is of the nature of existence, and not beyond it. I assume you believe aliens exist because of the limited evidence you have, and not because of a supernatural force created them right? If you based your belief on something natural, and not supernatural than it is still atheism, just atheism with some beliefs based on inconclusive evidence.
Because of the vastness of existence I too believe it is likely sentient life exists somewhere in the universe. But I cannot make a definitive claim because I don’t know, because I don’t have enough evidence. You believe it because of logic and evidence right? Not ‘just because you know’ right? You believe because of the nature of the universe it is likely life exists. right?
You’re concentrating on deities. There is more to this reality than deities. Atheists don’t believe in deities. There’s nothing saying that can’t believe in other non-deity things. Atheists can certainly believe in the supernatural, like UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis. (My apologies to Annie Potts.)
So, the Loch Ness Monster is a deity? Typically speaking, a deity is a divine entity that rules over aspects of our lives.
I think you’re getting too far down in the muck of what is “supernatural” and what isn’t. Most everything I (and my new best friend Annie! ^_^) listed above could have basis in the natural world. We just can’t explain it yet. It doesn’t mean they’re supernatural. Unfortunately, like so many things, deities and the supernatural exist BEYOND our reality so there’s not really much in the way of defining these undefinable things.
However, deities, as defined by those that believe in them, is something that atheists do not believe in.
(Yay! Word salad!)
Daniel is right. The only requirement to be considered an atheist (again, note the capitalization) is not having a belief in a deity. You can believe in angels and demons fighting a war of eternity or think elves are real and be an atheist, as long as you do not have a belief in a deity.
Most atheists also share a large number of other views, such as no supernatural, but it’s not a requirement for being an atheist.
There is no “core” of “the” belief. Atheism, in itself, is nothing beyond lack of belief in any deities, full stop.
thats good because i believe in and sometimes pray to bigfoot.
No, you are both confusing terms. You can believe in pretty much anything, other than deities. The loch ness monster isn’t super natural, neither are aliens, or anything other than deities. If it exists it was created naturally. Deities are outside of our nature. The only true supernatural entities. Just because we don’t comprehend somethings nature, doesn’t mean it isn’t natural.
The existence of something supernatural would mean it was created by supernatural means. Outside of ANY nature. By that definition, atheists believe there IS no supernatural. You are falling to religious argument methods here. Just because we don’t know somethings nature, doesn’t mean it has none.
No i don’t believe in matthew mcgregory im talknig about the sasquatch
Alright, let me science you in the asshole here.
I grew up going to a catholic school… it was ghey and I loast alot of faith by having a Zealot for a religeon teacher. So I thought about it for years and wondered how I was always connecting science and God. (btw they taught evolution at my school)
I came to a interesting conclusion. I had recently read a few books by the smartest man alive, a Mr. Steven Hawking, and I decided to side with those who beleived that the universe is infinite. Completely endless. Meaning that there was an instance of every thinkable and unthinkable scenario going on at this moment. Maybe an exact copy of this Earth the only difference being Raminator didn’t brush his teeth this morning. Yes Gordan freeman, Gorden Freement, and Grodon Freechman are all running around Black Measa AND Balk Meas beating votrties with crowbars. (i’m babbling)
As I was saying.
By chance, a certain bit of carbon hapened to come together in a perfect form to create an organism on our planet. this organism was able to survive and evetually became more complex and evolved and such. I beleive that since the universe is infinite, there must be a makeup of spacial bodies that comes together perfectly to create an enormous organism or concience, maybe an entity. An entity so large and complex that it is able to manipulate the universe around it. This entity could essentially be “all powerful” and be what we and other religions know as God or allah or Nirvana.
(I also think that all the religions added their own stories to make more sense to the common man)
So, you’re confining the “supernatural” to apply only to deities and nothing else? To me, the “supernatural” is far more than deities (ghosts, zombies, sentient robots, communication with the dead, monsters under the bed/in the closet, etc), but I’ll agree to disagree.
In your definition, yes, atheists don’t believe in the supernatural.
So, when will the sciencing of the asshole begin? :hmph:
…
Pardon me good sir but since when were zombies 100% supernatural. I resent this comment as it is an insult to my hard work in zombie-proofing my home.
Think about it logically. Supernatural cannot come from natural. Where would then any supernatural force stem from? remember it cannot come from any force that can be depicted in natural terms.
Typically speaking, when one is talking about the supernatural, they mean things like ghosts, zombies, ghouls, monsters…basically, Twilight Zone shit.
And, no, I can’t think about it logically. The supernatural isn’t logical.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.
