Athiests, lazy or thoughtfull?

[Desperado †]

Now, are most people Atheist because they have thought strongly about why there is no God. Or is it simply because there familly has stopped being Christian or just don't go to Church e.t.c and they need a word to describe themselves.

I know I'm the latter, I would describe myself as an Atheis/Non practicing Christian.

If you just don't practice a religon does that make you an Atheist?

Should you study other Religons before becoming an Atheist?

I know many people who would describe themselves as Atheis but would probably still get married/buried in a Church. Are they truly Atheists?

[Chaigidel]

most atheists I know think about religion alot more than your average bear-- not all of them mind you; but alot that I have met.

[The Colonel]

before making a major religion choice, a major study of all the options are neccesary. most athiests i have met are ignorant when it comes to religion, just using recycled arguments over and over. however, when it comes to what makes an athiest, commonly, i believe that it is most likely not wanting to go to church, not wanting to be bound by rules etc. so laziness yes for most, but for some that actually put thought into it and study religion, i respect them, at least they can see things from multiple points of view and respect practicers/non-practicers alike. The one's that come out of sheer laziness imo are usually the arrogant ones.

[Desperado †]

before making a major religion choice, a major study of all the options are neccesary. most athiests i have met are ignorant when it comes to religion, just using recycled arguments over and over. however, when it comes to what makes an athiest, commonly, i believe that it is most likely not wanting to go to church, not wanting to be bound by rules etc. so laziness yes for most, but for some that actually put thought into it and study religion, i respect them, at least they can see things from multiple points of view and respect practicers/non-practicers alike. The one's that come out of sheer laziness imo are usually the arrogant ones.

In that case what do you call someone who is still making their discicion? To a religous person they might be an atheist when truly they themselves don't know.

[Dayman]

I stopped being religious because not one has fronted the evidence to back their claims.

If you just don't practice a religon does that make you an Atheist?

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deities. There are atheist Jews and atheist Muslims, they do the rituals but don't actually worship anything.

Should you study other Religons before becoming an Atheist?

I think one should at least examine their premises and see if they have the proof to back them up.

I know many people who would describe themselves as Atheis but would probably still get married/buried in a Church. Are they truly Atheists?

It doesn't matter, atheism is simply the lack of belief (or in rarer cases the belief that there is no deities).

before making a major religion choice, a major study of all the options are neccesary. most athiests i have met are ignorant when it comes to religion, just using recycled arguments over and over.

How many atheists have you met...I could say the same thing of many theists here!

however, when it comes to what makes an athiest, commonly, i believe that it is most likely not wanting to go to church, not wanting to be bound by rules etc. so laziness yes for most

That's not true. Most people who are actually non religious and atheistic are not so out of laziness or because church is boring. Although I can imagine some kids making that up as an excuse!

[chriscase]

Laziness is good. It promotes efficiency and discourages unneccesary and overengineered artifacts... like religion.

[Syron]

Now, are most people Atheist because they have thought strongly about why there is no God. Or is it simply because there familly has stopped being Christian or just don't go to Church e.t.c and they need a word to describe themselves.

You could say the same for christians.......

IIRC something like 75% of the UK population described themselves as Christian on the last census.

Only 7% of the population are regular churchgoers however.

And even more amusing something around 45% describe themesleves as athiest/non-believers in other surveys.


Of course there are many atheists who are that way simply because theism isn't a part of their culture. There are also atheists who have thought about the question.

Tbh i don't really see the point of asking this since the answer will be the same no matter what ideology you are talking about.

If you just don't practice a religon does that make you an Atheist?

No, that is simply being non-religious. There are plenty of people who believe in god but don't follow a specific religion. You can also be religious but atheist, many buddhists for example.

Being atheist is simply an answer to one question, do you believe in a deity?

Should you study other Religons before becoming an Atheist?

Most theists don't study other religions before become theists of their variety. Mostly they just inherit the theism of their parents......

If you don't believe a god exists it is doubtful you will believe in any variety of "god". Believing in a god or not has little to do with religion.

I know many people who would describe themselves as Atheis but would probably still get married/buried in a Church. Are they truly Atheists?

Yes, i went to my cousins wedding in a church, doesn't make me or him theists. To be married in a church is a cultural thing and not entirely related to belief in a deity.

[Poach]

While I can't talk for other Atheists, I chose Atheism from informed choice. I was raised by a father who was an atheist and a mother who was a believer, but not really a practicing Christian, and a gran who was a devout Christian. I attended a Christian private school who taught the basics of all religions in compulsary Religious Education classes.

Thus you cannot accuse me of being Atheist out of laziness. I have studied religion (not in great detail, but enough) to conclude that faith is flawed, it requires you to acknowledge a (frankly) ridiculous fairy-tale without having any proof to back it up and having plenty to the contrary. I mean really, what is the difference between a fairy tale and a religion? Both are not possible by natural means and both require belief without given fact.

Atheism, for me, is the only choice. I cannot reason or convince myself into belief in these fantasy Gods who apparently have all this power but blissfully decline to prove it and demand "faith" in their abilities. It's like a human asking you to believe he can turn into a bird, no he can't show you, but he's got this really old book that says its possible and Biology can be ignored for now, so it's got to be true, right?

While I respect the beliefs of those who whose to devote their lives to this fairy-tale, I cannot reasonably explain why anyone would wish to follow a cause that essentially asks you to blind yourself.

[Chaigidel]

then you have a problem with fairy-tales not with god--- god was never these trivial icons we have layed at its feet.

[Poach]

then you have a problem with fairy-tales not with god--- god was never these trivial icons we have layed at its feet.

I don't follow. God was never what? You lay fairy-tales at his feet as offerings? You have proof that God has feet?

I was comparing the basics of Religion and fairy-tales, pointing out that both ignore natural and physical laws on many occasions and both fail to give any proof as to why they are to be believed. Yes, I know fairy-tales do not presume to be believed by anyone older than a small child, but the facts stand, they still don't and nor does religion.

[Chaigidel]

the basics of religions are educational fairy tales--- natural and physical laws are not ignored when you take the work in its metaphysical concept.

the term at gods feet is an old metaphor, and it relates to the sense of offering something to the Lord; god does not have physical feet-- some minds simply cannot fathom the abstract nature of the subject so automatically attach materialistic definitions to it; it is only natural.

God was never the Icons you mistake It for--- the icons we craft to reflect the nature of god is a reflection of ourselves and an offering to the Master.

God is a Void; just like you think it is; but within that void all history does unfold; you cannot seperate the beliefs from the facts--- but there is a fact of god ; and beliefs about It-- you think you have come to the truth by the non-existence of it; but this is simply the last Icon you must cast aside

In order to see the true nature of your Divine Father.

[Poach]

the term at gods feet is an old metaphor

I know, it was a joke

there is a fact of god

The fact of God? I think you misunderstand the definition of fact or the requirement of belief.

Fact is something that can be proven. You cannot prove God, for if you prove God you no longer need faith. God requires faith of His subjects, not evidence, thus God cannot be proven as fact, else it defeats the purpose.

I do not think God is a void, as voids exist and can be proven to exist. I have concluded God does not exist because there is no way of proving He does. So no, God is not a void "just like I think it is".

Finally, your post gives no reasonable argument for the existence of God or indeed to any point given in the topic. All you claim is that I secretly believe in God without knowing it, which is preposterous at best. Let me make it clear: I DO NOT believe in any kind of omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being of supernatural existence, power and benevolence. I believe all your Holy books and teachings are hyped-up superstition of little more value than a common fairy-tale and that your primitive beliefs have no place in any form of science.

Are we clear I am not a secret believer? Are you ready to argue your case against Atheism rather than using big words and complicated reasoning to try and prove my conclusion that no such being exists is merely the contradictory way I recognise him?

[chriscase]

The fact of God? I think you misunderstand the definition of fact or the requirement of belief.

What Chaig is talking about is the fact that he has an opinion about
God.

[Poach]

The way its worded, "The fact of God", looks to me as if he believes God's existence to be cold, hard fact. If he means the fact that he has an opinion, then I appologise for misunderstanding but I think he should make his statements clearer in future.

[chriscase]

The way its worded, "The fact of God", looks to me as if he believes God's existence to be cold, hard fact. If he means the fact that he has an opinion, then I appologise for misunderstanding but I think he should make his statements clearer in future.

I'd have the same impression, if Chaig and I hadn't just gone through the same discussion.
And if Chaig made his statements clearer, well, he just wouldn't be Chaig.

[Zhuge_Liang]

I think people born into religion are far more often lazy in this respect.

From their view all of the interesting questions in life have been answered by their religion (no matter how preposterously). Religion removes the responsibility to think about life and it's greater meanings. This doesn't, however, stop everybody fom questioning; crisis of faith being an example. On the negative side, if you are blindly unquestioningly religious you probably won't appreciate life as much or with the clarity that somebody who has figured out their own beliefs does.

Of course it is a two sided coin, some people who ask the big questions get lost and confused. There are others who find a religion that speaks to them, which is fine. I just think asking the question is the most important thing, and people who are ferverently religious because they have been born into it without asking why are the most lazy and lost I have come across.

[Chaigidel]

Gods existence is a cold hard fact as reflected in the highest sciences; It is in the numbers; it is in the physics; it is in the entropy; there is proof upon proof but no direct testable because your talking about a paradigm which necessarily constitutes the entirety of existence

for something to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ( ill give you it isnt benevolent; but it still loves you )-- it would require the input of all information at all times in space-time; this would place another requirement upon the being we could know as god; it must necessarily exist in a place where space time is a direction, rather than the substrate for our flowering universe; this would require more knowledge than I have, but there are logical paths to the eventuality that could be classified as god.

I can call it any name, for all are equally true.(which is to say not at all since by speaking I am making pieces, while god and existence are a everpresent, all poweful and all knowing oneness; this is why it is still one god, the idea that duality does not exist for they are all balances of the same force.)

@chris case yes I remember you showed that you had no concept of mathematics or science since you believe they are a seperate discipline and not reliant upon one another.( which is wonderful to me to be actually talking to people who think this)

[Zhuge_Liang]

Gods existence is a cold hard fact

This demonstrates my point exactly.

This is an unquestionning statement of god's existance (in your case based on false information which you state is based on facts). The real problem is not whether you come to the conclusion of his existance or not, but rather that you make a conclusion by asking the question.

Making up your own mind and considering the facts is what is important. Ask the question and think about it first before blurting it out because you have been told it is true. Free thought.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

This demonstrates my point exactly.

This is an unquestionning statement of god's existance (in your case based on false information which you state is based on facts). The real problem is not whether you come to the conclusion of his existance or not, but rather that you make a conclusion by asking the question.

Ah but what Chaig isn't bothering to make clear Zhuge is that when he uses the word "God" he has his own special meaning - "God" for Chaig is the whole universe, and is without any of the other attributes traditionally associated with the word "God". Which makes the use of the word in this way essentially meaningless, but that doesn't seem to deter Chaig. Things like that rarely do.

This is basically the equivalent of saying that unicorns exist because I've decided to call horses "unicorns". Total nonsense, but so long as I ignore the fact that this is completely absurd, I can triumphantly declare "The existence of unicorns is cold hard fact".

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
(Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (And What Alice Found There) , Chapter VI)

I think I'll call Chaig "Humpty Dumpty" from now on.

[Poach]

These numbers, physics and entropy, care to quote the sources? As far as I know, most numbers, physics and entropy provide arguments against God (Big Bang, Evolution, proof that the Earth is far older than calculated by the Old Testament, the Universe being a horrible, chaotic...)

It would greatly interest me to see the parts of numeracy, physics and entropy that point to the existence of God. Until then, you have yet to make a conclusive point, you merely explain in slightly confusing detail your opinions on what God is and the definition of omnipresence and omnipotence, neither of which give any proof or even argument as to Gods existence.

(Now, it is 11pm in the UK, I'm going to bed. I have work tomorrow and I'm not nice when tired! )