Atheists are unable to prove that no god exists, true, but you are also unable to prove that God does exist. So neither has any 'proof' one way or the other. BUT Atheists have their own theories regarding the origins of the universe and can back them up with proof. I don't believe that they are incompatible with religious theories, but they can exist alone. And that is why there is a load of proof for Atheists' beliefs. Stop trying deny anything that doesn't fit in with your narrow minded belief system



I call you Pavel, your mother called you something else, your friends may have a nickname for you, does that mean you are not the same person? No. Just because he called his god something different, does not mean that the God is different. If you have even read the Qur'an (which you really should have done before embarking on this argument against Islam) you will see numerous references to biblical scriptures, some of which are retold. All of these stories are treated as history, as fact. It follows that Muslims believe that the stories happened with the same god as the one they are worshipping. They just happen to call Him Allah, just like Germans call Him Gott and the Jews call Him Yahweh.



You are attacking Islam on the basis that their scripture is rather violent, yet defending Jews? Shit! The Jews take the frickin' biscuit when it comes to violent scriptures. They invaded and occupied an entire country, killing the men and raping the women, just because God said so. The scriptures also say to practice revenge 'an eye for an eye'. Judaism is a very violent religion. Christianity is a pacifist religion, granted, but don't EVER defend Jews while attacking Islam based on the grounds of whether it is violent or not.

Via freedictionary.com
Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)
Adj. 1. atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistical, atheistic

Does God exist? Probably not.
I've not encountered any tangible evidence that would convince me that there is a God/s, so why should I believe in one without any evidence?

Why should I believe in unicorns, dragons, or galactic space crabs?
If you're willing to put your faith in "God", then why not put your faith in celestial beings from the planet Titan 987 in the Sirius system?
I mean really, WTF!

I think the chances of every guy on this forum losing his virginity and marrying a super model are probably far greater than the chances of a God existing.

I skipped to the end of this thread without reading it because I am looking for an excuse to post a link to something I recently wrote. If you want to know the real meaning of atheism, please read my post:

Atheism

Thanks for sharing that.
Based on your definitions, I'd probably consider myself to be an anti-theist.
But I don't hate God because it would be silly to hate something that doesn't exist in this reality, just like I can't hate the tooth fairy or leprechauns.

I do hate how religious groups often convey their smug, self-satisfying theism, where they are the "special believers" who will be rewarded with some heavenly paradise, while everyone else will burn in hell or suffer punishment. It truly is the most childish and absurd nonsense. I don't hate religious people at all, although sometimes they can be annoying when they get preachy, but I have a profound sense of compassion and pity for them. I think it's down right sad that so many children are born and raised in strict theocratic families or societies where they are programmed with crazy ideas, and their progress to become self-actualized human beings will almost certainly be stifled in some way by religious doctrine and religious laws.

At the same time, I do believe in freedom of religion and will gladly defend their right to believe whatever they wish, even if it sounds silly to me. I think some of the organized atheist groups have gone too far in trying to sue or annoy christian groups in the past few years. Of course no one will criticize or touch Judaism or Islam because it's not politically correct to do so.

Do you mean anti-theist or non-theist?

A simple quick look in the dictionary has already revealed your definition of atheism to be false. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos) which literally means "without god".

I also don't really like your way of reasoning vis-á-vis the Holocaust since it comes pretty damn close to justifying what the Nazis did. It was the Jews own fault because they were liberal comes close to saying they deserved to be exterminated because of that. Saying they're liberal also ignores that the vast majority of murdered Jews came from Central and Eastern European communities which were religious much more so than western Jewish communities.

Your argumentation is flawed: Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." Just because a holocaust (an event incomparable to the Shoah in size, industrial efficiency and ideological motivation) happened to Israel because they started worshipping different Gods and Jews of the 20s and 30s also lost faith, doesn't mean that losing faith leads to genocide.

The genocide had nothing to do with loss of faith. It happened because some sick fuckers got it into their heads that Jews were a race instead of a faith, an inferior race. The post-war crisis allowed these ideas to become mainstream and the crisis justified discrimination. If anything, the Nazis are to blame for what happened: they planned it, legalized it and carried it out. Pinning the blame on the Jews is morally reprehensible in my not so humble opinion: the Nazis did it, end of story.

I personally find your way of thinking rather sickening. Just because part of the Jews lost faith, all of them had to suffer for it, infants, children, mentally handicapped and others be damned?

As for Jews being strongly present in the Weimar Republic, that reeks of Jewish conspiracy theories. Jews never amounted to more than 500.000, less than 1% of the entire population up to 1933. As for Weimar being liberal, that's relative: the President was able to rule by decree according to the constitution, hardly something I call liberal. If anything, the republic was in continuity with the authoritarian German Empire.

The fact that you see liberalism as the source of all evil is also silly: what about the Herero and Namaqua Genocide conducted by the German Empire (authoritarian and conservative, not liberal) or the pogroms against the Jews in Russia (an autocratic monarchy based on Russian Orthodox Christianity, also not liberal). How do you explain their evil behaviour when they're not liberal? Same goes for the crusaders (liberalism didn't even exist!) and the British colonizers of India who wanted to push their faith, leading to the Great Indian Mutiny of 1857.

To me it looks like you just want to twist the definitions of liberalism and atheism to something they're not to have a convenient scapegoat for the ills of society.

This isn't true at all. I just explained what happened just as the Old Testament explained why Babylon conquered Jerusalem.

The Old Testament isn't exactly a reliable historical source. For one it only reached its current after the Persian period which didn't end until 332 BC.

The reasons for Jerusalem's fall are not necessarily religious. Regional power politics of the region determined that, namely the rivalry between Judah and Israel with the former being backed up by the Assyrians. Judah, a Jewish state, managed to prosper until Assyria collapsed after which the competing Egyptian and neo-Babylonian empires moved in. Judah couldn't fend them off without support from their Assyrian patrons. The collapse of Assyria led to the fall of Jerusalem!

Yes, some may have converted worshipping Assyrian deities, but that an event happens before something else doesn't mean that that event is the cause (that would be the "post hoc" fallacy).

The concentration of the biblical literature on the experience of the exiles in Babylon disguises the fact that the great majority of the population remained in Judah, and for them life after the fall of Jerusalem probably went on much as it had before.It may even have improved, as they were rewarded with the land and property of the deportees, much to the anger of the exile community in Babylon. In short, life continued as it had before which means religion was likely not a factor (Barstad, 2008, p. 92 and 109).

That isn't the point. The point is that the Old Testament offers a perspective that is so politically incorrect that you will not get it from any modern source. It is up to the reader whether or not he agrees with that perspective. Historic and factual accuracy was not a goal of the authors of the Old Testament. Their goal was to convey a certain morality and they used their history to help explain their point. There is no doubt that Jerusalem was conquered by Babylon. Your explanation is a typical modern explanation. But having studied history, I can't help but notice that moral societies tend get stronger and immoral societies tend get weaker. Even when a moral society is conquered, it tends to recover and assert itself. The recovery of the Roman Republic after being fully conquered by the Gauls is an example.

Firstly, the study of history should be done objectively and not to convey lessons of morality.

And if moral societies tend to get stronger, than why did the highly Christian Roman Empire fall? If conquered civilizations tend to recover and reassert themselves, then why did Rome never reassert itself and instead ended up becoming a toy for other powers and kings?

My view is exactly the opposite. I study history in order to learn about morality. Morality is basically those things that make a society successful. Machiavelli takes the same view in his wonderful "Discourses on Livy".


The Christian Roman Empire was not moral. Christianity has had its moral ups and downs. The 2 low points in Christian history were probably late Rome + Byzantium and modern liberal Christianity. And this is why Rome never recovered.

Atheism does not ASSERT anything, it merely rejects all the claims of god or gods that have been presented thus far. I reject god on the same premise I reject Santa or the tooth fairy.

Atheism and Agnostism are not mutually exclusive, I would consider myself an agnostic atheist, in that allthough I don't claim to know for sure that there is not a god, all claims of god thus have not been met the burden of proof.

There may be a god, there may be a lockness monster, but I'm not going to live my life in terms of what may be, only what is.

fschmidt, what do you think about people being given the maximum amount of freedom, like in a state of anarchy? Do you think that will lead to immoral / corrupt societies?

Yes, in this case they will form gangs and kill each other. This is what is happening in parts of Mexico.